nate is back in session at 2:15 p.m. eastern after the party lunches and then at 2:30 p.m. lawmakers will hold a procedural vote on whether to move forward with the house passed homeland security bill which includes provisions to block president obama's executive order on immigration. the house is taking up a bill that would repeal the health care law and replace with an alternative. you can see live coverage of the house on c-span, and now live to the senate floor here onorder. c-span2. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, every good and perfect gift comes from you alone, for with you there is no variation or shadow of turning. help us to place our hope in you and remember how you have

sustained us in the past. give our senators the wisdom to trust you in the small things, realizing that faithfulness with the least prepares them for fidelity with the much. may they trust you to do what is best for america in good and bad times. keep them from underestimating the power of your might. and lord, we thank you for continuing to heal senator harry reid. we praise you in your sacred name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to h.r. 240. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 5 h.r. 240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year

ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i understand there are two bills at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 338, a bill to permanently reauthorize the land and water conservation fund. s. 339, a bill to appeal the patients protection and affordable care act and the health care reconciliation act of 2010 entirely. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: at noon the senate will vote on passage of h.r. 203 the bipartisan veterans suicide prevention bill. following the recess for the weekly party luncheons we'll

vote on cloture on the motion to proceed on h.r. 240 a bill to fund the department of homeland security. now, mr. president, following last week's bipartisan vote for american jobs, the new republican congress will vote to send the president another bipartisan bill today. it's legislation that already passed the house of representatives unanimously. the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act. this bill would offer critical support to the men and women who already sacrificed so much for all of us. it would extend a helping hand to heroes when they need it and it's just the kind of commonsense bipartisan action the new congress can deliver for the american people. so let me recognize once more the great work of senators isakson and mccain on this bill. i hope our colleagues across the aisle will help us pass this legislation today with strong bipartisan support.

now, mr. president on a different matter, when the new senate convened, i stated my view that democracy isn't about what y exercising raw power is easier, no question about that. changing the riewstles democracy when they don't -- the rules of democracy when they don't suit you can be tempting. we're hoping democrats will agree it's on presidents to consider the long-term consequences of partisan power grabs and to rise above the kind of partisan temptations that tend to emerge. the choices democrats make on the legislation before us will say a lot about whether there are still two serious political parties in our country or whether there is two parties

interested in governing within a constitutional framework. at its core the bill is about whether democrats think either party should have the power to do what they want. while this is about more than just president obama it's also true that president obama has repeatedly repeatedly reached beyond his authority. some of the president's overreach has been so out of bound that the supreme court struck it down unanimously whether on the left, right or center every last justice even those appointed by the president, rebuked him for his overreach on recess appointments last june. and then just a couple of months ago the president rebuked himself by taking action he had previously said many times that he lacked the legal authority to take. when he tried to suggest otherwise, a fact checker blasted the spin and clarified that the president had been asked specifically about just the sorts of actions he was contemplating. last year president obama

declared executive action was -- quote -- "not an option." because it would mean -- quote -- "ignoring the law." there's a path to get this done, the president said, and that is through congress. that was his view then. what changed? what changed? the truth is the latest power grab isn't really about immigration reform. it's about making an already broken system even more broken. it's about imposing even more unfairness on immigrants who already worked so hard and played by the rules. it's hard to understand why the president would want to impose additional unfairness on immigrants like these who just want to live their own american dream. the question is, do democrats agree with the president? well we'll soon find out. we'll also find out if democrats agree with president obama who ignores the law when it suits him; or if they agree with president obama who made this

statement just a few years ago in miami. here's what he said in miami just a couple of years ago. the president: "democracy is hard," he said "but it's right and changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes one by one." that's the president a couple of years ago. so i'm calling on democrats to vote with us now to fund the department of homeland security. i'm calling on democrats to join us and stand up for core democratic principles like the rule of law and separation of powers. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: the record held by the republicans dealing with cabinet officers is not one that they should be proud of. for example during the time of war on terror, the republicans held up the defense department's

nominee for an historically long time. never in the past had someone who is going to be defense secretary held up by just being blocked from moving forward. you would think that would be a lesson learned and that would be enough but no, that's not enough. loretta lynch, for example who has been nominated by the president to be attorney general has been held up for longer than any nominee for attorney general in the last 30 40r years. it's hard to comprehend that, for example senator lindsey graham said that she was a solid choice. senator orrin hatch has indicated we support your nomination. why then do we have to keep waiting and waiting? we're approaching three months this good woman has been held up for a job she's been nominated for. i would hope that the republican leadership would move this out of the senate as quickly as

possible. i'm not going to dwell very long on the matter that's before this body when we vote at 2:30. we have here with us the leading democrat on the appropriations committee and she'll talk about homeland security. we have here on the floor today the assistant democratic leader, who is one of the authors of a bill that we brought to the floor and was debated for a long time and passed overwhelmingly before it was blocked by republicans. we have before us a very interesting proposition. we've had terrorist attacks in canada in awe strail yarks all over the -- all strail i -- australia, france and belgium. we're talking about funding it with more money. the senate led by republicans

are doing everything in their power to make sure homeland security is held hooj to -- held hostage too matters that don't relate to homeland security. if my republicans don't like something president obama has done dealing with executive orders which by the way he's done less than any president in modern times bring it up on the senate floor and let's have a debate on that. let's not do what happened previously and shut down government. that's the direction we're headed and that is really too bad. finally, mr. president the president has lined out -- outlined i'm sorry a good proposal for a budget. it's nothing that's new and -- it is simply building upon the budget that was so successful negotiated by senators murray and congressman ryan. that's what this budget that he proposed is all about. it would seem to me rather than republicans running out as soon as he said a word, saying no,

no no, let's look at areas where we can compromise. don't we need something done with the infrastructure of this country? the answer is obviously yes. why can't we work something out in that regard? so i would hope rather than saying no to everything that the president does, that we should understand that our role, including republican senators, is to legislate. legislation is the art of compromise. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour equally divided with senators permitted to speak therein with the democrats controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president i ask to speak in morning business as agreed upon. mr. president, before the leader leaves -- excuse me -- the

democratic leader leaves, in the warmest and most enthusiastic way, i want to welcome him back. he looks like he's been in a big fight, and i'm sure that he won. and it's just wonderful to have him back in his leadership role here right at his duty station. and we look forward to following him and to work with him and to try to forge these bipartisan leaderships. mr. president, i come to the floor to call for a vote against the motion to proceed to h.r. 240, the house homeland security funding bill. now, this is a shock for senator barbara mikulski to call for a vote against a motion to proceed on an appropriations bill. for the last two years i've been on the floor speaking out pounding the table saying let's bring up bills let's bring them up one at a time. so now why am i on the floor asking for a vote against motion

to proceed on the homeland security funding bill? well, i can tell you it's because the homeland security bill has two parts. one, an essential bill, the funding for the department of homeland security, which i hope we get to, and we get to as expeditiously as possible. but they've got another component to it. poison -pill riders, five riders designinged to attack the president on immigration. these riders, if passed, will guarantee that the president will veto the bill and we're going to be back to parliamentary ping-pong. we posture and pomp and vote, send it to the president he'll veto it, we'll get into more posture and porch and pomp and partisan

points. for what? we need to fund the department of homeland security. yes, we do need to deal with immigration, but the senate passed an immigration bill. rather than attacking the president, let's attack the problems of immigration. let's deal with the dreamers. let's deal with getting people into the sunshine. this institution both the house and the senate under republican control, criticized the president for not acting. where is leadership? where is leadership? and when the president acts, like he did on immigration they want to punish him by adding poissonaddingpoison-pill riders to an essential -- an essential -- national security bill. colleagues on the other side say, why are you seeking to delay the funding bill? i'm not seeking to delay the funding bill. i'm asking that we put in a clean bill and just vote on the money part.

all of my democratic colleagues and i wrote a letter to senator mcconnell asking hum to schedule a -- him to schedule a vote on a clean homeland security bill. senator jeanne shaheen the ranking member on the subcommittee on homeland security and i put in a clean bill the other day. we could do it now. we could pass that funding today and reserve the debate on imdpraition for another -- on imdpraition for another day -- on immigration for another day calling upon the house to do their job. but right now i want all of the wonderful men and women who work at the department of homeland security to be paid for the work that they do. we need them. we need them in cybersecurity. we need them searching out the lone wolf attacks. weren't we proud of the brilliant job to our homeland security leadership provided to protect all of the people who so

enjoyed the super bowl? we've got a lot of work to do. in my own home state we're dependent on the coast guard but so is every other state with a coastal area, protecting us in terms of search and rescue, against drug dealers. and what about our border control? down there every single day in dangerous circumstances. don't they serve our respect and the resources that they need and the pay that they have earned? let's get with the program. the program is to protect america, not to protect a political party and its partisan points on immigration. our job is to protect the homeland of the united states of america. i'm adamant about this. we are now four months into the fiscal year. we could be heading for i hope, not another continuing resolution.

we need to stand up for america. americans are in danger at home and abroad. i know my other colleagues are waiting to speak but we do face terrorist threats. we do face cyber criminals. the secret service is reforming itself. we have fence jumpers at the white house and drones at the white house. let's clean this up, let's vote against the motion to proceed today. let's come back with a clean bill that senator shaheen and i introduced. the money has been agreed upon on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome in the closing hours of the fiscal year 2014 debate working hand in hand with senator dan coats. we fashioned a bill here in the senate and we've got it agreed upon in the house. so we could do our job so that homeland security needs to do their job.

defeat this ill-conceived motion to proceed. let's proceed to a clean bill. let's protect america and then get on with other important debates. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president i'm happy to follow my leader on the appropriations committee senator mikulski. she and i know what it was like on 9/11/2011 in this building. we were looking out the window down the mall and saw black smoke billowing from the pentagon. we didn't know what happened, but we were told immediately evacuate this united states capitol building. i'd never heard those words before. and we raced out of the building building standing on the lawn outside unawear of exactly what was happening -- unawear of exactly what was happening. we knew about the tragedy in new york. we didn't know what was next. we stood there in our bewilderment and said, what can we do? what we do is protect did is protect

ourselves and our nation. i remember our choral director it when we came together, senator mikulski led us in singing "god bless america" on the steps of the capitol that evening. there was a feeling of bipartisan brought about by the tragedy of that moment and the thought that we had to rise above politics and do something to keep america safe. i'm proud of the role that the senator from maryland played in that. we rolled up our sleeves and decided how to make our government work more effectively and we had two outstanding leaders in that effort, senator leashlieberman of connecticut and senator collins of maine. they came together and crafted a bill to literally create a new department in our government, the department of homeland security that brought together, i believe 22 different agencies

under one roof so we could effectively coordinate keeping america safe. we agreed on a bipartisan basis and created that department. that department has really served us well. the current secretary jeh johnson is an outstanding individual. they have so many areas of responsibility. other agencies play an important role -- defense intelligence, department of transportation -- but the department of homeland security is the coordinating department for america's safety against terrorism. that's why it is incredible to me that we have refused to provide the funds that the department of homeland security needs to keep america safe. the republicans insisted in december in the house of representatives they would not pass the appropriation bill for one department, the department of homeland security, because they wanted to enter into a debate with the president over immigration policy. mr. president, there's nothing wrong with a debate over immigration policy, and in fact the republicans now in majority

control of the house and senate could have started that debate weeks ago. they didn't. instead, they attached five riders to the department of homeland security appropriation bill and they said, we will not allow that department to be properly funded unless the president accepts these five immigration riders. i want to speak to one of those riders because it really tells the story about the feelings of many in -- on the republican side when it comes to immigration. 14 years ago i introduced the dream act. the dream act is very basic. if you were brought to america as an infant, a toddler a child by your parents and you were undocumented in america, we believe you still zev a you still deserve a chance. you didn't vote to come to america, but your life has been change because of that decision. you have lived in america many of these young people,

undocumented growing up, going to school, doing everything that every child around them did knowing finally that you didn't have the necessary legal documentation to stay in this country. well i introduced the dream act and said for those things, who should not be held responsible for any wrongdoing by their parents, give them a chance. give them a chance. if they've led a good life, graduated from high school, if they aspire to go to college or go into the military, give them a chance -- the dream act. the president stepped in two and a half years ago and said by executive order, we will not deport the dreamers. if there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if they have completed high school, if they came here as infants and toddlers and children, we'll give them a chance to stay in america, to work in america to go to school in america. we estimate 2 million young people would qualify. 600,000 have gone through the

process, paid the filing fee gone through the process have the protection of what we call did a karks and now don't -- did a karks and now don't -- daca, and now don't have to fear deportation. who are these people? the house of representatives republicans have said they wanted deport the -- they want to deport the dreamers. they will not allow the department of homeland security to renew their protection from deportation and they won't allow any others to apply for daca protection. that means 600,000 young people currently protected by daca will be facing deportation. another 1.5 million will be facing it well. that's the answer of the republican party when it comes to immigration. take these children -- came here as children to america -- who have shown they want to be part of the america's future, deport them get rid of them. from the republican point of

view in the house of representatives, we have no use for these young people. well let me introduce to you one of these young people. this mr. president is ima s ssyed, brought to the united states from pakistan when she was 3 years old. her parents brought her to this country. she grew up in chicago like every other typical american kid. ima says, "i have no memories except those of living in the united states. i'm an american in every way," ima said, "except on paper." ima was an outstanding student. she dprad waited in the top 10% of her high school class where she was secretary of the spanish club the math team, and a member of the national society of high school scholars. her dream in life: to be a doctor. here is how she explains t "it completely breaks my heart to

see thousands of children die of treatable disease due to inadequate basic health care facilities and i want to have the skills and the ability to change it." in january 2012, ima dprad waited from -- graduated from rutgers university magna kiewmed laud with a major in psychology. she was on the deaning's list and had a grade point average of 3.57 out of 4.00. ima took the medical college admission test after graduating magna cum laude from rutgers mr. president the mcats she scored in the 90th percentile. shortly after she graduated from rutgers, she was told that

president obama had an executive order that gave her a chance to stay in america. it was called daca. she applied for it, and she was accepted. for ima it meant that now for the first time she could honestly think about going to medical school. she's never received any government assistance, incidentally. as an undocumented person in america, she doesn't qualify. so when she goes to college it is at considerable challenge and hardship beyond those that have the help of the government. she never did. ima sent me a letter. and she said that -- i quote -- "i went from feeling hopeless and full of uncertainty regarding my future to feeling confident and optimistic that one day i may actually get the opportunity to help my community and people in poverty-stricken areas." then loyola university in

chicago, after the president's executive order on daca, decided that they would create 10 spots in their medical school for daca students around america like ima. she applied. i got to go to loyola the day they started classes and met 10 of them. ima is an amazing young woman an extraordinary academic achievement in her life. she is surrounded by those just like her who are -- quote -- "undocumented," protected by president obama's executive order. well the 10 were accepted to loyola on one condition: that is when they finished and became doctors, they had to agree to serve in underserved areas where the poor people live in america and don't have doctors. they gladly agreed to do it. they're going to medical school for the enrichment of a

profession where they can help so many people. that's where ima is today at loyola medical school. i want to thank loyola for giving her a chance and giving nine others a chance. i want to thank them as well for giving ima the opportunity to serve those in america in cities and rural areas who have no doctors. mr. president, the house republicans want to deport this young woman. that's what they said. we want to deport her. we don't believe she should stay in america. after all that she has accomplished in her life, after all that she promises to bring to our great country the republicans have said, no, we don't need you we don't want you. leave. that is what the rider says on the department of homeland security. i come to this floor virtually every day until another story like the story of ima the story of what she has been through and

the promise that she holds out for the future of this country. i cannot understand the mentality of some on the other side of the aisle who are so hateful when it comes to these young idealistic, amazing young people. some of the things they've said about these dreamers are really sad. i've had a chance to meet them, and i'm going to continue to work for them. so let's do this. let's pass a clean department of homeland security bill. what does that mean? take off the riders. take off the political extraneous things. let's pass the bill to fund the department that keeps america safe and then turn to the majority party the republican majority party and say now accept your responsibility. if you want to debate immigration, bring it to the floor of the senate. bring it to the floor of the house. it's within your power to do it. don't hold the department of homeland security hostage. and, please, when you consider about the future of immigration in america don't forget we are

a nation of immigrants. and that immigrant stock has made this the greatest country on earth, if i can say. let's continue that tradition. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i see the senator from new jersey. i thank him. mr. president, it has been discussed already that later today the senate's going to vote on whether it should proceed to a bill that attempts to link two critical yet independent debates. one of the debates, of course, is the day-to-day operation of one of the nation's key national security agencies. the other would be to address a broken immigration system. now, in doing that, it appears

the leadership wants to hold hostage the operation of the department of homeland security, an office charged with protecting national security. and, frankly that's simply irresponsible. i think we -- sometimes the sense of history around here was what was the last sound bite heard on television, but let's take a look at the real history. well over a year and a half ago a strong bipartisan majority, democrats and republicans coming together in the senate, approved a package of comprehensive immigration reforms. we did this after the senate judiciary committee had held hundreds of hours of hearings and debate in markup. we passed it here

overwhelmingly. the republican leadership, the speaker of the house refused to allow a vote on that measure even though our immigration measure, or most of it would have passed the house of representatives. now, because they wouldn't act at all leaving it all in a void the president acted because they did not. and because the president acted when he had waited for a couple of years to see if the congress would act for the house of representatives to take up the bill we passed, he had to act. and because it's almost -- well, it's almost alice in wonderland. the republican leadership refuses to act on the immigration bill. then they get mad because the president, who has to take

responsibility for this country acts. they now want to put at risk the very operations of the agency charged with enforcing the immigration laws in question to blame it on the president because they failed to act. i mean this is alice in wonderland. i know republicans object to the president's executive action. they like to get involved in everything whether it involves the issue or not. we spent hours hearing their complaints last week as the senate judiciary committee was supposed to be considering the qualifications of loretta lynch to be attorney general. it had nothing to do with her but they wanted to vent for the cameras. it went on until the cameras were turned off and then we proceeded with the hearing. i would say instead of complaining about what they failed to do and complaining about what the president does to protect this country why don't they offer some meaningful solutions to our broken immigration system.

the president's executive action is a positive step toward keeping our communities safe. it requires d.h.s. to deport dangerous criminals and set them as a priority. it encourages those immigrants with long-standing ties to our community who do not pose a danger to register with the government come out of the shadows. now house republicans said their proposal bolsters border security in a wait president's executive action did not. but of course those claims ignore reality. border security has become a game of who can develop the most outlandish unrealistic proposals, around-the-clock drone surveillance, waiving all environmental laws, requiring d.h.s. to prevent every last undocumented person from crossing the southern border. these proposals aren't serious. they never worked in the past. they're not going to work now.

so here in the senate at least we have a choice. we can set aside politics and act like grownups or we can waste days debating legislation sent to us by the house which the president has made clear he will veto. what i suggest is that we respond to the american and act like grownups, consider the legislation introduced last week by senator shaheen and senator mikulski. that bill which was negotiated last year by senate and house members, democrats republicans alike, would ensure that the department of homeland security has the critical resources they need to protect our national interests. it raises d.h.s. funding by $40 million. it funds the largest operation force of border patrol agents and z.p.b. officers in history. it provides resources to respond

quickly when natural disasters devastate our states and communities. it will provide funding for the essential services provided by the coast guard and secret service, it will invest in fema state and local grants programs. it will help all our states, including rural border states like vermont. and it will support our state and local law enforcement fire departments and first responder emergency services. when it does, it replaces rhetoric with reality. i think the american people are tired of rhetoric. they'd like some reality. we all know our immigration system needs comprehensive reform. that's why i held hundreds of hours of hearings and markups in the judiciary committee and why this senate, republicans and democrats, came together and passed a comprehensive immigration bill. and i'm so sorry that the house republican leadership refused to bring it up even though there

were the votes to pass it. so the president took the first step. fine now let's congress act. but this appropriations bill is not the place for that debate. have a real debate on immigration. we can't send a message that we're more willing to play politics than promote and protect national security. that posturing is beneath the senate. we should pass a clean funding bill for the department of homeland security. we should renew our efforts to enact meaningful comprehensive immigration reforms such as those passed by the senate in 2013. i ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: once again i thank the distinguished senator from new jersey for yielding. mr. booker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: mr. president i stand today to discuss what has been discussed by the previous two senators, the urgent need

for a clean bill to fund our department of homeland security. i wasn't part of this body during the 9/11 attacks. i was living in newark, new jersey and watched as many of my city did, with a view clearly to the world trade center and saw that attack. what moved me afterwards was the incredible unity of our country. there was no partisan politics. peel pulled together. first responders from new jersey all over new york and all over the country came together. and what we did after that as a nation is began to prepare to make sure that we could prevent those attacks and have better systems in place should emergencies, crises, disasters or attacks happen again. what happened from that unity evidenced by this body joining together not just to sing patriotic songs on the capitol steps, but worked in unison to

create the department of homeland security. that agency is tasked with the urgent need to prepare our country to meet crises if they come. this is not a partisan issue and should not fall prey to political fights between congressional republicans and the president over immigration. there is way too much at stake here. let me give you a few examples. something we've learned from past attacks is the urgency of coordinating between different layers of law enforcement and first responders. well if we do not pass a clean c.r. resources for that coordination, getting everyone working together, will be put at risk. let me give you another example. it is critical in this day and age that technologically we stay on the cutting edge. one step ahead of those people who seek to do us harm.

we see clearly that if we do not get a clean bill passed, we will not be able to stay on that technological edge, and we see that in many areas. one great example is just in our ports. new jersey has one of the third-busiest ports in america and critical technological equipment for upgrades that can help us to make sure we detect nuclear devices or materials coming in to our country. we won't have those resources. you'll see the headlines from the past few months about cyber attack after cyber attack, a critical agency that must be funded appropriately to protect our businesses and our infrastructure and our first responding capabilities against cyber attack is coordinated and led from the d.h.s. to not fund this agency adequately to prepare for those attacks is unacceptable.

we are americans and this idea of unifying together, that is our strength. we stand united against attacks and if we do it right as we've learned not just throughout our country's history but in every aspect of our society -- my high school coach used to tell me the five p's proper preparation prevents poor performance. this unfortunately would so undermine our ability to secure ourselves almost as an insult, it won't even give proper funding to the secret service as we've seen weaknesses exposed to meet those weaknesses. and as we go into a presidential election to provide adequate security and protection for the next potential president. and this harms our businesses as well. the e-verify system which we need to make sure that people who are being hired by our companies do not have things in

their background that would undermine our security, those systems as well. this is an example where petty politics and recklessness is above people, policy, and reason. we as a nation who have stood in unity after a most horrifying attack, who have seen in a world where ebola and seen in a world where cyber attacks see in a world where vicious weather events like sandy seen in a world where people seek to do us harm should do nothing to weaken our ability to respond to prepare, to make ourselves more resilient for any such occurrences. the urgency is upon us. we cannot be a reactive nation, unified after the fact. we must be a proactive nation

working together above politics to do what is right for the strength and the security of our country. mr. president, i call for a clean imil in the critically, most important part of our government, to provide for the common defense. this is a time that should bring us together, not have us fall prey to every bit of washington that people have grown tired and sick of. let us pass a clean bill, as a bipartisan group of former secretaries of homeland security have called for. this is not a time for recklessness, it is a time for reason. not a time for petty politics. it is time to put people first. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president yesterday the president of the united states released his budget and unfortunately it looks like his budget is largely more of the same, old failed top-down policies of the past. it is a "government knows best" approach that clings to more taxes, for spending, and more spending, and more government. big government doesn't work. six years of big-government policies have left the american people struggling. even the vice president of the united states admits it. speaking at the house democrats' retreat last week, vice president said -- and i quote -- "to state the obvious the past six years have been really, really hard for the country." end quote. that's from vice president biden biden. mr. president, that's the truth. the recession officially ended more than five years ago but the recovery has been weak and

sluggish. economic growth has lagged far behind the pace of other recoveries. by this point in the reagan recovery the economy had created a staggering 11.8 million private-sector jobs than we've created since the recession ended. wage growth has remained stagnant under the obama administration while prices haveriesening. the average -- have risen. the average family's health insurance premium has increased over $3,000 since the president's health care law was passed. during that same time, household income has declined by more than $2,000. and too many americans are unemployed or trapped in part-time jobs because they can't find full-time employment. for the past six years middle-class families have had to work harder and harder just to stay in place. getting ahead is starting to seem like an impossible dream. republicans, mr. president are committed to changing that. providing relief to the middle class is "the" priority of

america's new congress, and we intend to do it by eliminating the top-down, big-government policies of the past few years and replacing them with a new path that's focused on growing the economy from the ground up. if big-government programs tend to assume one thing it's that government knows best. government decides what it thinks that you need and then it makes you pay for it. well republicans don't believe that government knows best. we believe the american people know best. and our goal is to get government off the backs of american families. we want to eliminate burdensome government programs and regulations and allow americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. we want to leave americans free to make the best decisions for their families about health care about housing and about everything in between. and we want to make sure that americans live in an economy that provides the resources and the opportunities that they need

to support their families anded to achieve -- and to achieve their dreams. that's what we mean by fighting for people, not government. and we've already gotten started. senate republicans just passed legislation to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. this project is a win-win for americans. it would support 42,000 jobs during construction. it would invest billions in the economy, and it would bring in millions in revenue to state and local governments. in my home state of south dakota alone, the pipeline would bring in $20 million in tax revenue. that's a lot of funding for local priorities like schools and teachers, law enforcement and roads and bridges. finally, the keystone x.l. pipeline would substantially reduce our reliance on oil from unstable countries like russia, venezuela, and iran. that would be good news for our nation's energy security and good news for american families' energy bills. in addition to legislation to

approve keystone, republicans have a number of other job-creating bills on the agenda. the house of representatives has already taken up legislation to make it easier for employers to hire veterans by exempting new veteran hires from obamacare's burdensome employer mandate. house republicans have also taken up legislation to fix obamacare's 30-hour workweek rule which is currently cutting workers' hours and wages by making it more difficult for employers to create or maintain full-time positions. republicans also be releasing our own budget in the next few weeks, and it will be very different from president obama's. first of all mr. president our budget is going to balance. the president's budget never balances -- ever -- and that's not a sustainable path for our country. families have to balance their budgets. they don't have a choice. the federal government should be

no different. now the president tends to act as if the federal government is different. if the fact -- as if the fact that his new government programs have got intentions means that he can somehow ignore the fact that the country can't afford them. but the federal government is just like any family or business or organization. ifif its budget isn't balanced, bad things happen. right now the federal government is in detect debt to the tune of $18.1 trillion. that number is so large that it is practically unfathomable, and to put it into sper perspective 18.1 trillion people is more than 2,541 times the total pomlation of the earth. 18.1 trillion miles is the distance to the moon and back almost 38 million times. needless to stay say a debt that

good is not good. the president's budget would add another $ed 8.5 trillion to the debt. that's not good news for future generations who will have to pay down the bills. the republicans' budget will balance. it'll take aim at out-of-control federal spending and address our massive federal debt. our budget will also cut waste to make our government more efficient and accountable to the american people. there is no excuse for wasting americans' money on ineffective and duplicative programs. the president's budget will be about the future. the american people sent a clear message in november that they were tired of the status quo in washington. they were tired of gridlock. they were tired of the same old top-down government-knows-best

approach to governing. republicans heard them. since we took control of congress a month ago we focused on living up to the trust the american people placed in us. we've gotten washington working again. in just one month we've held more amendment votes than democrats held in an entire year. committees are back up and running, and republicans and democrats are getting a chance to make their constituents' voices heard. we passed job-creating legislation, and we're going to keep passing more. and we're going to put forward the kind of budget that the american people are looking for a budget that balances, a budget that targets wasteful washington spending and a budget that starts to address the massive federal debt that has accumulated under the obama administration. president obama has a choice. he can continue to put forward the failed policies that his

budget offers, or he can move away from these policies and work with republicans to start cleaning up the debt and getting government off the backs of the american people. we hope, mr. president that he'll choose to work with us. but whatever he chooses republicans will continue this congress as we've begun by getting washington working again for american families. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. i'd like to join in the comments from my distinguished able, and learned colleague from south dakota. we talk what happened when the president yesterday released his bugged forbudget for the next fiscal year. i agree with my colleague from south dakota that the president's spending is absolutely astonishing. the president wants to spend $4 trillion in 2016 -- $4 trillion.

that's $1 billion 4,000 times. nobody has ever seen a budget that big before. "the new york times" ran an article right after the budget came out yesterday with a headline "liberal aspirations set out as a budget." "liberal aspirations set out as a budget. "the article said president obama presented a budget on monday that is more utopian vision than pragmatic blueprint. well the american people don't want a utopian vision, they want responsible leadership. responsible leadership that understands their needs and the challenges that people face every day. so far this year all we've seen from the president is a list of ways that he wants to spend

taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. these ideas are so unrealistic mr. president. there's really been no sign that the president actually wants to get anything done for the rest of his term. if the president wanted to get something done what he would do is write a budget that spends a reasonable amount of money in a responsible way. if he wanted to get something dorntion he would offer a -- done, he would offer responsible tax regulation. the president asked for more taxes on hardworking american families. that's what he did when he said last month that he wanted to raise taxes on college savings plans. well millions of people use those plans to give their children a chance at a better future. when even democrats in congress told the president that it was a terrible idea, the president finally had to relent and drop his plan. then came the state of the union

address, and the president had more ideas for even additional new taxes. the tax policy center analyzed those ideas and they found that millions of middle-class families would pay even higher taxes under the president's plans. when they looked at families squarely in the middle of middle-class they found that only about one in four of them would even get a tax break and instead twice as many families in the middle of the middle class, twice as many families would see their taxes go up. and they'd pay almost $ed $300 more on average under president obama's plan. almost $300 a year. how is that a good deal for hardworking taxpayers all across the country for middle-class families? another study looked at some of the president's other plans for tax increases. it found that those ideas would lead to a smaller economy and

smaller incomes. how is that a good idea for the middle class? now we have the president's budget. next year he wants to increase spending by 7% over what washington will spend this year. did most americans get a raise of 7% last year? of course not. under president obama's economy wages have been stagnant. part-time workers are having their hours cut their paychecks cut. why? well because of the president's health care law. people are paying higher premiums higher deductibles high co-pays for health insurance that meets all of president obama's mandates but doesn't necessarily meet the needs for them and their families. you know, president obama still has not learned that every dollar that washington takes out of the pockets of hardworking taxpayers all across the country is a dollar that they can't use for themselves.

-- to spend to save, to invest. in his budget, the the budget, the president wants to add another $470 billion to the debt. he wants another $8.5 trillion of debt over the next decade. every one of those numbers is right there in his budget and every one of them is bad news for hardworking american taxpayers. americans aren't asking the president to add trillions of dollars to washington's out-of-control spending and debt. they know that they're the ones who are going to have to pay for this new spending. the president may not realize it but the american taxpayer knows it. the white house says it can add all of this new spending because the budget deficit this year, as they say will only be $468 billion. i mean, that's how out of touch

this administration is. the president sees a deficit of $468 billion. that's adding it on top of the debt and declaring victory. he wants to celebrate by piling on more debt to spend on his priorities not on the priorities of hardworking american families. it's not a victory. under president obama's budget, washington debt is going to climb over the next ten years to more than $26 trillion. that's $75,000 for every man woman, and child in america that each and every one of them would owe to pay off that debt that president obama is suggesting in his budget. all of that debt in the president's budget does nothing to preserve and protect social security. nothing to preserve and protect social security so it is there

for that next generation. is that really the legacy that president obama wants to leave for america's young people? at least the president sent his budget to congress by the deadline this year. this is president obama's seventh budget, and five of those times he turned it over after the legal deadline. maybe the president should have taken a little more time to double check his math, because the president's figures just don't add up for the american people. president obama's economic policies have led to far less growth than we would have had following the recession. according to latest numbers released on friday, our economy grew by just 2.4% last year. just 2.4%. it's not really what it should be not for our country. we've tried president obama's ideas for the last six years and they have failed. they have failed the american people. this budget is more of the same

ideas, more middle-class taxes more spending, more debt, and democrats in congress didn't even offer a budget the past few years. republicans are ready to do the work of passing a responsible budget. we're going to pass a budget with commonsense spending that fits america's priorities. not washington and president obama's priorities. we'll pass a budget that helps middle-class families thrive and helps our economy grow. we'll pass a budget that takes control of washington spending and starts to bring down president obama's massive debt. republicans in congress understand that governing responsibly begins with budgeting responsibly. instead of more new spending, middle-class hardworking american families can't afford, we will balance the budget. we will cut waste and we will support programs that deliver real results.

that's what the president should have done. what he should have done is he should have shown real leadership not just more utopian vision. the president missed his chance to lead. now republicans will produce a budget that focuses on jobs, economic growth and opportunity for all americans. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i rise in strong support of moving to the homeland security appropriations bill, and i hope we do that with a vote today. this is very important in terms of governing, in terms of passing an appropriations bill for a vital part of government. it's also important to address and debate and vote head on on president obama's illegal executive amnesty which he

announced last december that would give basically an amnesty to about five million illegal aliens with no basis whatsoever in statutory law. in fact, statutory law is opposed to that sort of executive action. now, mr. president i find it ironic the very same members the very same party and ideology that is constantly beating the drum about for god's sakes we can't shut down the government, we can't have that sort of showdown apparently are freepg vote against even -- are preparing to vote against even moving to this spending bill which is necessary to fund a vital part of government. that makes no sense. we need to move to this spending bill debate it and act on it. not moving to the spending bill is a vote for a government

shutdown in that area of the government and i think that's irresponsible. we need to move to this. spending bills need to originate in the house. this is the house-passed spending bill for homeland security. we need to move to it. furthermore, as is evident from the last couple of weeks we're going to have an open amendment process. there are going to be amendments offered, available to be debated and voted on to do anything and everything with regard to this spending bill. the house put several policy provisions in the spending bill, including those that i agree with like defunding this unconstitutional executive amnesty from december. i agree with that. i support that. i'll certainly vote to support it. but the point is there will be plenty of opportunities to vote on that to potentially remove that because we're going to have an open debate and amendment

process, as we should, here on the senate floor. so let's move to this vital spending bill. let's not threaten to shut down government. let's have the debate here on the floor and let's vote. that's what we are elected to do to represent our constituents, to debate major issues of the day. that certainly includes the president's executive amnesty and to vote. if there's an effort to not allow us to even move to the bill to do that, i can only come to one conclusion. that folks voting that way for the most part support president obama's illegal executive amnesty. they just don't want to have to say so, and they certainly don't want to have to vote that way. well sorry you asked for the job. you got it. and so let's do our job which means putting the country's

business on the floor of the senate and acting. one way or the other acting debating proposing voting, proposing amendments, moving on with this essential spending bill for this part of the government. so mr. president, i will strongly support moving to the bill. that's the responsible thing to do. and then i will strongly support the provisions in the bill that the house enacted including blocking the president's illegal executive amnesty. with regard to that, mr. president, this is an important matter for two reasons. first of all, i believe this executive amnesty is really bad policy that is going to grow the problem, not solve it. you know, a fundamental rule in life is that when you reward something, you get more of it. not less of it; right? it's true of our tax code. that's true of -- in parenting.

well we're rewarding illegal crossings. we're rewarding that flow of illegal immigrants. and so, we're rewarding that through the president's executive amnesty that's only going to produce more of it. so that's my first objection to the policy. it's a very bad idea, and it's going to grow the problem not decrease it. but my second objection is even more fundamental. i believe this action is clearly way beyond the president's executive authority way beyond his true powers under the constitution. the supreme court has said many times there is nothing that congress has more clear straightforward powers regarding than immigration policy, and it certainly includes anything like a major amnesty. and what the president did in december is not filling in the blanks of statutory law not

executing statutory law. it is acting completely contradictory to statutory law. statutory law is clear. it's on the book. it is clear that folks who enter the country illegally break the law, are here illegally are subject to removal and cannot work in the country legally. in contrast to that clear statutory law, president obama first is giving them authorization to stay here for at least three years and that can be renewed. and secondly, he's handing them a document that he's making up out of thin air called work permit giving them authority to work even though that is clearly contrary to statutory law given the means by which they entered the country. so we need to put that issue that topic directly on the senate floor and debate and act object that as -- and act on

that as well. mr. president, as i suggested the only way we do any of that is take a first responsible vote and put the house spending bill on the senate floor. to vote otherwise is to block unnecessary spending bill, to basically threaten shutting down part of the government and to avoid our responsibility in terms of debating and voting on the major issues of the day to deal directly with that. so i urge all of my colleagues, republicans and democrats to put this necessary bill on the floor, and then we will have an open and a full debate. we will have an open amendment process. we will have all of the votes that go to this topic. and then we'll act. that's what we should do. that's what we were elected to do. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from iowa. mr. grassley: elections in our representative form of government are supposed to have consequences and if they don't have consequences there isn't much point in having the elections. one of the issues in the most recent election for congress was a promise of some people running for office to overcome the president's constitutional actions, particularly what he did on immigration but on a lot of other things as well. so the bill we have before us is a demonstration on the part of people who were victorious in that last election to deliver on the promises of that election. so obviously i'm here at this time to speak on the department of homeland security

appropriations that the senate is considering today and as the senator from louisiana just said urging my colleagues to support the efforts to move ahead. in doing so, i want to discuss what we're doing. this bill is about stopping the unilateral actions that the president has taken with respect to the country's immigration laws and doing it without congressional approval or scrutiny. it's our responsibility to check the president and ensure that he does not go beyond the limits of his powers as defined in that basic document, the constitution. this is about restoring the rule of law. this is about restoring the constitution by denying that funds be utilized to carry out the president's improper

unconstitutional actions. our government is based on the rule of law. no one is above the law not even those who are chosen to be leaders among the people. this core principle has kept us free and preserved our rights and liberties for over 200 years. however, the rule of law in our country has been slowly eroded away. while the current administration isn't the only culprit of that corrosion of the rule of law this administration has exe indicted its e-- expedited its erosion more than others. that's the basis for the president saying if congress won't, i have a pen and a phone and i will. so let me explain this erosion. under article 2 of the constitution the president -- quote -- "shall take care that the laws be faithfully

executed." end of quote. this isn't a permissive clause, letting the president pick and choose which laws he will enforce. the article uses the mandatory shell which requires him to enforce all laws. however, the president has not done that. he's taken the attitude that he is above the law and is not required to obey it. just in the last couple years we've seen president obama complete disregard for laws passed by congress. rather than enforcing affordable care act he rewrote the deadlines prescribed by law. he has an enforced controlled substances act in some states, and even worse has allowed them to openly defy federal law. he released five taliban prisoners from guantanamo without first providing 30 days notice to congress as required

under the national defense authorization act. he unlawfully made four appointments to executive positions without authority under the appointments clause of the constitution, and in that regard he was even overruled by two members that he appointed to the supreme court in that 9-0 decision that says when the constitution says only congress can decide when a house is in session, the president can't say on some basis that they aren't in session and go ahead and make recess appointments. in other words what the constitution says what the judges said. and so he took on constitutional action in making those appointments. and lastly, he took the drastic step of changing immigration laws on the books without authority or approval of congress.

when the president acts in contravention to the law he erodes the rule of law sets an example for future presidents who will expand on his precedent and actions on other laws and policies that they don't agree with. by doing this, the president sends the message that the laws, as written by the legislative branch aren't important thereby removing and reducing faith in the rule of law. the founders understood the serious dangers of investing all powers of our government in a single body, and they understood that because the revolution was all about colonists being sick and tired of one man george iii, making decisions. the so, under the doctrine of separation of powers, they wrote into the constitution dividing the power among three branches

of government. so one person could not be george iii. they gave all legislative powers to the congress, all executive powers to the president all judicial powers to the judicial branch. nobody of government may exercise the powers of other bodies of the government. separation of power then is fundamental to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the united states enshrines the spirit of the declaration of independence that we're endowed by our creator, not by government, with certain inalienable rights. just last week during the nomination hearings of loretta lynch as attorney general we had an outstanding professor at george washington law school by the name of jonathan turley testify this: "the separations of power is a very core of our

constitutional system and was designed not as a protection of the powers of the branches but a protection of liberty because we're endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the founders knew that if the president had all powers, that would be tyrannical. president obama has overreached the limits of his constitutional authority. he has boarded the lines of separation of power. the executive branch -- the executive branch action took with respect to our immigration laws is only the most recent, if not the most per pervasive of legislative actions that he's taken under the proposition that

i have a phone and a pen and i can do almost anything that congress isn't doing that i want them to do. in fact, the president has thwarted the immigration laws that congress has written in order to implement the policy that he wants. contrary to the laws on the books, the president's action would give people who have crossed the border illegally the right to remain in the united states and many taxpayers' benefits that are only available to lawfully documented immigrant immigrants as well as the right to work. the president's actions expanded a program he created without congressional approval the deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca, as it's called or create add or created a new program that deferred actions of parents, the did a pa dapa program as

it's called. under the constitution, only congress has the authority to create these types of programs that grant a lawful status to people who come here undocumented. let me repeat. congress has the responsibility of writing laws, not the president. i remind my colleagues that congress considered a law that looked like the daca program but it never passed that law. so what has the president done? in effect, he has enacted a law that congress had rejected. the president justifies his actions by saying that -- quote unquote -- "congress has failed. however, that doesn't give him the license to act on his own. i want to again quote professor turley. "our government requires consent and compromise to function. it goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a

nation less tends to get done. the it is no license to go it alone, as the president has suggested." the genius of our government is that it allows for the collection of ideas and opinions and it allows these different ideas and opinions to work together to find common ground. once common ground is reached then laws are enacted. the president doesn't represent that many different views in the country but obviously congressmen from all over this geographical area represent those views. congressmen are elected by the people directly, and if there is a disagreement in congress on how immigration should be handled, that means there is disagreement in the country on how immigration should be handled. the president cannot imagine that everyone agrees with his plan is the best plan. it is the job of congress to find compromises and solutions that most people can agree with

and particularly right here in the united states senate, where it takes 60 votes to pass legislation. this is where consensus is built when there's only 54 republicans and 46 democrats. if you're going to get anything done there's got to be a consensus. the other justification the president is fond of using for his actions is the executive branch's ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion. but while the president does have the authority to decide when to prosecute or where to allocate resources that authority is not unlimited. the president's actions with respect to immigration go far beyond prosecutorial discretion. lawful prosecutorial discretion is exercised case by case. lawful prosecutorial discretionary isn't excluding entire categories of individuals in a blanket fashion and telling

them that, going forward the law won't be applied to them. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expire. mr. grassley: i will put the rest of the my statement -- i would ask unanimous consent to proceed for four minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: in addition -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: in addition, lawful prosecutorial discretionary doesn't reward illegal behavior by conferring substantive benefits to those who have violated the law. yet under the president's unilateral action, individuals who have entered without inspection or overstayed their visas unlawfully now will get work permits, social security numbers, drivers' licenses, employment and education opportunities, and many other benefits only afforded to those who abide by the law. further, the president argues that because the department doesn't have sufficient resources, he is exercising prosecutorial discretionary by

prioritizing the removal of the most dangerous aliens for better security of our country. yet the reality of his statement is that in fiscal year 2013, 36 36,007 criminal aliens were released. what's more, a report just issued by homeland security reveals that 1,000 of those criminal aliens have gone on to commit further crimes. so the president isn't even doing what he says he is doing. instead of removing criminals from our country as required by law, he's just releasing them back into the community so they can continue to commit further crimes and jeopardize public safety. no matter how the president paints the picture his executive action on immigration is an abuse of constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law and an overreach of his executive branch authority under the separation of powers.

under the constitution, the congress has several tools that it can use to check the president and rein him in when he operates outside the constitution. among the tools is the power of the purse. congress appropriates funds and has the authority to dictate where and how those funds may or may not be used. if the president exceeds the limits of his executive authority to create an illegal program like daca or dapa, congress has the power to defund such a program. so the department of homeland security's bill is a check on the executive branch. it's the result of the last election when elections are supposed to have consequences. this bill here is our way of showing to the american people, we're carrying out a campaign promise to make sure that the president doesn't act in an unconstitutional way. -- and abuse his authority. so i ask my colleagues to take

this underred under serious consideration when deciding whether to vote in favor of proceeding or against proceeding to this bill. the presiding officer: morning business is close. under the previous order the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 203. which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 6 h.r. 203 an act to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to provide for the conduct of annual evaluations of mental health care and suicide prevention programs and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided in the usual form. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snr from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that i be allowed to speak in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president i thank senator grassley for his

remarks. as chairman of the judiciary committee, a longtime vigorous leader in the united states senate i know he was here and saw the problems of the 1986 amnesty and it had bad ramifications in a lot of ways, and i believe we would lrn -- we would listen to senator grassley's experience, his understanding of what's really at stake here, we'd all be in a lot better shape than we are today. mr. president, the american people want a lawful system of immigration. they want one that's fair to applicants who want to come to america. they are not -- they're not for eliminating immigration to america, but they want a system that allows people to apply wait their turn, if they qualify for admitted, if they don't qualify, not be admitted. and they want that enforced. they don't believe that we should have open borders open

visa programs that allow people by the millions to come unlawfully into this country. the president obviously has a different view of that, and we're in a situation in which the constitution is at stake in a lot of ways. we'll vote parntsly vote apparently after lunch on moving forward on the homeland security bill. the homeland security bill passed by the house of representatives fully funds the department of homeland security. the basic funding mechanisms and agreements and allocations of money in that legislation were approved on a bipartisan basis. the house of representatives simply said, mr. president the money that's in the homeland security funding mechanism that money will be spent for lawful purposes. that money will be spent to

secure the homeland in an effective way. that money however will not be spent by anyone to do something outside the lawful limitations and lawful powers of homeland security. but that's what the president wanted to do, and that's what he wants to do through his executive action. he has created -- and they're now establishing across the river in crystal city a new building -- i guess they've leased it. they're hiring 1,000 new federal employees -- and those federal employees will be processing the applications for up to 5 million people. and they will be providing those people with photo i.d.'s. these are people unlawfully in the country unlawful -- not

lawfully allowed to work in america. businesses aren't allowed to hire people who are unlawfully here. it's plain and simple. they're not eligible to qualify for social security or medicare. and so the president has declared that he is going to set up this office, they will process these individuals, they will provide up to five million photo i.d.'s, five million social security numbers and the right to work in america. they will be allowed to participate in social security and medicare. and he says i'm entitled to do that. well he's not entitled to do that. as scholar after scholar and as common sense tells us, the president doesn't have that power. so that is what this is about. the house barred any spending on this unlawful activity, an

activity that the president asked congress to allow him to do and congress rejected. this proposal was presented to congress and congress refused to pass it. and so he's doing it anyway. it is an arrogant overreach a direct challenge to the historic role of congress in our american system. now, our democratic colleagues say they don't want controversial immigration riders on this bill. controversial immigration riders. in other words, they don't want the congress of the united states to do what it's required to do, fund the programs it believes need to be funded, and not fund programs it doesn't believe should be funded. so as a matter of policy, congress has not adopted and does not support what the president wants to do, and, in

fact has prohibited it. it has no duty whatsoever to allow the president to spend moneys of the united states of america to advocate a program they don't approve of, first or certainly one that's unlawful. and that's what this is all about. and our colleagues are blocking apparently, to even going to the bill that would fund homeland security, to the level the president has asked for. so there's no policy change here and there's every lawful activity of homeland security is funded. now, there was a headline in "the new york times" today. this is the headline. and i'm going to push back a little to my colleagues because they've been spinning this idea

that somehow the republican house in sending this legislation over -- this legislation over that funded homeland security is disrupting the fair flow and causing controversies within our funding mechanisms of congress. the headline calls experienced reporter's article in today's "new york times," "democrats look to protect obama's immigration directives." now, that is exactly what this is about colleagues. our democratic colleagues, seven of whom have openly said they don't agree with the policy of the president with regard to executive amnesty and providing work permits and social security to people unlawfully here at least seven of them have explicitly said that. but they're now united apparently, we're told all of them are going to stand together to protect president obama's

immigration directives. you know when they were running for office back during the campaign last fall, people were saying they didn't agree with it. now when the issue hits the floor and we have an opportunity to do the normal and rational thing and not fund an unlawful policy they're all sticking together like the palace guard around the white house to protect obama's immigration directives. this is a sad thing and a disappointing thing to me. the article goes on to say democrats are hoping that they can force -- the new republican majority to drop the immigration provisions and send the $40 billion spending bill to the president. so this is -- congress is spending $40 billion on homeland security. all of that money directed to

legitimate lawful policies of homeland security, not allowing any of it to be spent on unlawful unapproved policies in homeland security. an absolute power that congress has. a duty that it has. congress is violating its fundamental duty if it allows the president to carry out powers he's not authorized. it's absolutely violating its duty if it supports and funds actions by the president to violate the law. it has a duty to say no to the president who overreaches. so the article goes on to say "but democrats have decided to shut down the debate on the measure altogether fearful that it could lead to the bill's approval and could prompt negotiations with the house that would put them at a

disadvantage." fearful that the process could lead to the bill's approval, through negotiations with the house. isn't that what legislation is all about? isn't that what it's all about? shouldn't our colleagues have the right if they don't like the language that constricts the president's power to carry on this unlawful act if they don't like that, offer an amendment to strip it out. they have that ability to strike that language. why don't they do that? no they're blocking even moving to the bill in its entirety. and then they are attempting one of the most through-the-looking glass, down-the-rabbit-hole arguments you've ever heard. they're saying republicans are shutting down homeland security when they're not passing the bill that's on the floor today and we'll be voting on and they're rejecting it and all it

does is fund the department of homeland security. at a level agreed upon on a bipartisan basis, $40 billion. so what kind of world are we in when we do that? so i would like to ask who's being protected here? the answer is clear. what "the new york times" said, they're protecting president obama's political immigration directives. i would ask isn't it our duty to protect the constitution? isn't it our duty to protect the laws of the united states of america? isn't it our duty to protect american workers from the decline in wages and their job prospects as a result of our legalizing five million people to be able to take any job whatsoever in the entire american economy including working for the county commission the power company

the trucking companies? isn't that what our duty is? who should we be protecting here? shouldn't we be protecting a lawful system of immigration? but the president wants to take money, he -- he wants congress to appropriate money to give him at homeland security so he can spend it to undermine the law of the united states of america. what an unthinkable thing that is but that is fundamentally what's happening. he wants and is demanding that this congress not follow its promises to the american people not follow its lawful and constitutional duty, but to give him the money so he can carry out a policy in contradiction to the laws of the united states of america. and to good policy of america. this isn't the way we do business in this country.

so i think the reason our colleagues our democratic colleagues don't want to move to the bill is because they don't want to debate the substance of it. that's not a good reason. they don't want to debate the substance of it because their position is untenable. once highlighted to the american people and the american people understand that congress isn't shutting down the government, not shutting down homeland security our democratic colleagues are the ones that are refusing to pass the legislation that would fund homeland security. and the president is bucking them up and burging them and apparently has had success. he's twisted arms or something because at least seven of the members said they didn't agree with this. and more probably would have had they been asked. but no, not now.

now we're standing together with senator reid, the minority leader of the united states senate they are all standing together to advocate this policy. i don't appreciate it being said time and again by so many of our democratic colleagues and the president that somehow congress is acting improperly, that congress is not funding homeland security. this is through the looking glass. this is beyond acceptance and i think "the new york times," you know pretty well said it correctly. i don't believe the media is buying this argument. i don't think the american people are buying this argument. and congress shouldn't buy the argument. the right thing to do, colleagues is let's get on the bill and let me say this to my democratic colleagues. i know many of you are uneasy about this. let's get on the legislation.

there will be amendments, there will be a number of amendments. perhaps things could develop in a way that you can support and we'll protect the lawful, constitutional powers of congress and fund homeland security and do it in a way that strengthens the rule of law in america, strengthens our ability to have integrity in the immigration system. and creates a system that the american people rightfully have demanded pleaded, prayed for, and congress and the politicians have failed to produce for now over 40 years. that's the problem. the american people are angry and they're not angry at immigrants. all of us have friends and relatives and neighbors who have emigrated to america. we're not against immigrants. but i think there is a growing unease out there about the willful refusal of congress to do what it takes to fix this system and by just say one more

thing, mr. president. american wages are down. wages fell in december five cents an hour, not a good event after we've been told everything is getting so much better. there is a limit colleagues, to how many people we can come -- bring to america to take jobs in america when we have alimented number of jobs falling wages the lowest percentage of americans in the work force in years since the 1970's. things aren't going good. you can't accept everything in the whole world to take jobs here and the -- we just had a report produced yesterday that said we've now discovered there's another five million people having been -- looks to to like unlawfully admitted to

work in the country. through the freedom of information act it was discovered not only do we have a million people a year come to america with green cards and permanent residency we have 700,000 guest workers that come every year, plus alisleees and -- asylees and refugees and other things, but what they found now is that we have in the last five years under this administration given work authorization to five million more people than anybody knew. you think this doesn't impact people's wages? impact women to have a better job, their children to have a better job? somebody needs to be thinking about this. there's just a limit here and so it's obvious that the limits need to be discussed, we need

to be -- create a lawful system that protects american workers. and we need to be less concerned about protecting president obama's unlawful directives and more concerned with protecting the interest of the american working person. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business and as much time as i may consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president today i rise to speak on the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act. a most important piece of legislation and i'd like to thank senator isakson in particular for expediting this legislation through the veterans' affairs committee. i admire his leadership, i admire his commitment to the

veterans of america and it's really been a pleasure to know him and to serve in the senate and advocate for our american veterans. i'd also like to thank senator blumenthal whose partnership i have been with for a long period of time and without his leadership and support, this legislation would not be coming to the floor. mr. president, every day approximately 22 american veterans commit suicide totaling over 8,000 veteran suicides each year. i repeat -- 8,000 veteran suicides each year. it's evident by the staggering numbers that our military and veterans' affairs programs are not effectively treating posttraumatic stress disorder, known as ptsd, and other mental health illnesses that can lead to suicide. there are too many disconnected and ineffective treatment programs and as a result our

service men and women are suffering from the bureaucracy. against this backdrop, i'd like to highlight the story of clay hunt for whom this proposed legislation is named. clay enlisted in the marine corps in may of 2005, deployed to al-anbar province near follow usual yeah in 2007. he received a wound for which he received a purple heart. despite having been wounded clay hunt volunteered and graduated from marine corps sniper school in may 2008. after another deployment to afghanistan, clay was honorably discharged from the marines in april, 2009. after returning home, clay suffered from the effects of ptsd for many years and struggled with inadequate care at his local v.a. hospital. subsequently clay took his own life in march 2011, at the age of 28.

clay is only one example of veterans who are trying to make their way in our country today but who suffer more so than they have to because of the department of defense and the department of veterans' affairs mismanagement of resources for suicide prevention and mental health treatment. this bipartisan bill will lay the foundation for improved mental health care and better suicide prevention resources for our american service members. specifically this bill would require an independent evaluation of existing suicide prevention programs at the d.o.d. and v.a., gauge their effectiveness and make recommendations for consolidation, elimination or improvement. additionally, this legislation would establish a new single web site that provides information for veterans regarding available mental health care services, create a pilot loan repayment program to recruit more psychiatrists to treat veterans at the v.a., improve the

exchange of training best practices and other resources among the v.a. and nonprofit mental health organizations create a community outreach pilot program to assist with and mitigate the stressors of service members transitions to civilian life and provide a one-year extension for certain combat veterans to enroll in the v.a. our nation has a moral obligation to identify a resource and make available to our veterans effective forms of treatment to help eliminate suicide resulting from severe combat-related psychological trauma. this bill is an important step to improve the care we provide to the men and women who have sacrificed for all of us and to whom we are forever indebted. we owe it to these brave men and women to act now. obviously, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

i'd like to briefly discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2016 as it relates to the veterans administration. in this year's budget request the president has stated that he will submit legislation to re-allocate part of the funding for the veterans' access choice and accountability act of 2014, legislation he signed into law just last august to other programs within the v.a. in other words, he wants to take money from the veterans choice and accountability act and put it into other programs within the v.a. a bill we just signed last august we passed last august. it clearly suggests that the president of the united states had disconnected from the needs of our veterans, and they may be more solicitous about supporting a bloated demonstrably

dysfunctional bureaucracy than ensuring that quality care is available to our veterans. our veterans have suffered long enough with wait times and scheduling delay at the v.a. and deserve to have the right to choose where and when they get their health care. taking funding away from this legislation, especially the choice card, shows a complete disregard for our veterans' well-being and the service they provide to our country. if or when this legislative proposal comes to the hill, i would urge my colleagues to vote against it, in fact not even consider it. so mr. president, i want to thank my colleagues. i'm sure we will have an overwhelming vote today and i think it's an important step forward, and i'd like to thank all the veterans' organizations and veterans' advocates who have made this the clay hunt suicide

prevention act for american veterans a reality. but i would also like to urge my colleagues to understand that this serious problem of 8,000 veteran suicides each year isn't going away any time soon. so don't believe that the passage of this legislation will somehow be a cure-all. that can only come through long and persistent efforts care and concern for our veterans who have given so much to their country. so i'm very honored to be a part of this legislation. again, i want to thank the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee and the ranking member, senator sanders and i'd like to thank senator burr who is -- who was ranking member previously, but my friends, we have a long way to go. we have a lot of young men who haven't been able to come all the way home.

it's our job and our obligation to do everything we possibly can not only to honor them but to see that they have a safe and secure future and one that the thought of suicide would never be any consideration. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president i

know we're close to a vote on the clay hunt suicide prevention bill and as chairman of the veterans committee who has just left the veterans administration this morning after a three-hour meeting with employees i want to tell all the members of the senate how much i appreciate their commitment to this bill, how much i would appreciate their vote in favor of this bill. every day in america 22 veterans commit suicide. every year in america 8,000 veterans commit suicide. 8,000 is more than all who lost their lives in iraq and afghanistan over the last 13 years. suicide is a critical problem in the v.a. and the clay hunt bill really focuses and targets on what we need, more psychiatric care more accountability in the v.a. and investment in the future of the soldiers who come home after defending our country for ourselves. so as chairman of the committee i want to thank senator mccain senator blumenthal, senator boozman and senator burr for their tremendous effort. i want to thank the members of the committee who unanimously passed this out including the chair who is presiding today at the first meeting of the

veterans administration committee. i encourage every member of the senate to vote for the clay hunt suicide prevention bill and make an investment in the future for the lives we'll save of veterans who return with mental health problems and i yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. i withdraw that request. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. is there one in effect now? the presiding officer: the senator is not in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: thank you. mr. president, i want to begin by thanking chairman isakson for giving the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act the priority that it needs and deserves, and i know that the presiding officer as a

veteran understands and supports the vital mission of this legislation. i also want to thank the veterans service organization, particularly the iaba for the critical role that they have played in heightening awareness and educating the american public about the scourge that veteran suicide reflects in our society, the unacceptable 22 veterans who commit suicide every day in the greatest, strongest nation in the history of the world. our veterans all too often succumb to the invisible wounds and inner demons that come home with them, and they lack the mental health care that they need and deserve because the v.a. lacks the resources to provide that health care. i know that the v.a. is committed to do better.

senator isakson and i have just returned from three hours at the v.a. where we heard the secretary as well as his top-ranking staff commit to using this act as a means of enhancing and increasing the quality and quantity of mental health care that our veterans deserve. far too many of our veterans have succumbed to suicide including a friend of mine, justin eldridge, whose widow joanna was my guest at the state of the union. she has struggled in the wake of his death with their children to survive this tragedy and her courage and strength mirror those same qualities of bravery and fortitude demonstrated by susan selke who testified before our committee about her son clay hunt for whom this bill

is named. my hope is that we can continue this bipartisan work together. i thank senator mccain, the cosponsor of this bill, and make sure that we keep faith with all of our veterans and make the v.a. the pioneer and champion of mental health care so we end the scourge of veteran suicide in this great nation. thank you mr. president. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum, and i would suggest that a vote be called. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i ask for for a roll call vote on the clay hunt suicide prevention bill.

i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 6 h.r. 203 an act to direct the secretary of veterans' affairs to provide for the conduct of annual evaluations of mental health care and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on h.r. 203. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chambers wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 99, the nays are zero, and the bill is passed. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until

>> the house today is taking up a bill to repeal and replace the nation's health care law. a hill has an article on it. the white house is looking to counter program a vote by house republicans to repeal obama thereby inviting a group of americans who have been issued on the law to meet with president. the house is expected to pass legislation that would completely repeal the president's signature law and asked relevant committees to draft alternative legislation. it will be nearly the 60th time house republicans voted to undermine obamacare.

the bill is not expected to gain traction in the senate and the white house has vowed to veto. the white house meeting also comes with less than two weeks left until the february 15 open enrollment deadline. the administration has said it is hoped to 9.1 million people although 9.5 million have already selected a plan or reenrolled in their current insurance. we will be bringing you a white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest live starting shortly. while we wait a preview of health and senate action today. >> really is a finance reporter for the hill newspaper. a couple high profile votes going on. kevin cirilli, take us through first the affordable care act vote, a pretty heated exchanges in last night's rules committee hearing on that vote. what is the legislation that is going to hit the floor today? >> guest: thanks for having me, good morning. this would repeal obamacare and clearly go again this has been

the white house is threatening to veto this legislation. as we all know a key part of president obama's domestic policy agenda, and it comes in the republican controlled congress. the larger debate here josh is that there are some parts of obamacare that democrats would perhaps be able to get the republicans would be able to pick up some democratic votes on. of course, talking about the 40 hour workweek which would increase the required but from the 30 hour workweek to the 40 hour workweek having to provide health care as well as the medical device attacks. this is a tax on medical device companies throughout the country, some democrats would be willing to support that. on a whole that's what not we're seeing today. this is repeal of obamacare. democrats are not going to get on board with it. the president would veto this legislation that is their first attempt in republican-controlled

congress to repeal obamacare. if this fails which it likely will, the president will veto, i would expect to see the perhaps movie more piecemeal approach in chipping away on obamacare as we head into we keep going into the new congress. >> host: do we know what number of votes this is on the affordable care act is the combined votes from less congress to know this congress? >> guest: that's a great question. i don't have the number off the top of my head, but i can tell you it's been dozens and dozens of times, john as we all know. for how many attempts that they have tried to repeal obamacare. i really think though, what's interesting is that if they were to do a piecemeal approach, again there are aspects that democrats would be willing to support in tweeting obamacare, but a lot of the more hardline republicans have said they don't want to do that, that they just want to repeal the whole thing.

i'm interested to see that play out with republicans. because there are against things like the medical device tax that someone like senator elizabeth warren who is very progressive supports repealing the medical device attacks. i think a more piecemeal approach that's the politics of this between the tea party and the more centric republicans. >> host: in our last minute or so, shift over to the senate side of capitol hill a vote today on funding for the department of homeland security. how does this play into the larger budgeting debate that's going on? >> guest: yes. and the immigration debate, too, right? as you know the funding for president obama's for agencies of president obama's immigration executive orders from last december. it was all wrapped in to the cromnibus. that is set to expire in just a few weeks, so the scent has a

huge vote today on funding for those agencies again. this isn't immigration vote really between the tea party and the centrist republicans but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. but again more immigration politics happening today in congress. >> host: you can watch all these votes on the c-span networks and read about all these votes kevin cirilli work is with the hill newspaper l..com. appreciate your time this morning. >> guest: thank you for having me. have a great day. >> you can see the house on c-span the senate on c-span2 for debate this afternoon on homeland security funding. today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest is coming up at any moment. live coverage of the 40 wickets and we. while we wait more from today's "washington journal" and the discussion about the new republican freedom caucus. >> we are joined by congressman raul labrador, republican from idaho third term member on

capitol hill had also found a number last week of the new freedom caucus. for those who are just learning about the freedom caucus, what is at? >> guest: we have a group of house conservatives who decided that we need to have a smaller, more nimble group that we can work with leadership. we can set an agenda. we can talk about something issues that we've all been concerned about. we do could talk about the american people. we have a concern about republicans and democrats come to washington, d.c. saying that they working for the little people but when they did here with the road is the work for special interests. they work for the people that give more money to the campaigns. what we want to do is represent the people back home, let the american people know that we believe in the things that they're saying. we understand their frustrations that have and were just as frustrated as they are and we want to push that agenda forward in the house of representatives. >> host: how is this different? are you concerned?

>> guest: some of us are concerned. we think it has grown too large but the rnc still has a mission and it seems in the last few years the rnc has become more of a debating society where people go in and they talk about issued by the don't really push leadership forum are conservatives or more freedom legislation. so that's what we want to do but we want to make sure that we are the voice for the countless americans who are frustrated with washington, d.c. every time i go back home, there's no one was really excited about what's happening here. and it doesn't matter what party they belong to whether they're independent, republican, libertarian, democrat. they are frustrated that they don't think people in washington didn't easier listening to the. >> host: is the timing of the freedom caucus have anything to do with the new chairman congressman florez of attacks is? >> guest: not necessarily. several of us were talking about doing this for the last two

years which obviously he was not the chairman of the caucus at the time. some of us believed that the group had just grown too large to be effective. it's very difficult when you have a group that claims to stand for the conservative principles that the republican party is supposed to stand for and it's really just as because the rest of the congress. >> host: the $4 trillion budget had capitol hill yesterday. how did the freedom caucus feel? >> guest: we had a meeting last night and we're going to have a budget task force in the freedom caucus. we have some people who run the budget committee that are experts on the budget committee and they will be getting together, but the initial impression is just more of the same. this president is not serious about what's happening in washington, d.c. he seems to misunderstand the message that the american people left or made in november. the american people want less

spending, less government, less regulation. of what this president, it's more of the same. it's funny when he did the state of the union he took credit for the improvement in the economy. and i admit that there has been an approved in the economy but what he fails to tell the american people is that they economy improved over the last four years, and we took over the house of representatives. what we did is we stopped his spending we stopped his overregulation. we stop some of things he wanted to do. he wants, he is a budget that goes on without ever balancing. he grossed taxes, he grows spending, and it's incredible he doesn't understand those are the things that bring down an economy. >> host: if you want to congressman raul labrador, the phone lines are open. we'll get to the calls in just a second that we begin today show talking with our viewers about

the increases in defense spending. is that one area that you would be okay with increases, increase over the sequestration caps that are already in place? >> guest: i personally would not. sequestration was not something i voted for, i didn't vote for the budget but we need to stop spending in washington, d.c. we need to stop the amount of spending that we do and sequestration has been the only thing that this president has done that is actually decreased spending, has actually tried to bring to balance what we are doing in washington, d.c. so i personally would not be for getting rid of sequestration unless you're replacing it with in reform, replacing it with something else. but what happened here in washington is that you both parties, the republican party has its sacred cows and the democratic party has its sacred cows. they both agreed not to touch each other's sacred cows. don't do anything about each other's sacred cows and that's

why we have the kindest thing that we have. that's why we have the kind of deficits and the kind of spending that we do here in washington, d.c. to. >> host: the president lincoln the increases to nondisclosure spent her do you think both of these are together treasure i think that's what the president will try to do. i think he will try to get republicans to agree with them. you give the republicans the increases in spending in defense and the democrats are going to get the increase in spending, the increases been in defense of the democrats would've the increase in spending in their programs. i think that's why we need to be careful with what the president suggesting. >> host: georgia ally for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are y'all doing this morning? >> guest: doing great. how are you? >> caller: representative labrador, if you had a nation on a raft with a cuban on the raft and both of them made it to

miami, on the ground, why would you send a haitian the back and the cuban got to stay? and my next question, tell me y'all say that house of representatives -- [inaudible] and none of them would talk out. tell me beside the keystone pipeline the do you all took up, tommy what other deal that was a jobs bill, and tell me what the house resolution number you are so -- we can understand what it was please. >> host: a couple big issues. immigration, keystone jobs. >> guest: first on the haitian and cuban, i agree with the caller. i don't think there should be a difference between the two. i think we should have an immigration system that works. i think the cuban crisis that elicited the current policy that we have, i think we need to

rethink that. i don't think we need to have feet on the ground policy for cubans, and that's something that i think should change at some point. it doesn't mean that we need to change the policy for haitians to be the same. i think we need to treat haitians and cubans the same and they should go for proper immigration system. the second question was? >> host: asking what other bills besides the keystone pipeline. >> guest: this is one of the reasons we started the house freedom caucus is we all agree i think every member of the house freedom caucus believes the keystone pipeline is a good idea. but it seems like it has become the energy policy of the republican party to do the keystone pipeline. that's just one component. all of a sudden we've elevated the keystone pipeline to an energy policy. we need to do much more than that. we need to look at all the different energy sources that we have. we need to make sure we're not doing anything just for special interest that we're doing something for the american people and the american people

are dependent that we do different things on energy. so it's a first step it's something that the senate has done but it's not the end-all and be all. and i think sometimes, and it's just because washington, d.c. does such a good job of making small issues larger than they should be but it shouldn't be the only energy policy that we have. >> host: new jersey is next conrad is waiting on our line for independence. you were on with talk of an labrador. >> caller: hello, congressman. can you hear me? yes, the president did they economy did get better under his watch and the reason it did get better is because two years ago not two years ago such such as go to pass the stimulus package to get shovel-ready projects going, a few of them did get going, and inspite of them having six years of a congress that has been nothing but hostile towards and he managed to get that done. in fact, i recall not laughter with you before last your leader

in the house john boehner said he wanted this congress to be known by the bills that didn't house as opposed to the bills that would pass. i think the handicap that is been given to this president and for him to persevere is something that i'm very much proud of. >> host: conrad, you are calling in the life and depended. question for you. do you consider yourself a democrat? >> caller: i consider myself to the live. i am an independent who leans towards the left but the fact of the matter is this president in spite of having a very hostile congress has managed to get quite a few things passed and accomplished. >> guest: conrad first when he got the same as package sixers ago, the economy did not improve. the economy actually take during that time and it was when republicans took over two years ago that economy started improving the conduct that was a teddy that came out last week that shows the reason we have so many jobs last year was because we stopped some of the

president's agenda. if you remember a year ago people like himself were complaining that we're not going to extend unemployment benefits. in fact, people like yourself were complaining that this was going to destroy the economy, it would destroy jobs. and the opposite happened. when we didn't extend unemployment benefits, people actually had to go out and get a job. that was something that was good for the economy which is what we as republic and said so yes by stopping the president's agenda, which is what we did we improved the economy and we saw more people finding jobs more people being employed and more people actually benefiting from the benefits of being an american. so i'm very proud of the work that we've been doing as republicans. and sometimes there's this belief that more government actually gives people more opportunity and that's not too. less government gives people more ability to find employment and to improve their lives. >> host: albuquerque, new mexico, is next.

debbie is on ally for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? good morning. i the question. i am assuming you are a lawyer, that's why you're in the house. which means you're not an economist and i do understand economics just a little bit. the things that i don't understand, you republicans keep talking about tax breaks and the jobs will be there. when you look back at the '60s in the '60s when they can't was going good it was basically because of socialist programs that brought up the lower class into a middle-class. you can can sit in it is is that a of the art everything. if nobody comes in to buy, the business fails. so why do you keep harping on the fact that tax breaks will bring jobs when they don't? you say that tax is so high at 39%, nobody in the top bracket pays 39%. >> host: let congressman

labrador respond. >> guest: i don't think i have said that in the whole time i've been on the show and actually agree with you. you and i just disagreed probably on a small issue i think we need to get rid of all the loopholes. is to be loopholes. that's one of the reasons why we started the freedom caucus. there's way too many loopholes in the tax code that benefit only the rich. you have some companies, some corporations in the united states that are making billions and billions of dollars and they end up in absolutely no taxes. i think that's fundamentally unfair. what we want is a fairer system for all americans. we want all individuals to be paying at all corporations be paying the same amount whether you're a large corporation decades to come to washington, d.c. and talk to your congressman and to special benefits for your congressman or whether you're a small mom and pop shop back in idaho. you should be paying a cent about attacks. you shouldn't have all these extra loopholes. the difference is that i want to use the money that comes from getting rid of those loopholes

to reduce all america's tax rates. i want to make sure that every individual has a lower tax rate. democrats for the most part want to use getting rid of the loophole so they can increase spending but i disagree with it. i think we're spending enough in washington, d.c. i don't think we have a problem with our spending. we have a problem with power saving. i want more people that that money in the pockets added to what special interest groups to be receiving all the tax loopholes that they receive. >> host: the caller brought up your background or term member from the first district of idaho. before that a member of the state house of representatives. before the established law practice in boise. holds a law degree from the university of washington. taking your calls and questions. kevin is up next, pennsylvania. our line for republicans. good morning kevin. >> caller: yes good morning. good morning congressman. pleasure to speak to you. i will tell you when you started

off, talking about politicians supporting positions that donors contribute to, for was music to my ears but it seems that the oligarchs the billionaires, are really determining the direction of our country. you know i'm a republican, a reliable republican. my family is. most of my friends, and to be honest with you when we talk, many people vote for republicans because you are not democrats. neither party appears to really represent the american people. if i could, i have a comment that you have a question. and i think one of the things you reference was the fact that the president's position with respect to the immigration, i don't leave he has the constitutional right to just legalize 4 million people.

but in any event to tell you the truth, many republicans seem to support last year's or the year before his senate immigration bill which would have more than doubled legal immigration, legalize all the illegals here and i think, you know that our labor participation rate is so low the lowest it's been since women started to enter the workforce. we have so many people earlier call talk about people going on disability. i don't know whether you're a winner, but technology is reducing the jobs, the number of jobs that are available. i've seen estimates from a study from oxford university and i think something from yale where they are talking about 50-75% of the current jobs are in jeopardy over the next 20 years. >> host: we will let congressman labrador jump in. >> guest: you are right. there's a lot of frustration. a lot of people vote for the

republican party just because they just elected democratic party. in fact, i think that's why we won the 2010 and 2014 election. i keep telling my friends here on capitol hill that they need to understand that the american people are not really excited about republicans. theythey're just less excited about democrats. we need to make the american people excited about republican ideas again. i agree with you. >> good afternoon everybody. thanks for being here today. just wanted to do a few quick things to go to questions. i had an opportunity to hear from the president about the recently released video from isil. this is something that the intelligence community is continue to work towards to authenticate. as the president alluded to as we have been for some time i thought prayers continue to be with the family and with the jordanian people. the jordanians have been stalwarts members of this broad

international coalition that is executing a strategy to basically destroy isil. will continue to stand with them even in this very difficult and tragic time. one other thing i want to also mention is i want to commend to your statement from the presence top catechism advisor. she made reference to the fact that the opposite of the director of office -- this is report that was directed by the president and presidential policy guidance or presidential policy directive 28 religious signals intelligence activities. this report was issued at the present direction to make public the progress that the intelligence community is making on reforming some of the signal intelligence the duties. this is a process that's been informed by experts both inside and outside of the government come in what the report indicates that the progress is

and will continue to make on these reforms will help chart a path forward that should give the american people greater confidence that the rights are being protected while preserving important tools to keep us safe and addressing significant questions have been raised overseas. there are two other things that are wanted to make clear about this. the first is not that this report has been made public, the president wants people to take a look at it particularly those who've expressed a strong opinion on it. the president intends to meet with him to experts that he met with last year to discuss the findings of the report and to discuss additional steps that can be taken to make further progress on these reforms. the second thing is this is not just the first report from -- as my friends call it. it's not going to be the first annual report that the president intends for there to be some important follow-through. and having an annual evaluation

of the progress of these reforms the president believes is important to holding national security apparatus accountable for striking the appropriate balance between protecting our national security and protecting the civil liberties of the american people and, obviously recognizing the significant questions that have been raised about people overseas. so i would certainly commend to your attention the statement from ms. monaco as will reports that have been put out today. with that, why do we get to your questions? >> if the jordanian but was indeed killed by isis, does that change impact on rescuing the american hostages they're still the? >> it does not and for once of a reason which is the president has ordered his team to devote all of the veiled the resources that we have to try and locate anybody but particularly americans who are being held hostage by isil. and we did make clear that the president is willing to devote significant diplomatic intelligence committee the military resources to try and

secure their release of our citizens that are being held against their will. and that is an effort that, about which we continue to be vigilant, and the president received regular updates on the progress of the effort and we will continue to be. you already know white house officials are in close touch with the families of those are being held against their will by isil and will continue to be. and certainly our thoughts and prayers are with them as well. they are going through what is i think an unimaginable tragedy. ..

>> parents across the country have a responsibility to get their kids vaccinated against the measles. and the reason for that is failing to do so only puts at risk those families that have small children who can't be vaccinated against the measles until they're 12 months old or also puts at risk those children who have compromised immune systems that also can't get the vaccines. that's why the president believes that parents do have a responsibility here, and it's a responsibility not just for their own kids but for kids in the community. >> because of that risk to the vulnerable population, does he believe that it's time to revisit state laws that allow some parents to opt out? >> well, i know that there has

been substantial litigation around this too. i think in the mind of the president, i did have the opportunity to visit with him shortly before the briefing on this very issue. the president believes it shouldn't require a law for people to exercise common sense and do the right thing. and, again, this is the right thing for them to do both by their own children but also other children in the community. they have a responsibility to do this. and, you know, the fact is the only reason that people would even consider the option of not getting the measles vaccine for their children is that we have actually succeeded in making the measles virus very rare, that they feel like they're not at risk of catching measle, so that's why they don't have to get the measles vaccine. the truth of the matter is the only reason the measles virus is relatively rare is because everybody's been getting the vaccine. so there is an element of common sense that needs to be applied here because the science and the expert guidance that we get there our public health professionals is crystal clear.

>> just one other topic does the president plan to sign the bill to improve mental health services at the v.a.? >> this is the clay hunt suicide prevention measure? >> yes. >> this is something that the administration strongly supports and the president will sign. jeff? >> josh, back on isis, the king of jordan king abdullah, is in town today. will the president or anyone else in the white house be meeting with him? >> i believe he's slated to have lunch with the vice president today. i don't know whether or not -- i believe that was scheduled the take place right now. i don't know if the king's schedule has changed or not. but, obviously, the president and the vice president both value the strong personal relationship they have with king abdullah and the strong partnership that the united states has with the nation of jordan. as i mentioned, there are 60 nations that are part of this broader international coalition that's executing a strategy to

degrade and ultimately destroy isil. jordan has made a substantial contribution to that international coalition. in fact, the reason that we're discussing the welfare and the apparent killing of this one jordanian military officer is that there are jordanian military pilots that are risking their lives to car carry out airstrikes in syria, and they are doing that alongside american military pilots. and that is an indication of the substantial contribution that jordan is making to this effort. >> given what's just happened with this hostage was that something that might be added to the president's schedule -- [inaudible] >> i don't have an occasion to discuss the president's schedule at this point, but if something like that does occur, we'll let you know. >> can you describe how and when he was informed about the video? >> i don't know exactly know how, i know he was shortly before all of you saw him. >> on a separate topic, can you give any more details about the administration's thinking about

ukraine and what kinds of weapons we might be considering sending to the opposition? >> that's a good question jeff and there has been, i know some coverage of this in the last few days. i will say a couple things about it. the first is some of that coverage leaves some with the impression that there's not been military assistance that's already been provided by the united states, and it's important to know that the united states has already provided $118 million in security assistance to help ukraine in their ongoing efforts. that security assistance includes a wide variety of things, everything including body armor, helmets, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment advanced radio equipment, portable explosive ordnance disposal robots counter-mortar radars and other items required to sustain ukraine's defense and internal security operations. so there are already substantial military assistances that have been provided to ukraine. the question that some people have raised and even i think

the suggestion that some have raised is that that military assistance should be augmented. and what we have said throughout this situation in ukraine that's been going on for m almost a year now is that we're continually evaluating our strategy and our response with, essentially, two goals. one is to isolate russia's political leadership for the decisions they're making to destabilize the situation in ukraine and also to take steps to support our friends in ukraine that are going through a very difficult time. and that support takes a variety of forms. it includes the military assistance that i've detailed. it also includes economic assistance in the form of loan guarantees some of which have already moved through congress and you'll recall that just a couple of weeks ago the administration called on congress to pass an additional there are 1 billion in loan -- $1 billion in loan guarantees that could been fit the ukraine ukraine -- ukrainians.

we want to do what we can working with the international community to try to offer them some needed assistance. but if there is more that we can do that makes sense in the context of our strategy, we'll consider doing that. ultimately, it is the view of the united states that this situation will be resolved diplomatically, that the idea that somehow we, the united states can make -- can offer enough assistance to the ukrainians to put their military on par with the large russian military is unrealistic. so what we want what we ultimately need to do is we need to have, put enough pressure on russia's political leadership do enough to support our friends in ukraine to ultimately bring about the kinds of diplomatic negotiations that are capable of resolving the instability in that country. >> just one more on a final topic. the epa weighed in with its assessment of the keystone pipeline today saying that it would, indeed, have effects on climate change. doesn't this basically show that

the president's tests on whether or not to approve keystone will not be fulfilled? >> well i did see the letter that was, that the epa put out today. i'm not going to comment, you know on this process, at least the substance of this process until the state department has concluded their broader review about, to determine whether or not this project going forward is in the national interest. so certainly, the president has laid out his own clear criteria about how he believes the project should be evaluated, and as a part of the process of collecting input from relevant agencies across the federal government, the epa put out their own supplemental environmental impact study, and that will be a part of this ongoing process at the state department. but i don't want to prejudge the outcome of that process until the state department has had an opportunity to evaluate the input from all of the federal agencies. okay? michelle. >> the -- [inaudible] remaines on that bill as well. >> yes.

the reason that remains in place is it would circumvent the process for determining whether or not this project is in the national interest. >> we heard the president say today i think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that isis is degraded and, ltly -- and ultimately defeated. redoubling the efforts of the coalition. why would the president say that in relation to this latest video? and is it because you see this as some kind of ramping up in isis' violence or propaganda? >> tragically, michelle, this is the kind of violent act that we've seen all too many times in recent months from isil. these kinds of acts only expose the bankrupt and depraved ideology of the leaders of that terrorist organization. and it is acts like this that only serve to galvanize the international community and redouble our commitment to the strategy of, that we're employing to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. >> so we will see more on the part of the coalition?

is that what he's saying? >> well, certainly, adding more to the coalition is always an option. i think the president was mostly referring to, though the international community's commitment and determination to working together to solve this problem. and when i say "solve of this problem," i mean degrade and ultimately destroy isil. >> okay. and the timing of this is interesting given the visit of the jordanians here today. do you have reason to think isis is watching these moves and acting because of that? >> well, again, i -- it's it's hard for me to possibly imagine why anyone would resort to a act tick like the -- a tactic like this, let alone filming it and releasing it. so i wouldn't pretend to understand what's going through their minds. what i can tell you is if it is part of an effort to weaken the international community's resolve, i feel confident in standing before you today and telling you that the release of this video is going to have the opposite of that intended effect. that the international community

and certainly the united states -- and i'll let the other members of the coalition speak for themselves -- that our determination is only strengthened. >> and the timing as well on the jordanians saying that this pilot was actually killed on january 3rd. were you aware of any of that possibility before? and what duds that say about the hostage negotiations and attempts that have been going on? and those attempts in general? >> well, michelle this video is something that is still being evaluated by the intelligence community and, certainly questions about when this video might have been recorded will be among the questions that will be considered by the intelligent community. and to i won't -- so i wouldn't want to get ahead of their assessment. >> it was 2008 that the president said the science was inconclusive. so the difference now does he believe something has changed in the research that would make that not the case? >> we do know at the time that the president was speaking there

was a study that has since been debunked that indicated that there might be some connection between, between autism or increasing rates of autism and vaccines. but like i said since that time -- i believe that was in 2010 -- that study was retracted because it was completely undermined based on additional scientific data that had been presented. so in the mind of the president this is an issue that science has settled and that it is clearly the responsibility of parents all across the country to get their kids vaccinated for the measles. okay? cheryl. >> yes. [inaudible] monitored a statement this morning on the report she refers to another report coming out in the coming days on big data. is that -- can you give me any timeline on that, what that means? >> i think you can look -- >> and a preview. >> look for that sometime before

the end of the week, but i wouldn't preview it at this time. okay? >> back on vaccines, it's been reported that the so-called 37 program on immunizations has been cut in the president's proposal by 8% from $50 million. if the president believes everybody should get vaccinated why would he cut that program? >> yeah. mike, i'm glad you asked that program, and the reason is we can take away funding for that program because of the affordable care act. because the affordable care act actually guarantees every citizen in this country has access to free preventative care including the measles vaccine. so we no longer need to provide additional government funding to insure that those vaccines can be administered. this is a great example of how the affordable care act is actually cutting costs not just for families and businesses across the country but also for the federal government. >> and yet the cdc in its recommendation asked for not less money but more money. are they unaware of the beneficial effects as you describe them? >> you'd have to ask them why

they believe additional funding is necessary. but the fact of the matter is no longer -- or to the extent that anybody was using money as an excuse no to the get -- to not get their kid vaccinated no longer need to use that. we're going to, we have required that those insurance programs include free preventative coverage including vaccinations like those against measles. so that is one of the other benefits of the affordable care act both in terms of reducing costs, but also in terms of making people healthier. major? >> does the president think this should be federally mandated? vaccines across the country for this set and other sets of childhood diseases? >> well, major we do have a tradition, and there's a long track record in this country of these kinds of health issues being administered by state and local officials. this is something that we went

through at the end of last year related to ebola that the monitoring that was in place was something that was strongly recommended by federal public health officials at the cdc, but ultimately, we were relying on state and local partners to carry out that miles an monitoring. and that is a good indication of how federal public health officials and state and local public health officials work together. that the federal government can be relied upon for good scientific advice, there's a whole wealth of institutional knowledge that's contained at the cdc, that there are significant resources devoted by the federal government to doing the kind of research at the nih and other places where we can make sure that the best scientific advice that is known to man can be made available to state and local health, public health officials and ultimately that's the way that the system has operated for generations. now -- >> [inaudible] >> well, what i also know is true is that there is a lot of case law around and this is

something that people have challenged, i i this on both sides of this issue. and as i mentioned earlier i did have a chance to speak with the president before the briefing, and he was clear we need people to exercise common sense. >> the federal government does not need to establish a mandate for vaccines just recommendations and advice to states? >> i think what the president's saying, we shouldn't have to. that the science is clear and it is, it is irresponsible for people to not get their children vaccinated not only because it puts their children at risk of getting the measles, it also puts at risk the children, other children in their community if it's infants who are too young to get the vaccine or children who have compromised immune systems that they can't get the vaccine. so people need to take responsibility not just for their kids but for the kids in their community. >> let me follow up on one question on ukraine because when you said if the issue is to put the ukrainian military on par

with the russian military that's unrealistic. a general sense of what you said. there are those who would argue that's sort of a straw man that that's not what those who are recommending an increased allocation or initial allocation of lethal military the ukrainians are proposing. their not saying you need to make the ukrainian military as strong as russia's you just need to make it formidable enough to inflict costs in the areas where the civil strife is occurring to get the russians to think differently about their actions. so i'd like you to evaluate the question on that basis. >> okay. well -- >> does the administration come down on that particular piece of advice that serious people who are friends of this administration are giving to you in stronger words than they ever have before? >> look, i think there are people who are making a variety of recommendations to the administration, so there are -- it's not just a straw man to suggest there are some people who say we should just arm the ukrainian military so they can

push back the russian military. and it is the assessment of our national security team that the russian military is large enough and sophisticated enough that the idea that we're going to make the, put the ukrainian military on par with the russian military is unrealistic. >> but is it the only option? >> well, no. i mean there clearly is advice that we're getting from others, they're making that advice public about other strategies that we could implement. and this is consistent with the kind ofly assess -- reassessment and reevaluation that's always ongoing here. and so certainly we're going to you know, take that kind of advice to heart. it's not the first time we've heard it, and it's not the first time that it's been considered. what is also true though, is we also have a sanctions regime that is in place that so far has not succeeded in prompting the putin regime to change their behavior in ukraine, that they continue to destabilize that situation, and they have not taken the necessary steps to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. but what's also true is that

every day that goes by the costs only increase. and the isolation that russia suffers as a result of their behavior only increases. so it's not -- it's not as if our only option moving forward is to augment our military assistance. what is also true on a daily basis is that the costs that are imposed on russia increase every single day that russia fails to commit to living up to the situation is. >> a assessment or reassessment here. talk to us about the risks involved that the administration sees of lethal aid that it could provoke an even greater more hostile military response from the russian separatists being financed and resupplied by moscow? >> well, i mean, i think the first thing we always consider in these situations is providing additional military assistance could and is likely to have the effect of increasing the

bloodshed. that's actually the thing that war trying to avoid. we're trying to avoid. we want to try to bring both sides to the negotiating table so this can be resolved, and that's the only way this is going to get resolved because as i mentioned earlier a military resolution in which the ukrainian military is built up sufficiently to push back militarily russian forces across the border is not realistic. so ultimately, that means we're going to need a diplomatic solution to this, that means negotiations and those negotiations would be predicated on trying to stabilize the situation there and to end the bloodshed. and there is a risk, i think a very real risk that adding additional military resources only expands the likely hood of bloodshed there. -- likelihood of bloodshed there. john? >> back to this question of vaccination, i understand the president's position is clear, everybody should get vaccinated. it's common sense. but there are, there is a significant percentage of families that are not getting

their kids vaccinated in an increasing percentage. so the question which i'd like to follow up, major's very direct question see if i can get a direct answer does the president believe that it should be mandated by law whether state or federal does the president believe it should be mandated by law that parents get their children vaccinated? >> well, i have not in the couple hours we've been discussing this here this morning had the opportunity -- when i say discussing it this morning, i mean discussing it amongst our staff, not in this context. when we've been discussing it, i at least haven't had an opportunity to review all of the built-up case law over this. again, i think there are people on both sides of this issue who have filed lawsuits and suggested that even made arguments to the court that the federal government does have this authority, some have made arguments that the federal government doesn't. i think in the mind of the president this is something that's pretty simple. and the truth is, this also goes

to the original question. this shouldn't be about politics. this is something very basic and fundamental about science and about the need for american citizens to act responsibly to protect their own kids but also to protect the kids in their community. so, again, i think in the mind of the president this isn't something that should come down to whether or not a federal law should be passed. this comes down to a simple question about whether or not parents across the country are going to act responsibly and do the thing that science tells us will better protect their kids and kids across the country. >> but what has brought this up in a political context is you've had a couple of prominent republicans who have said that, yes, everybody should be vaccinated against the measles, but parents should have a choice. so the question is that second part. in the paris part they agree -- first part, they agree entirely with the president. should parents have a choice or be forced because of larger public health interests to have their kids vaccinated? >> i think in the mind of the president, this shouldn't be a difficult choice. the science is clear about what we need to do to protect our

kids and protect kids all across the country. and again this isn't about politics, this is about common sense. and the president beliefs strongly that -- believes strongly that parents should exercise that common sense in a way that insures their children get vaccinated on time so we can make sure kids across the country -- particularly those kids that are still under the age of 12 months that can't get vaccinated for the measles there are some kids that are undergoing cancer treatments that prevent them from being able to get vaccines. the thought that a child who is already suffering from cancer and fighting cancer and, therefore, can't get the measles vaccine would contract measles because of the irresponsibility of another child's parent is unthinkable. and i would hope that we would have enough sense all across the country that we would take politics out of this and that we'd focus on the science to do right by our kids. >> and just one other topic. you may have noticed there was a story in "the new york times" today about a prominent governor

who received some rather lavish gifts from a foreign leader. and i'm just wondering as a principle what the white house's position is on whether or not foreign leaders should be able to, you know give -- or if it is wise for prominent political leaders in this country to accept rather lavish gifts from foreign leaders. >> well, there are, as you point out, i guess as you alluded to john, there is a federal law that prevents federal officials from taking gives from -- gifts from foreign leaders. you know, i think, again, each individual person who is being gifted something by a foreign leader regardless of the position that they hold in the, in state and local government will have to decide for themselves whether or not it's appropriate to accept gifts like that. p okay? fred. >> yeah. thanks josh.

the president said a couple times during his speech that, calling on republicans not to endanger homeland security and in the course of that, you could see how someone would find that objectionable to make border patrol agents work without pay. but does this really endanger national security? because they will still be working. >> fred, i think it's very difficult for anybody to make the case that it's actually good for our national security to not full will i fund the department of homeland -- fully fund the department of homeland security. the case the president was making was similar to an argument that you heard from one of my colleagues at the briefing that we did on the budget just yesterday. that failure to provide the kind of certainty that leaders at the department of homeland security need to invest in new programs and to invest in equipment does have an impact on national security. and so we certainly are mindful of that.

and that's why we're hopeful that again, that republicans will not withhold funding from the department of homeland security just in a fit of pique over the president taking executive action to add some accountability to our immigration system. so i also certainly think it'd be pretty tough for anybody on the republican side to say that not paying our law enforcement officials is in any way good for those law enforcement officials and i'm not sure that you could really make the case that that's good for our national security either. >> not good but actually harm -- [inaudible] >> well, i'd refer you to department of homeland security who could explain to you how the short-term nature of the funding that congress has been providing to the department of homeland security does have an impact on their ability to plan and to invest in other new programs. that if they're only getting funded, you know 30, of -- 60 90 days at a time, that's not the kind of surgeon i they --

certainty they need so that they can plan to deploy, well, that they can implement the budget in a way to maximize their ability to keep the american people safe. again, i have a hard time imagining what kind of case a republican would make to say that withholding funding from our federal law enforcement officers would be good for national security. it's not. >> if i could get some clarity on what you were talking about earlier, apologize if you already made it clear, but as far as chris christie rand paul were saying they're for these measles shots, you haven't meat totally clear whether you support a mandate. so where does the president differ from governor christie and senator paul? >> and i leave it to those two gentlemen to or articulate their own position. st the president's position here that we shouldn't need a federal law. people should -- >> so the president doesn't support a mandate? >> well think i've been as clear as i possibly can be on all this. kevin? >> josh, thankings. how would you describe the president's level of concern for the millions of americans who will be facing a looming tax

bill because of obamacare and what, if anything can the administration do to provide relief or help those people who are probably going to be hit in a way that they don't expect? >> well, kevin, i don't think it's accurate to suggest that millions of people are going to get a tax bill as a result of this. the fact is millions of people all across the country have gotten a tax break that has made their health care more affordable or their health insurance more affordable. that is the benefit of the affordable care act. and the vast majority of americans -- more than three-quarters of americans -- are just going to have a box to check on their tax form to confirm that they have health insurance. so the impact that we're talking about here is very small, and for the vast majority of people it's been very positive. >> but for the millions that will? >> again, i don't know what statistic you're citing when it comes to "millions." i don't think that's accurate at all. i can certainly cite the statistic that indicates millions of people have gotten a tax break to make their health insurance more affordable. >> let me go at it a different way then. as congress considers once again

to chip away or at least make a stand --al bewith it one that will likely end up like the previous stands -- do you at least recognize why they continue to do this why this continues to be such an important element in their leadership as they try to once again pull back the irans on what they think is runaway -- the reins on what they think is runaway government? >> well, kevin, the affordable care act is a reform of the private health care act. i recognize the republicans may think there's a political benefit to saying things that just aren't true about the health care system in this country, but the fact of the matter is republicans who want to vote for the 55th time hoping more successful to repeal the affordable care act should understand what they're taking away. they're taking away tax credits from millions of families, common sense protections that insures that people can get preventive care like the measles vaccine for free they're taking away protections that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people that have pre-existing conditions.not really sure why

republicans think that's a good idea. i certainly don't. >> so you are saying again just to make sure i'm clear, it's not millions that'll be impacted with a tax bill? whatever that number is, there's nothing the administration can do to help those people? >> what i'm saying is that millions of people have gotten a tax break that has made their health insurance more affordable thanks to the affordable care act. chris? >> let me just follow up very quickly on the aca. it's not about politics, it's about common sense. does common sense dictate that especially given the outbreak of measles that children who have not been vaccinated should not go to school? >> well i know that there are a variety of state laws all across the country in which some states do mandate that that it's -- that children are required to get the measles vaccine before they're allowed to attend school. so again, this is a state and local issue. in the mind of the president and certainly in the mind of the scientific experts in the federal government, every child should get the measles vaccine.

>> let me follow up again on the coalition and this latest isis video and your position obviously, that was expressed by the president just a short time ago that this is, in fact, not going to weaken the coalition, it will, in fact, embolden it. what do you base that on? and is there concern that whether through public pressure in those countries or just the horror of it that there will be a weakening of the coalition? >> well i can tell you that certainly here in the united states there's been no weakening in our resolve to degrade and ultimately destroy isil -- >> we're talking about the coalition. >> each of those countries should speak for themselves. but i feel confident in, certainly, indicating that the vast majority of the members of this coalition share the values of the united states and they understand that the depraved ideology that's being advanced by those in isil is one that the international community needs to con front, degrade and destroy -- confront, degrade and destroy. and this vivid illustration of

just how bankrupt their ideology is, i think, only steels the resolve of every member of the coalition, but they shall speak for themselves, and i certainly think if there are doubts about that that you can ask them to find that out. but i feel confident in saying that this is a pretty clear illustration of why it is so important for the international community to take this as serious as we do seriously as we do and to act acoloreddingly. >> i don't want to parse word i just want to make sure i understand the phrase "the vast majority." would that suggest that you are aware that there are some concerns that could -- >> it just, it just suggests in my mind that those countries should speak for themselves. but i feel very strongly that you can ask them. but certainly here in the united states and under the leadership of this president our commitment is only steeled when, you know, we see illustrations like this. okay? olivier. >> i've got a couple for you.

first, does the president think the skepticism about vaccines is in any way related to sent schism about climate science? >> i think in the mind of the president it's -- well, i didn't ask him this question which is i'm not really sure why people would suggest that it's a good idea for their kids not to get the vaccines, particularly a vaccine for a disease like the measles that is highly contagious and one that's very dangerous. the fact is we have made tremendous progress in not eradicating that disease but certainly in limiting the number of people many this country at at least who are affected by it. and that is a testament to the progress that we've made through scientific exploration, and it certainly is an endeavor that has had significant benefits for people all across the cup. but as long as we have -- all across the country. as long as there is a population of people who don't get that vaccine, that disease becomes more dangerous, and it puts even more children at risk.

and that's why it's just common sense. >> and then one related to the announcement about what you called the intelligence bureaucracy or the national security bureaucracy, i was recently -- >> i didn't mean that in the pejorative way that you might. [laughter] >> i was recently at the spy museum where an exhibit on drones is illustrated with a portrait of angela merkel. [laughter] i was wondering, i was wondering what today's announcement means for particularly foreign leaders who might be concerned that the united states is peeking into their e-mails or listening to the their phone calls. >> uh-huh. well, i'd refer you to the report itself for those kinds of details. i wouldn't want to say something that i shouldn't say. justin? >> um, first i just want to maybe do the foolhardy thing and swing back to what rand paul and chris christie said. i understand that you don't want to make this into a political issue, but i am wondering from kind of a public health standpoint if it's counterproductive for top elected officials, people who

are on tv and in prominent positions to be saying things like what we heard from rand paul yesterday? >> well the president certainly does believe this is not about politics, and he believes it's the responsibility of everybody to do right by their kids and to do right by the kids in their community. and that is to get, to get the measles vaccine for their kids. and the science on this is clear, that's what should guide these kinds of decisions not a political position. >> is the reason that you're kind of sidestepping that question concern from white house that your statements on this could kind of polarize this on partisan grounds? >> well, i do think that -- i do think -- can i think there are a variety of reasons why i'm reluctant to go in the direction that you are suggesting that i should go. but -- [laughter] i think the most important one is i would not want anyone who is watching this briefing reading the transcription or more likely reading the coverage of our conversation to come away

with the impression that there is somehow a democratic and republican divide about the wisdom of getting your kids vaccinated for the measles. there's not. the science is clear. and it is common sense. and it is up to people across this country to do their right and responsible thing by their kids and by the kids in their community, and that's to get their kids vaccinated for the measles on timing. >> one quick thing on jordan. i know that you guys are going to you said after the video -- [inaudible] i'm just wondering what's new or different about that? >> well, actually, i think what i said in response to the question was that there's not anything differently that we're going to do because we're already devoting every element of our influence and power as the greatest country in the world to trying to track down americans who are held against their will by isil. the president has dedicated significant diplomatic resources, intelligence resources and even on occasion military resources to rescuing

american hostages who are held against their will, and that's ongoing. iowa knee many that? >> concern anita? >> on a slightly lighter note. >> okay. yeah, it's been a little heavy today. >> i thought you'd appreciate it. >> i do. >> the governor and lieutenant governor of kentucky have, are having an event tonight at the willard hotel -- >> this is real. you're looking at me like i'm making it up. >> no just that i haven't heard about it. >> well, they are sending bourbon up to washington, and you'll just allow me to read a quote from the lieutenant governor: let's just offer wishes that the contents of this barrel thaw the cold -- [inaudible] of path -- partisanship. they're calling it the bourbon barrel of compromise, and they're doing it because they got the idea from the president and senator mcconnell talking about the bourbon summit. so i wondered i guess you hadn't heard about it if anyone from the white house was going and what you thought of it. >> well i -- >> you think that's lighter?

[laughter] >> lighter than vaccinations and videos. >> it is. i think my first reaction is somebody clearly spent a lot of time writing that statement. [laughter] and that's time well spent. they did an excellent job, whoever that was. i don't know of anybody at the white house who is planning to attend, but maybe there's somebody higher on the food chain than me that got invited. if i hear of anybody that attended, i'll see if i can get a readout of the event -- >> and your thoughts on -- a little serious note here -- >> yeah. >> they have asked, i don't know about the white house, but they did ask people on capitol hill, both parties trying to break the ice a little bit. >> no pun intended? >> ice broken? [laughter] >> breaking the ice -- >> i think if there's anything, even if it is light-hearted and social like an event like the one you described, it is an opportunity for democrats and republicans to shed their

partisan warrior gear and spend some time even lightheartedly interacting with one another, i think that can only be a good thing. but as i said on previous occasions, i wouldn't necessarily suggest that one sort of social event is going to cause a bipartisan breakthrough to occur, but it certainly can't hurt. we've got to work on getting the bourbon summit on the books. angela? >> thanks, josh. shortly before the briefing began, you reported there was a compromise reached in the talks with iran. can you comment on that? and presuming that's the case, does that increase the chances from the president's 50/50 projection for a deal being reached? >> i haven't seen those reports, actually. so we'll have to check and see if we can get you a comment on those by folks who have had a chance to take a look at it. >> and back to jeff's questioning on king abdullah. why budget the president on the king's subject -- why wasn't the president on the king's schedule to begin with? i understand he was having life with the vice president, but he often is a visitor here at the

white house. >> he is, and the king was just here at the white house at the end of last year when the president did have the opportunity to meet with him then. so i'm not sure exactly what sort of went into trying to coordinate the schedules of those two busy world leaders, but at this time there's not been a plan for the president to meet with him. i did, i have seen some reporting to indicate that the king is planning to attend the national prayer breakfast tomorrow, and as you know, the president's planning to attend, so there's a possibility they may see each other there. if that's the case we'll let you know about that. >> thursday. >> i keep saying tomorrow. wishful thinking on my part. >> josh? >> paul. >> just to follow up on what major was saying about ukraine you said possibility that there could never be enough aid to match what the russians have. you know back during the 1980s that very same argument was made after the soviets went into afghanistan. that argument was actually dismissed, and they sent in the stinger missiles and the theory was that it would be enough to

at least make the soviets uncomfortable about the presence. it eventually worked. why do you think your strategy now is better? >> well, um, given all that we've been going through in afghanistan over the last decade and a half, i think it's hard to make the case that what anybody did in afghanistan has worked at least when it comes to advancing our national security interests. that's my first reaction. the second one is simply i don't think there's any quibbling with the fact -- and i think even the people who are making the case that major cited -- that even those individuals acknowledge that this will ultimately be resolved diplomatically. and that is the strategy that this president has chosen to pursue. and it's one that's in the best interests of our national security and frankly, it's in the best interests of the ukrainians as well. so there's a variety of ways we can offer support to them both economically and militarily including the provision of some important military equipment -- >> the russians were not pushed

diplomatically last time. they were pushed by military force. again, the question is why is it different and better your strategy now? >> well, again, i'm not sure that there's anybody who would hold up afghanistan particularly given all that we've gone through over the last decade and a half as a model for confronting the russians. but i do think that what -- the strategy that we have in ukraine is one that is predicated on protecting this core principle which is respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries and the united states has worked effectively to mobilize international community to stand up for this principle. i guess this would be the other difference between the situation that we face in afghanistan and the situation that we face now. the situation in afghanistan was, broke down along the battle lines of a cold war in which you had a variety of countries that

were allied with the then-soviet union and a variety of countries allied with the united states. right now you essentially have the broader international community allied with the united states and the ukrainian people as they confront the isolated russia. and i think that materially changes the dynamic of that specific confrontation. and we are -- i think the other thing that is clear is that our strategy of isolating them and putting economic pressure on them has yielded results in that it is very clear to president putin and other members of the political leadership in russia that their activities in ukraine have had negative consequences for their economy significantly negative consequences for their economy. and every day that goes by that russia fails to live up to to their agreements, those costs economically only increase. >> [inaudible] 85%, so where's your evidence that his position has softened?

>> well again i think the evidence that i have is that you have -- there's a lot of evidence that's most of it economic in nature. and i think most of it with numbers that are probably more reliable than a public poll in russia. and, you know, the best the most recent data is this ruling or this decision by the central bank in russia to lower interest rates substantially just a week or so after raising interest rates substantially. this is an indication that the russian economy is in significant turmoil, if not chaos. and, again, that's the result of a lot of things including the lower price of oil, but it's certainly been worsened by sanctions regime that's been put in place by the united states and working closely with our partners. >> and one more real quick, why does the president think an economic embargo against cuba hasn't worked after 50 years of sanctions existence russia a large -- against russia a large

and pretty much self-independent country will succeed? what's the difference? >> there's a big difference between 50 years and nine months. i think that's the first difference. the second difference is we have succeeded in building a broader international coalition against russia in a way that isolates them. but the united states' efforts to isolate cuba were not successful because just about every other country in the western hemisphere had relations with cuba. so the fact is we had a scenario where the united states and our policy towards cuba was only interfering with our ability to build strong relations with other countries in the hemisphere. and by dropping or moving to normalize our relationship with cuba we've removed that distraction and now only increased the pressure on cuba in a way that will isolate at least scrutiny of their policies of not respecting the basic human rights of their people. okay? dave. >> josh, i wanted to ask you about social security. in the president's budget proposal yesterday he proposes moving money from the social security retirement fund into

the disability fund because it's running out of money even faster. this is something house republicans have said they will not do so first of all, how willing -- how far are you willing to take that disagreement this year with them? >> el -- well, a couple things. making that one minor change would insure program's solvency up until 2033, i believe. the second thing is this is a change that democrats and republicans have acted in bipartisan fashion many times to protect the solvency of the social security trust fund. and that is something i think there are 10 or 11 times we can point to just in the last 20 years or so where that change has been made x it's one we would expect democrats and republicans would act together on this time too. >> in previous years the president has proposed measures that would extend the life of the retirement fund like chain cpi. no proposal like that this year. why not? >> well we're certainly open to that conversation with republicans if they want to have

a genuine conversation about strengthening social security. that's something the president's been committed to since he ran for this office. but, you know, frankly, we've not gotten a lot of serious willingness on the part of republicans to engage in that conversation. so, but if there are some republicans that decide they do want to have a conversation about what we can do to strengthen social security then we'd be happy to have that conversation. >> josh? >> john. >> thank you, josh. as you know, there's a conference on countering terrorism which is set for february the 18th, i think countering extremism. >> that's right. >> correct? and i'm curious in the wake of the terrible video that has come out today from isis and the instances of other public at least on video executions that we've seen in the past few weeks of those japanese hostages will the focus of this conference be on violent islamic extremism?

>> john, the focus of this conference will be on insuring -- there is this persistent problem that the president's been concerned about more some time, the problem of foreign fighters and the success isil has had at radicalizing people across the globe. there are communities in this country where law enforcement officials have worked successfully with community leaders, many in the muslim community, to counteract those efforts to radicalize vulnerable young people in most cases. and so this would be an opportunity forum where the president could discuss those efforts with community leaders and law enforcement officials from across the country so they can share those kinds of best practices with leaders in other communities. there also will be an opportunity for representatives from foreign countries to participate because, after all, it is a broader international effort to counter this issue or the threat of foreign fighters. you'll recall for the second time in the history of the united nations, the president convened a meeting of the united

nations security council, and it was specifically because he wanted other world leaders to come and sit at the same table literally to talk about what they could do as an international community to present a united front and prevent individuals who have been radicalized from traveling to syria, getting training getting access to weapons and returning home to carry out acts of violation. and there is important international cooperation and coordination that needs to take place, and there is a good venue for discussing that at the united nations security council last fall, and the president's looking forward to that discussion continuing at the summit convening here at the white house next week. >> just so i'm clear -- >> or two weeks from now i guess. >> as it relates to this upcoming conference, will the focus, the primary focus be on the issue that i just spoke of, the violent islamic extremism? will that be the primary focusing? >> well, john, we certainly have significant concerns, and there are well justified, about the kind of radicalization efforts

that are being targeted at the muslim community and that there are muslim children this particular who are -- in particular who are at grave risk. but they're not the only ones at risk. we've talked about other violent extremists who are not muslims who have carried out acts of viewdges in this country. and we're interested in countering those as well, and i'd be surprised if anybody thought that was a worthy -- not a worthy endeavor. jared? >> josh, going back to the budget and isis, you've been asked by several people today about increasing the effort against isis, but in the president's budget released yesterday we saw an actual decrease in the amount of funds directly headed toward that particular mission. so two parts on this question. when was the book closed on this? i'm guessing like most of items in the budget several months ago, so maybe it reflects an older understanding of the threat in iraq and syria. so will -- when was that closed,

and will the president's aumf -- whenever he duds put it into congress -- reflect different numbers? should we expect to see different numbers going along with the authorizationsome. >> yeah. jared, you'll recall at the end of last year we had a long discussion about the need for congress to pass additional funding for our ongoing efforts against isil. i'd encourage you to check with omb based on the calculations that you've cited. i'm not sure that it's entirely accurate to suggest that we've reduced funding somehow for isil, but there may be an element to this accounting that i'm not aware of. but, you know, because it may be an issue where there are investments that were made this year on the front end that don't necessarily need to be continued because that early investment was made. but i'd encourage you to check with omb on this. i can tell you our strategy and our resolve is certainly not diminishing or is diminished in any way. >> do you have any expectation of a timeline for when that authorization will be sent to congress? >> i don't have any timeline to share with you at in this point

but it continues to be the subject of active, ongoing conversations here inside the administration and with members of congress in both parties who are interested in this issue. >> and one more on the vaccines. i know a lot of people have taken a crack at this, but you had a conversation, you said with the president just before the briefing. if the president could give -- and, obviously we're speaking to you today but since we're not asking the president questions right now on this today, what would be the president's direct message to the parents who are considering not vaccinating their children or who have not vaccinated their children as john mentioned earlier? that's an increasing number every year. >> use common sense follow the science and vaccinate your kids. scott? is. >> "the washington post" editorial page -- [inaudible] the gas tax evidently unpersuaded by what -- [inaudible] >> i thought he gave a great answer. [laughter] >> i know that's not your preferred -- [inaudible conversations] >> getting to funding the infrastructure. could you talk about why you

don't think it's a good time for a gas tax hike begin the drop in gas prices? >> yeah. a couple of things. one is, first of all we believe we just have a better strategy, that closing corporate tax loopholes and using that money to invest in the kind of infrastructure that we all benefit from i think, makes a lot of sense. it has a lot of appeal, i think to certainly the president and other people in the administration. i think the second thing is we just need to be aware of the challenges associated with trying to fund infrastructure through the gas tax as thanks in no maul part to the publishtives -- small part to some of the initiatives that the president's put forward we're finding that the fleet on the road right now is more fuel efficient. which means the gas tax is a less reliable source of that kind of funding. so, you know, we put forward a pretty aggressive strategy that would fund a strong six-year investment in our

infrastructure, that would go 30 or 40% over and above current plans for infrastructure investment. and this would have a significant benefit in terms of creating jobs. it would arguably have an even more important benefit of putting in place the kind of modern infrastructure that our economy will need to succeed for decades to come. so the president beliefs this is a worthy -- believes this is a worthy investment. the good news is there is bipartisan agreement that investment in our infrastructure is a worthy investment. that all said what mr. psi jobs said yet is that the administration has not put toward and does not plan to put forward a proposal to increase the gas tax. but there certainly is bipartisan support for doing that, and we're going to keep our eyes open and consider ideas that are put forward by democrats and republicans on capitol hill. even if it's not the elegant wise solution that the administration's put forward. >> your former transportation

secretary floated an idea of dealing with the efficiency by maybe taxing driving -- [inaudible] instead of by the gallon. and that got shot down in about a nanosecond. >> by him i think. >> no i think by your predecessor. >> well and then the secretary. >> check back with him i think, is what robert gibbs said. [laughter] does the administration have a soft spot when it comes to taxing driving? is that just politically toxic for you guys? >> i don't know this has much to do with politics. there are different ideas of how exactly to pay for it, and this administration's put forward an idea by essentially closing a loophole that allows corporations to benefit from stashing some of their profits overseas. again -- >> corporations don't necessarily use the roads or bridges. >> well, yeah but in some ways this is also an issue of fairness. middle class families don't have the benefit of being able to stash their profits overseas.

they've got to keep them in a bank account here in the united states, and they're subject to taxation, and we believe just out of a matter of fairness, corporations should have to do the same thing. i also would make clear that this is the in the context of a broader business tax reform proposal that would also serve to remove the incentive for corporations to stash profits overseas in the first place. and there's a likelihood that would have good benefits for the economy too. it certainly would make our tax code more fair, and that is something the president's very interested in. thanks very much, even. thanks very much, everybody. [inaudible conversations] >> and white house press secretary josh earnest finishing up his briefing. you can see it again on our web site if you missed any of it, go to c-span.org. well the u.s. senate will return at 2:15, about 20 minutes from now, from their weekly

party lunches. this morning they passed a bill that would help prevent suicides among active duty military and veterans. much of the morning debate was about a bill funding the homeland security department which includes a provision blocking the president's executive order on immigration. the senate will vote on whether to move ahead with the bill at 2:30 eastern. you did hear josh earnest take questions on the issue, and here is some of the senate floor debate from earlier today among republican senators. we'll show you as much as we can until the senate reconvenes. >> mr. president, i i rise in strong support of moving to the homeland security appropriations bill. and i hope we do that with a vote today. this is very important in terms of governing, in terms of passing an appropriations bill for a vital part of government. it's also important to address and debate and vote head on on president obama's illegal executive amnesty which he

announced last december that would give basically an amnesty to about five million illegal aliens with no basis whatsoever in statutory law. in fact statutory law is opposed to that sort of executive action. now, mr. president, i find it ironic the very same members, the very same ideology that is constantly beating the drums about forgod sakes we -- for god's salks we can't have that sort of showdown apparently even moving to this spending bill which is necessary to fund a vital part of government. that makes no sense. we need to move to this spending bill debate it and act on it. not moving to the spending bill is a vote for a government shutdown in that area of the

government. and i think that's irresponsible. we need to move to this spending bill, it needs to origin nate in the house. this is the house-passed spending bill for homeland security. we need to move to it. furthermore, as is evident from the last couple of weeks, we're going to have an open amendmentng to be amendments offered, available to be debated and voted on to do anything and everything with regard to this spending bill. the house put several policy provisions in the spending bill, including those that i agree with like defunding this unconstitutional executive amnesty from december. i agree with that. i support that. i'll certainly vote to support it. but the point is there will be plenty of opportunities to vote on that to potentially remove that because we're going to have an open debate and amendment

process, as we should, here on the senate floor. so let's move to this vital spending bill. let's not threaten to shut down government. let's have the debate here on the floor and let's vote. that's what we are elected to do to represent our constituents, to debate major issues of the day. that certainly includes the president's executive amnesty and to vote. if there's an effort to not allow us to even move to the bill to do that, i can only come to one conclusion. that folks voting that way for the mt folks voting that way for the -- voting that way for the most part support president obama's illegal executive amnesty, they just don't want to say so, and they certainly don't want to have to vote that way. well sorry. you rap for the job you asked for the job, you got it. and so let's do our job which means putting the country's

business on the floor of the senate and acting one way or the other, acting, debating voting, proposing amendments moving on with this essential spending bill for this part of the government. so, mr. president i will strongly support moving to the bill. that's the responsible thing to do. and then i will strongly support the provisions in the bill that the house enacted including blocking the president's illegal executive amnesty. with regard to that, mr. president, this is an important matter for two reasons. first of all, i believe this executive amnesty is really bad policy that is going to grow the problem, not solve it. you know, a fundamental rule in life is that when you reward something, you get more of it not less of it right? it's true of our tax code that's true of -- in parenting. well we're rewarding illegal

crossings. we're rewarding that flow of illegal immigrants. and so we're rewarding that through the president's executive amnesty. it's only going to produce more of it. so that's my first objection to the policy, it's a very bad idea, and it's going to grow the problem not decrease it. but my second objection is even more fuld -- fundamental. i believe this action is clearly way beyond the president's executive authority way beyond his true powers under the constitution. the supreme court has said many times there is nothing that congress has more clear straightforward powers regarding than immigration policy. and it certainly includes anything like a major amnesty. and what the president did in december is not filling in the blanks of statutory law it's

not excuting statutory law it's acting completely contrary to all sorts of statutory law. statutory law is clear. it's on books it's been passed through a valid process. it's clear that folks who somewhere the country illegally -- enter the country illegally break the law are here illegally, are subject to removal and cannot work in the country legally. in contrast the that clear statutory law, president obama first is giving them authorization to stay here for at least three years, and that can be renewed. and, secondly, he's handing them a document that he's making up out of thin air called work permit. giving them authority to work even though that is clearly contrary to statutory law given the means by which they entered the country. so we need to put that issue, that topic directly on the senate floor and debate and act on that as well.

but, mr. president as i suggested, the only way we do any of that is take a first responsible vote and put the house spending bill on the senate floor. to vote otherwise is to block a necessary spending bill, obeysically threaten shutting -- to basically threaten shutting down the government and to avoid our responsibility in terms of debating and voting on the major issues of the day, to deal directly with that. so i urge all of my colleagues -- republicans and democrats -- to put this necessary bill on floor, and then we will have an open and a full debate. we will have an open amendment process. we will have all of the votes that go to this topic. and then we'll act. that's what we should do. that's what we were elected to do. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. >> mr. president?

>> senator from iowa. >> elections in our representative form of government are supposed to be consequences -- to have intentions, and if they don't have consequences there isn't much point in having elections. one of the issues in the most recent election for congress was a promise of some people running for office to overcome the president's constitutional actions, particularly what he did on immigration, but on a lot of other things as well. so the bill we have before us is a demonstration on the part of people who were victorious in that last election to deliver on the promises of that election. so obviously i'm here at this time to spook on the -- to speak on the department of homeland security appropriations that the

senate is considering today. and as the senator from louisiana just said, urging my colleagues to support the efforts to move ahead. in doing so, i want to discuss what we're doing. this bill is about stop ising the unilateral actions -- stopping the unilateral actions that the president has taken with respect to the country's immigration laws and doing it without congressional approval or scrutiny. it's our responsibility to check the president and insure that he does not go beyond the limits of his powers as defined in that basic document, the constitution. this this is about restoring the rule of law. this is about restoring the constitution by denying that funds be utilized to carry out the president's improper

unconstitutional actions. our government is based on the rule of law. no one is above the law, not even those who are chosen to be leaders among the people. this core principle has kept us free and preserved our rights and liberties for over 200 years. however, the rule of law in our country has been slowly eroded away. while the current administration isn't the only culprit of that corrosion of the rule of law, this administration has expedited its erosion more than others. that's the basis for the president saying if congress won't, i have a pen and a phone, and i will. so let me explain this erosion. under article ii of the constitution, the president quote: shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed end

of quote. isn't a permissive clause letting the president pick and choose which laws he will enforce, the article uses the mandatory shell which requires him to enforce all laws. however, the president has not done that. he's taken the attitude that he is above law and is not required to obey it. just in the last couple of years we've seen president obama complete disregard for laws passed by congress. rather than enforcing the affordable care act he rewrote the deadlines prescribed by law. he hasn't enforced the controlled substance act in some states and even worse, has allowed them to openly defy federal law. he released five taliban prisoners from guantanamo without first providing 30 days' notice to congress as required

under the national defense authorization act. he unlawfully made four appointments to executive positions without authority under the appointments clause of the constitution. and in that regard he was even overruled by two members that he appointed to the supreme court in that 9-0 decision that says when the constitution says only congress can decide when a house is in session the president can't say on some basis that they aren't in session, go ahead and make recess appointments. in other words, what the constitution says is what it says, is what the judges said. so he took unconstitutional action in making those appointments. and lastly, he took the drastic step of changing immigration laws on the books without

authority or approval of congress. when the president acts in contra selection to the law, he sets an example for future presidents who expand on his precedent and actions on other laws and policies that they don't agree with. by doing this, the president sends the message that laws as written by the legislative branch aren't important thereby removing and reducing faith in the recall of law. in the rule of law. the founders understood the serious dangers of investing all powers of our government in a single body k and they understood that -- and they understood that because the revolution was all about colonists being sick and tired of one man george iii, making decisions. so you should the doctrine of separation of -- so under the tock doctrine of separation of

powers they wrote into the constitution dividing the power among three branches of government. so one person could not be george iii. they gave all legislative powers to the congress, all executive powers to the president all judicial powers to the judicial branch. nobody in government may exercise the -- no no body of government may exercise the powers of another body of government. separation of powers, then, is fundamental to the constitution of the united states. and the constitution of the united statessen end shrines -- united states enshrines the spirit of the declaration of independence that we're eni endowed by our creator, not by government, with certain inalienable rights. just last week during the nomination hearings of hover run that ledge as attorney general we had an outstanding professor at george washington law school by the name of jonathan turley

testify this quote: the separations of power is the very core of our constitutional system and was designed not as a protection of the powers of the branches, but a protection of liberty. because we're endowed by our creator with certain inail -- inalienable rights among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the founding fathers knew that if the same body had all the powers, that body -- no matter how large and small -- would be tyrannical like george iii. however, president obama has overreached the limits of his constitutional authority. he has blurred the lines of separation of power. the executive branch -- the executive branch action took with respect to our immigration laws is only the most recent be not the most pervasive of

legislative action he's taken under the proposition that i have a phone and a pen, and i can do almost anything that congress isn't doing that i want them to do. in effect, the president has thwarted the immigration laws that congress has written in order to implement the policy that he wants. contrary to the laws on the books, the present action would give people who have crossed the border illegally the right to remain in the united states and many taxpayers' benefits that are only available to lawfully-documented immigrants as well as the right to work. the president's actions expanded a program he created without congressional approval. the deer ifed action for child -- deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca as it is called or the deferred action of parents of united states citizens and lawful permanent residents or the dapa program as

it's called. under the constitution only congress has the authority to create these types of programs that grant a lawful status the people who have come here up documented. undocumented. let me repeat congress has the responsibility of writing laws, not the president. i remind my colleagues that congress considered a law that looked like the daca program, but it never passed that law. so what has the president done? in effect he has enacted a law that congress had rejected. the president justifies his actions by saying that quote-unquote, congress has failed. however, that doesn't give him the license to act on his own. i want to again quote professor turley. quote: our government requires consent and compromise to function. it goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a

nation, less tends to get done. however, such division is no license to go it alone as the president has suggested, end quote. the genius of our government is that it allows for the collection of ideas and opinions. and it allows these different ideas and opinions to to work together to find common ground. once common ground is reached then laws are enacted. the president doesn't represent that many different views in the country, but obviously congressmen from be all over this geographical area represent those views. congressmen are elected by the people directly, and if there is a disagreement in congress on how immigration should be handled, that means there is disagreement in the country on how immigration should be handled. the president cannot imagine that everyone agrees with his plan is the best plan -- >> senate debate from earlier

today. lawmakers are about the return now from their weekly party caucus lunches. at 2:30 they're expected to hold a procedural vote on whether to move forward with the house-passed homeland security bill which includes provisions to block president obama's executive order on immigration. live now, to the senate. treasure a quorum call. mrs. shaheen: thank you. sas we begin this debate on funding for the department of homeland security, we physical some questions. are we going to prioritize the safety of the american people or are we going to put the country at risk because of an ideological disagreement? that's the choice we face. we can either pass a clean bill that makes critical investments in our security or we can put this country at risk by playing politics with the funding for the department of homeland security. we all know that these are dangerous times that we live in. every day new threats emrnl that endanger our citizens at home

and our allies abroad. the department of homeland security's role in protecting our nation cannot be overstated and it's funding should not be controversial. right now the u.s. law enforcement community is on high alert for terror attacks. just two 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 president understands, the man was from ohio. and 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 who they had in their custody. these are very real threats threats

a clear and present danger to the homeland, and because they're 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 d.h.s. 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 d.h.s. 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 d.h.s. funding bill." end quote. all three former secretaries two of whom served under a republican president and one under a democratic president

are warning uses that us that the safety and security of 0 you are our nation is 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 disnscitizens at risk. because of the anti-immigration riders that have been attached by house republicans the bill that we're about to vote on can't become law. senate democrats are not going to support it. the president has already said he'll veto it. and furthermore according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the bill also adds $7.5 billion to the deficit. now, last week senator mikulski and i introduced a clean bill that's 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's 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 strength 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's going to veto. it's that simple. there is too much at stake for the security of our nation to play politics with this bill. before i conclude, mr. president, i would note that the -- again be 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 ten 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. so mr. president, i have a parliamentary inquiry. does the budget point of order lie against h.r. 240 pursuant to section 311(a)2(b)of the congressional budgetcongressional budget act of 1974. the presiding officer: the senator will be advised that the point of order lies. mrs. shaheen: does the budget lie against --

the presiding officer: the chair advised that the point of order does lievment hurricane katrina does the budget point of order lie against the bill purr sants to section 306 of the congressional budget act of 1974? the presiding officer: the chair advised that the budget point of order does lie. mrs. shaheen: thank you very much mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. thune:mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise in support of the homeland security appropriations bill. this is necessary to fight terrorism and defend communities from under threat from natural disasters. the list of national security related programs this bill provides resources for is long. before i speak to those programs

in greater detail, i will reinforce the importance of proceeding to this d.h.s. appropriations bill. d.h.s. funding expires on september 27. to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who don't want to trod this bill, i would just point out, we need to take up this d.h.s. appropriations funding bill and debate it, to let the senate do its work. mr. president, we just passed the keystone bill after the consideration of more than 40 amendments. at the end of the day we were able to produce a bill that garnered 62 votes. urge my colleagues to let the senate do its business. vote "yes" often on cloture on the motion to proceed. now i'd like to walk through some of the things that this bill funds. i want to remind my colleagues how critical these d.h.s. operations are to the economic prosperity public safety, and

security of the american people. the bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary appropriations plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding. let's take a low-income at some of the critical -- let's take a look at some of the critical security functions that this bill provides. the bill provides $10.7 billion for customs and border protection an increase of $119 million over the fiscal year 2014. it supports record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure air and marine assets including $ 21,370 border patrol customs and border protections officers, miles of fencing border roads fixed and mobile surveillance detection technology vessels outfitted

with the latest technology as well as unmanned airline assistance. we use technology from the department of defense such as tethered aerostate radar systems. it also includes improvements to the department's biometric system to support exit implementation in the future. the bill provides $5.96 billion for immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e., an increase of $689 million over fiscal year 2014, which is a 13% increase. it holds the administration's feet to the fire by maintaining a record 34,000 adult detention beds. it responds to the recent flood of families coming across our border by significantly increasing family detention beds from 96 to 3,828.

it provides increases for the criminal alien program and for future operations, both of which are critical to identifying apprehending and removing the criminals that the administration claims are a priority. the bill provides increases for homeland security investigations to combat human trafficking cybercrime child exploitation and drug smuggling. it also includes $15 million for visa security program and supports enforcement to address visa overstays. in addition, the bill provides strong support for the secret service, an organization that requires the forum and congressional oversight given recent incidents with $81 million above fiscal year 2014. in addition to funding increases associated with preparations for the 2016 campaign season, the bill provides $25 billion to begin addressing security needs at the white house complex.

recognizing the need for a state-of-the-art biosafety level-4 research facility to respond to animal-borne and other biological biologic threats this bill provides the funding to construct the national bio and aerodefense strategy. it continues our commitment to re-capitalization of the coast guard fleet including funding the 8th national security. and it takes a serious step to address near-term heavy icebreaker needs. the bill supports our cybersecurity efforts as a nation both protecting government systems and working with the private sector to share threat information and protective measures. since homeland security is a national effort, the bill continues funding for grant programs to state and local firefighters emergency managers and law enforcement. $467 million for state homeland

security grants, including $55 million for operation stone garden relating to border security. $800 million for the urban area security initiative, port security grants, and transit security grants. $680 million for fire assistance grants. $350 million for emergency management program grants. for research and development efforts, funding is provided consistent with fiscal year 2014 levels. the science and technology directorate supports our national labs and university partners to meet homeland security needs. the bill also provides for aviation security screening operations by the t.s.a., law enforcement training needs by the federal law enforcement training center, and e-verify by supports businesses in hiring legal workers. finally, the bill provides the

requested almost $7 billion for the disaster relief fund to assist with recovery costs for communities hit by natural disasters. what the bill does not fund is the president's executive actions. the house bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing the president's actions and articulating priorities for immigration enforcement. the president's actions overstepped his authority. his actions put illegal immigrants ahead of legal immigrants who are hoping for a part of the american dream for following and respecting the nation's laws. the immigration system is + broken but it cannot be fixed through executive actions that exceed the president's authority. instead, it should be accomplished through legislative reforms that start with border security, do not provide amnesty, and respect the rule of law.

mr. president, i leave my colleagues with this thought: we need to support these vital national security programs. vote "yes" on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill and let's get to work. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: will the gentleman yield for a question? the presiding officer: the the senator from h.r. new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: i certainly appreciate senator hoeven, who chairs the homeland security committee on aeptionppropriations for laying out the case for the importance of funding for i didn't think critical security agencies n.r.a. this bill, for the coast guard for customs and border patrol, for efforts to address security at our border, for cybersecurity. as you pointed out, there is a the although of very important funding in this bill to address homeland security.

i wonder if you agree with me that we should support the funding of this bill and that if we're going to have a debate about the president's executive actions that it should be a separate debate on immigration rather than putting at risk the funding that's in this bill to protect our nation? mr. hoeven: mr. president, i'd like to respond to my colleague from the state of new hampshire. i'd like to thank her for her work on our committee appropriations committee on the department of homeland security. and express my --. a senator: will the gentleman yield? all time for debate has expired. mr. hoeven: i ask for one minute to respond to the question. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: and thank her for her efforts. she and i will continue to work on this and other important issues but the reality is this -- we need to proceed to this bill so that we can get the funding in place. let's proceed to the bill, let's have the debate, let's

have amendments, let's do the work of the senate on this important legislation and that's why we need a yes here on this cloture motion to proceed so we can get on this funding bill and go to work, have the debate, have amendments and do the work of the senate on funding d.h.s. which is very important for our country. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke. be. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, 0 do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 240 making appropriations for the department of homeland security for fiscal year ending september 30 2015, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 240 an act making

appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 20, 2015 and for other purposes shall now be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 48. three-fifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to

reconsider the vote. i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president yesterday president obama as part of his rollout of his blueprint budget that calls for more than $2 trillion in new taxes and that adds more than $8 trillion to our national debt over the next ten years he visited the department of homeland security to urge the house of representatives to pass a funding bill for that department. now, it struck me as somewhat odd that the president would go to the department of homeland security and ask the house to pass a bill to fund the department of homeland security because they already did it. they passed a $40 billion funding bill to fund the

department of homeland security. but it seems to me the president, rather than giving a speech at the department of homeland security, needs to be talking to members of his own political party. if the president wants congress to pass a department of homeland security appropriation bill, then he needs to talk to our friends in the minority here in the senate who just blocked consideration of a $40 billion department of homeland security funding bill. now, i know what they will say. they have said well, we don't like parts of the bill. but the only way to finish a bill is to start a bill. and today they voted to refuse to start that process. so why in the world is it that senate democrats won't even allow this particular legislation to be debated and amended? well one of the reasons

probably is that they don't want to revisit the president's own repeated assertions 22 different times when he said he didn't believe he had the legal authority to issue the executive action that he issued in november of 2014. 22 times he said i don't have the authority. in 2013 when the president was speaking at an immigration event, he was interrupted by a heckler who urged him to stop deportations by executive fiat. in response, this is what the president said, and i quote -- "if, in fact, i could solve all of these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would do so, but we're also a nation of laws. that's part of our tradition. thus spoke the president of the

united states on one of those 22 different occasions. so maybe our colleagues in the minority don't want to debate this bill because they don't want to have to answer questions from their constituents about those 22 different occasions when the president said i don't have the authority and explained how they now agree with him that he somehow got that authority miraculously absent an act of congress. but i can think of another reason why our friends on the democratic side are reluctant even to allow us to begin debate on this legislation. you see, i have had the honor of participating in naturalization ceremonies all across my state where i have witnessed men and women who were born in other countries come to the united states of america raise their right hand and swear allegiance to the united states constitution and they may have come from mexico, they may have

come from india they may have come from vietnam they may have come from any one of a number of other countries but they decide that notwithstanding where they came from, they want to be an american. those naturalization ceremonies are almost like -- almost like birthdays. the celebration of one's birth because in a way it is a birthday, it is a day when they become proud americans and of course we believe as americans in the benefits of legal immigration because so many of us have come to the united states -- not us but our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, they came here from another country in search of that american dream. a better place to live, work and to raise a family. sadly, the president of the

united states has made clear that his administration is willing to put people who played by the rules and who applied for immigration and a legal status as an american citizen he's put them -- kicked them to the back of the line. this president has kicked the people who played by the rules to the back of the line, and he's moved people who did not play by the rules to the front of the line. and that is fundamentally unfair. it also sends a terrible message that we're going to reward people who break the law and we're going to punish people who follow and comply with the law. so maybe our colleagues across the aisle don't really want to talk about that, and that's the reason they voted not to proceed to even begin to debate this

important department of homeland security appropriations bill. again, a bill that's passed by the house thamed fund to the tune of roughly $40 billion the functions of the department of homeland security. yet, our friends in the minority have said we don't even want to talk about it. well, i can tell you what they don't want to talk about. they don't want to talk about the president's unconstitutional executive action which he issued or announced last november. and here's some, here's some interesting quotes from some of our colleagues in the minority. the senator from west virginia, the senior senator from west virginia said "i wish he wouldn't do it," when he was talking about the president's stated intention to issue his executive action. the senior senator from

missouri member of the minority party said, "i have to be honest how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable." and then there is the junior senator from indiana who said "i'm as frustrated as anyone in congress that it's not doing its job, that the president should make such significant policy changes on his own." then there's the junior senator from north dakota, a member of the minority party. she said, "it could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the new senate before it is even started." that's what a democrat from north dakota said about the president's stated intention to issue his executive action. the senior senator from minnesota said "i have concerns." and then there's senator king from maine who said "and i also

am frankly concerned about the constitutional separation of powers." the senator from maine isn't the only one. 26 different states have filed a lawsuit in the southern district of texas challenging the constitutionality of the president's executive action and the judge, the federal district judge could rule at any time on that. mr. schumer: mr. president? mr. president? would my colleague from -- mr. cornyn: i will not yield the time, mr. president. i will be glad at the conclusion of my remarks, if the senator still has a question, to respond. then there's the senator from montana who said "i would prefer that congress act. yes." then there's the senator from delaware who said "what i'd say to congress, i'm going to give you a little bit of time in the new congress, and i expect you to do something." so that's one two three four, five six seven eight. eight members of the minority party who said they're more than a little uncomfortable about

what the president's done. yet, today the members of the minority party have voted in lock step to deny a debate, any opportunity to discuss how do we fund the department of homeland security how do we rein in a reckless president who's overreached his constitutional authority. here's some other things that are actually in the house bill that perhaps some of the members of the minority are a little bit nervous about talking about much less voting about. the house has offered as part of their bill a reared -- rider which defends -- in other words what the president's executive action did is it took people who have actually committed crimes, not just entered the country

illegally but committed other crimes and made them nonpriority in terms of removal. then of course there is the provision of the house bill that says we don't want to disadvantage legal immigrants and people who played by the rules because the house recognized that's exactly what the president's executive action did. it kicked the people who played by the rules to the back of the line, and the people who did not to the front of the line. but our friends in the minority obviously don't want to talk about that either. mr. president, millions of foreign-born immigrants have become successful, patriotic american citizens. we are richer as a country because of the contributions they have made to our great land. but the fundamental choice we have is are we going to have controlled immigration or uncontrolled immigration?

the president and apparently his political party have embraced uncontrolled illegal immigration as their cause. we, on the other hand, have said we believe the benefits to our great country of legal immigration and assimilation, because that's who we are. all of us have a family story somewhere back in our history. mine goes back in the 19th century following a potato crop famine in ireland that caused my forebearers to emigrate to canada and then to the united states. everybody's got a story like that. but it's a sad important realization that the president through his executive action, is disrespecting the very individuals who have played by the rules and who we do celebrate as great patriotic americans. but apparently our friends in the minority don't even want to

talk about it. so that's why they've stopped this bill, this funding bill, $40 billion to fund the department of homeland security, and refuse to even talk about it much less debate it. so they're going to come out here on the floor i trust and click through the days and say we only have three weeks until the department runs out of money. it's like the old story about the teenager who murders his own parents, and then he goes to court and he pleads for mercy because he says, judge i'm an orphan. that's what our friends in the minority have done. this is a crisis of their own making. in fact, we don't want a crisis. we want to eliminate government by crises. that is' why the house has passed the responsible piece of legislation they have. that's why we ought to take it

up today. and if they don't like it, i know there are members on our side who disagree with certain portions of it, then we ought to debate it and we ought to vote. so any way you look at it, the senate ought to at least have a debate on this legislation. last week my colleague from -- our colleague from illinois, the assistant minority leader, came to the floor and praised the new majority leader, senator mcconnell, for his leadership during the first few weeks of the new republican majority here in this senate. he said "quote i hope in our role in the minority we can work with you to achieve some debate on the floor if not significant legislation." that was a nice moment. then the very next day on a call with reporters my colleague from illinois planned to filibuster the house passed department of homeland security funding bill and refused even to

allow debate, a threat they made good on today. so mr. president my request is of our colleagues on the democratic side is simple. honor the promise that the senior senator from illinois made last week to have an open and fair debate, and not just shut it down and create government by crisis and add to the very dysfunction that the voters repudiated on november 4. mr. president -- mr. schumer: mr. president? mr. cornyn: before i yield for a question, i'd ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each following my yielding of the floor. but i'd be glad to yield. mr. schumer: thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. i have a few quick questions and

then i'll say my piece. first i'd ask my colleague is it his party that's in the majority in this body? mr. cornyn: absolutely. mr. schumer: indeed you are sad from our point of view. and so isn't it true that the majority has the ability to put any bill they want on the floor just about at any sniem they -- any time? they can rule 14, many procedural ways to get a bill on the floor; is that right? mr. cornyn: again mr. president, the distinguished senator from new york knows well the answer to that is yes. mr. schumer: my final question is this: since we have a homeland security department that needs funding and the issue of immigration is a controversial issue one that we relish a debate, wouldn't it be possible for the majority to pass a homeland security bill without extraneous and controversial amendments, send that back to the house and then

move immediately to debate the immigration proposal that was added to the bill by the house or any other immigration proposal that they would wish? not saying they will do it, but i'm just asking my dear friend isn't that possible procedurally for the majority to do? mr. cornyn: mr. president responding to my friend from new york, i would say theoretically the answer to his question is yes. as a practical matter, we know the house has passed a particular piece of legislation that we'd like to take up, and it is what it is. it is a hand we've been dealt and that's the base bill to operate from. there are of course procedures to change it, and senator mcconnell, the majority leader of the senate, has said he believes there should be an open amendment process and i trust our friends across the aisle would have a chance to vote fanned they got the votes they're going to win. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york.

mr. schumer: i ask now to speak for a few minutes. i thank my colleague and i'll be brief. first, the distinguished majority leader has stated that it is possible within the procedures of this house to pass a homeland security bill as negotiated by our homeland security committee. i see the able head of the subcommittee here on the floor the senator from new hampshire. and then move to immigration and put that on the floor. so all of his arguments that we are afraid to debate immigration, that we don't want to debate immigration are false. there is not one choice. there are two. one is to debate immigration fully and openly. the other is to play a game of "hostage." to say "we are kidnapping homeland security. and now let's have a debate on how much the ransom should be.

no one in america wants us to legislate that way. i know my colleagues in the assistant didn't do that. it was the house that did it, led by, thinking by the senator from texas the junior senator from texas. not the senior senator. his view is, as i've heard him say, that what the president did on immigration is so awful that we should shut down the department of homeland security as a way of forcing the president to go along with what the senator from, junior senator from texas wants. now, when are our leagues going to learn, on the other side of the aisle? they followed senator cruz a year and a half ago when he wanted to shut down the government over obamacare. they actually did shut down the government for a few weeks and

were so widely excoriated by all americans, or just about all americans, they backed off. but they haven't learned. they are following the junior senator from texas, senator cruz into a cul-de-sac at best and over a cliff at worst. we are happy to debate homeland security but not with a gun to our head or the president's head. not to say if you don't do it my way, i'm going to shut down the government. the vast majority of americans democratic independent republican north east, south west, don't believe that's how you legislate. and i am surprised i'm almost shocked, with some of the wisdom we have in the leadership of this body that they are allowing it to happen. we will not. we have the ability to block it, and block it we will. we will not play hostage.

we will not risk shutting down homeland security, as i'm sure my colleague from new hampshire will talk about. a vital department. we will not let their upsetness with dream kids jeopardize our safety with isis. we will not let that happen. so i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass the bill that has already been put on the floor a clean homeland security bill. then they may decide to put immigration on the floor and we will be happy happy happy to debate it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i've got to say i'm a little confused about what's happening right now. the republican party is in

charge totally in charge of congress -- ms. mccaskill: mr. president i've got to say i'm a little confused about what's happening right now. the republican party is in charge ring tollly in charge right now. speaker boehner and his party talks. i'm sure they realize that the republican party now has the responsibility of showing this country that they can country congress. so what do we do right out of the gate? we threaten to shut down the department of our government that protects our homeland while isis is burning prisoners alive on film? now, the irony of this is republicans are in charge. so all they have to do is present a clean funding bill for homeland security, and the very next day take up immigration reform an debate and debate it. but they are trying to play a

political trick and try to make it look like that somehow their disagreement with the president on immigration trumps the protection of our country and that somehow we'll all go along with that. speaker boehner mentioned me, my friend and my colleague from texas just mentioned me. yes, i said it. i am uncomfortable with the president issuing executive orders like this, no matter what party it, no matter who the president. but what i said when i made that statement is i pivoted and the i said you know how we prevent that from happening? we have a hart house of representatives that's willing to take up and debate immigration reform. this body passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill, by a wide margin. it wasn't even a squeaker. with many of my republican colleagues voting for it, understanding that this is a

public policy area in our country that needs to be addressed. we can't just make it a political punching bag on either side. my party can't say we're for the imgrants, we get their votes. the republican party can't say we're for the tea party and we're against all immigrants. we need to come together and do public policy in a system that's broken. and the bill we passed here was amazing in terms of border security. but speaker boehner wouldn't take it up. for more than 18 months, speaker boehner wouldn't even allow it to be debated on the floor of the house. so now the republicans are in charge. do they take up immigration reform? do they have a proposal -- by the way and that's the way you get rid of the president's executive order is we do our jobs we do our job. so it's a little bit like

replace for health care. i've heard repeal and replace for four years. has anybody seen replace? has it been identified anywhere? because if it's out there i'd love to see it. well, the same thing for immigration. you don't like what the president has done, then put up a bill an let's debate and let's debate it. and by the way the republicans have the power to do that immediately after we fund homeland security. we don't have to talk about anything else. we can stay on immigration real estate form and pound out a compromise on public policy that won't please everyone but will do exactly what the american people want us to do, and that is find a compromise that works. as countries around the world have united in their opposition to isis and the bar barbarians that are participating in isis activities as all of our allies and some who haven't

traditionally been our allies are beefing up their cybersecurity, their border security beefing up their homeland security, their airport security adding more resources what are we doing in america? talk about a mixed signal. we're threatening to shut ours down. we are threatening to shut ours down to score political points. so i am all -- i know they'd be tough votes on immigration reform when we debate it, for me in my state and for many in their states. we had those tough votes last year the year before. and we pounded out a bill that nobody loved but it was pretty good. it made sure, by the way that people who'd broken the rules went to the back of the line. you want people who break the rules to go to the back of the line then let's get bus coin immigration reform -- then let's get busy on immigration re-fume. but this is exactly the nonsense

that frustrates americans. threatening to shut down a vital part of protecting our country in the name of politics. so i am, you know, the notion that the senior senator from texas, the assistant majority floor leader just said that we were denying a debate, that's absurd on its face. we debate whatever the republican party wants us to debate now. they're in charge. so step up, fund homeland security and move on to an immigration debate. you'll find a lot of willing partners trying to find a way forward, but not with this gamesmanship. isn't going to happen. isn't going to happen because homeland security is too important, especially at this moment in our history. and i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the senator from new hampshire. hurricane katrina hoon i appreciate--

mrs. shaheen: i appreciate the remarks from the senator of missouri and new york because they reflect my sentiments as well the senior senator from texas suggested that we didn't want to debate immigration we're happy to debate immigration. in fact, i would love to debate immigration reform with our colleagues. but the bill before us is not about immigration reform. it's about whether or not we're going to fund the department of homeland security and the fact is many of the issues that the senior senator from texas raised about immigration were addressed in the comprehensive imdpraition -- immigration bill that this body passed in 2014. i'm happy to go back to that debate but that debate should not come in place of our willingness to fund national

security and the department of homeland security. and that's the issue that's before us today. and we should not hold up our willingness to fund the department because there are certain members of the republican party in the house and senate who want to talk about the president's executive action. this bill is not about that. it's about whether or not we'ring aboutwe'regoing to fund the department of homeland security. i thought it might be instructive to point out some of the changes that congress has made and that are included in this bill that actually strengthen border security since that's one of the concerns that has been raised. and over the past ten years congress has gone to extraordinary lengths to secure our borders against the threat of smugglers of human traffickers, and of illegal immigrants. since 2005, the combined budgets for customs and border protection and immigration and

customs enforcement have grown by an astounding astounding 97% -- 97% from about $8.5 billion in 2005 to more than $ed $16.7 billion today. the combined budgets for these two border security agencies now count for more than 42% of the entire department of homeland security's discretionary appropriation. but congress just hasn't thrown money at the problem. we've made wise investments to ensure that our borders are more secure than they've ever been. since 2011 congress has steadily maintained 21,370 border patrol agents. that more than doubles the size of this force since 2001 and over the past two years congress has added 2,000 custom officers to help stop the flow of illegal

drugs and prevent illegal trafficking while still facilitating legitimate trade. i've been down to the border crossing in san diego. i've seen the advanced technologies that have been implemented to make sure that legitimate trade can get across the border and yet stop those people who are coming illegally. congress has deployed enhanced border security technology, including integrated fixed towers remote and mobile video systems, tethered aerostats and other technology to secure our southern border. we've also funded the construction of 652 miles of vehicle and pedestrian fencing at critical locations determined by the border patrol agents on the ground. the department's ability to detect illegal border traffic has grown substantially due to simultaneous investments in airborne assets including

blackhawk helicopters multi-role enforcement aircraft and surveillance planes critical in the war against drugs as well as nine unmanned, unarmed predator airlinepredator aerial systems. congress has more than 721 million above the president's request for these important airborne set as to strengthen our border security. now, in the bipartisan full-year budget that senator mikulski and congressman rogers negotiated last december, the same bill that senator mikulski and i have introduced in this session of the senate, we include those critical investments made to continue those efforts to secure the border. these investments will not occur or they're going to be delayed if we have a short-term budget. if we continue with a continuing resolution and heaven forbid, if we shut down funding for the

department of border security, which some of the members of this body and the house have suggested is not a problem for us to do. the clean bill includes a $119 million increase for customs and border protection. this is a funding level that supports the largest operational force levels in history -- 21,370 border patrol agents and 23,775 customs and c.d.p. officers. the agreement restores funding cuts to c.b.p.'s office of air and marine proposed by the administration which enables them to fly more patrols along the border and to continue purchasing critical assets. the clean bill also increases funding for the border security fencing infrastructure and technology account by $20 million to provide additional video surveillance systems and

adapt surplus defense department equipment for border security purposes. for customs and border patrol, a short-term budget also means that pending contracts for border security upgrades are going to be put on hold. when i met last week with c.b.p. commissioner gill krokowski he told me that $09 million for remote video technology the technology that's going to help us keep illegal aliens from coming across the border, that technology is going to be put on hold due to funding uncertainty. a clean full-year budget bill provides an increase of nearly $ed 700 million for immigration and customs enforcement. the agency responsible for apprehending and detaining undocumented imgrants in this country. now, if we don't pass a full-year bill, i.c.e. will have insufficient resources to maintain the statutorily mandated level of 34,000

detention beds for detaining illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which are criminals. they're going to fall over 4,000 beds short of that mandated level. under a continuing resolution. furthermore, they'll have no funding to complete construction and continue operating new family detention facilities in texas. 3,000 family detention beds are supposed to be completed in texas to deal with the surge of unaccompanied children and families to the southwest border. and so the very people who are complaining about border security, who are complaining about illegal imgrants coming into this country are opposing the funding that would address that border security. it makes no sense mr. president. the bill also increases i.c.e.'s ability to engage in international investigations with a $67 million to combat

cybercrime to combat drug smuggling and expand visa capabilities. with a short-term budget continuing resolution, these additional investments will not be made. we should not be holding up this funding bill for the department of homeland security with critical border protections in it because we have a few members of the house and senate who want to make this an ideological battle about the president's executive action. let's have that immigration debate but this is not the place to do it. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor.