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.

mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that eric baylor a detailee be granted floor privileges to consider the 2015 department of homeland security he appropriation bill. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. let me just thank senator shaheen for her leadership on the homeland security bill. she's taken that over this year really learned it, knows the ins and outs of it, she's someone who really cares about being fiscally responsible. she just recently pointed out to our caucus that if you pass this house bill with all the riders in it, it would cost

$7.5 billion more and put us $7.5 billion more do into debt which i don't think is a fiscally responsible move. so she should be taken -- we should be taken a really hard look at these riders as they come through from the house. mr. president, i have come to the floor today to talk about how important it is for us to pass a clean appropriation bill for the department of homeland security. and i want to talk about how failing to pass a bill will impact the southern border, impact my state of new mexico, where d.h.s. plays a vital role in security, in business, and in people's daily lives. the men and women at d.h.s. make sure commerce is conducted smoothly across our border with mexico. they make sure workers can get back and forth they inspect shipments coming into the country and they protect our communities from drug smugglers

and crime. it is inconceivable to me that republicans would threaten to stop funding this agency over a policy dispute with the president. i had heard republican leaders say that the era of shutdowns was over, but here we are again rapidly approaching the date when d.h.s. funding expires. we need an appropriation bill that does not disrupt this important work. i talked to new mexicans who live in the border communities and i talk to ranchers and farmers in my state. border security is not theoretical. it is not a political game. it's crucial to safety, it is crucial to trade at our ports of entry like santa teresa and plumb bus. -- columbus. in new mexico a shutdown of d.h.s. is a threat to our security, 0 jobs and to our economy. i've read reports where congressional republicans have said on the record that a delay

in funding a delay in funding d.h.s. wouldn't be a big deal. they say most of the department's employees are considered essential so they would still be working at our borders and screening airline passengers. that may be true, but those employees wouldn't get paid. i'm not willing to tell our border patrol agents and t.s.a. officers with families to feed that they still need to go to work but they aren't going to get paid. because washington can't get its act together. i know my constituents would feel a lot more secure in border communities if the border patrol officers were getting paid rather than worrying about their mortgages, their car payments, tuition payments, and other household expenses. despite the republican claims that d.h.s. won't actually shut down there would be significant consequences if congress fails to fund d.h.s.

consider what would happen to the federal law enforcement training centers fletc as they're called in new mexico. they serve as the law firm training academy for 96 federal agencies. fletc in artesia new mexico plains all of our border patrol agents and bureau of indian affairs officers. if we fail to fund d.h.s., funding will grind to a halt. this will impact every federal agency whose law enforcement officers must complete basic training before they can be deployed in their posts of duty. a delay of impacts securing the nation's borders aviation security protecting our nation's leaders and diplomats securing federal buildings and other countless federal law enforcement activities. and economic impact is huge.

over 3,000 students, 350 of them in artesia, new mexico, are expected to be in training at the end of february. if d.h.s. isn't funded, they have to go back home. this will cost about $2.4 million in air fare to send students back to their agencies and then turn around and fly them back to fletc when congress does its job and funds d.h.s. regardless of your views on immigration policy, wasting law enforcement's time and taxpayer money does not improve our security. and artesia isn't a big city. it's an economy that relies on fletc. the students spend their money at local businesses. many residents are contract employees at the facility. if fletc closes, it has a real impact in our community. as a new mexican i'm appalled that a d.h.s. shutdown is even

being considered. we cannot risk our national security our community safety and our border commerce just so republicans can prove some inside the beltway point about how angry they are about immigration reform. the house bill threatens to deport millions of people who have been living and going school in our country for many years. the senate should choose a different route. put a clean bill on the floor allow an open amendment debate and enact a bill the president can sign before any shutdown occurs. few states understand the importance of comprehensive immigration reform like new mexico. we need a system that secures our borders that strengthens families and that supports our economy. in fact, we almost had just that. the senate passed a bipartisan bill in the last congress, but house republicans let it die

wouldn't even take it up, wouldn't put it on the floor. that bill was not perfect but it did not satisfy everyone -- it did not satisfy everyone in every case, but that is what compromise means and that is what a bipartisan effort requires. due to the house's failure to act on immigration reform, over 400,000 people in my state live in immigration limbo. all the while they work and raise families, deporting these children and families is not a realistic option. we need to focus limited resources, as the president has done on securing the border. we need to go after drug dealers and gang members and potential terrorists. and, mr. president i and so many other new mexicans are appalled that republicans want to take out their anger on the dreamers. they will not commit to real reform but they will commit to

chasing down children, innocent children brought to this country by their parents. these are inspiring young people in my state when i talk about these young dreamers. they've worked hard, they've persevered, they know and love this country as their own. they are young leaders like mabel ariyanas who came to santa fe when she was just 6 years old. mabel graduated from high school and her dream was to go to college but her immigration status made that impossible. from the age of 15, mabel worked to help other dreamers. she helped pass the new mexico dream act. mabel eventually did get to college and graduated from the university of new mexico with honors. she is in her second year of law school now. another one of the dreamers, this is alejandro rivera, another dreamer. he moved to berlin, new mexico when he was 7 years old. after high school, alejandro

enrolled at the university of new mexico, undocumented he could not get financial aid. he and his mother worked hard to pay tuition. alejandro volunteered to help other young people get an education and to follow their dreams. he is at work now on his ph.d. in education. we may disagree on the specifics of immigration reform, but these dreamers have earned our admiration. they have earned our admiration. they should not be pushed back into the shadows by the house deportation bill. and the men and women who work to keep us safe, who screen more than a million people a day through our ports of entry who patrol our borders and help secure our communities they should not be a bargaining chip. in new mexico we believe homeland security should be a priority not a talking point. secretary johnson at d.h.s. has been very clear key security

initiatives are left waiting and his predecessors have also been very clear. last week, all three former d.h.s. secretaries two of whom are republican, sent a letter to the senate leadership urging them to pass a clean funding bill. we live in a very dangerous world. we face terrorist threats at home and abroad. recent events make that very clear. now is not time to play politics with homeland security. in fact, there never is a right time for that. the american people are watching the people of my state are watching, they're watching these games around what they sea -- and what they see is a lot of sound and fury that leads nowhere. what they want is a government that works. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i rise today to discuss a matter of utmost important, the department of homeland security funding bill, h.r. 240. madam president, we live in a world of extraordinary threats around the world terrorists continue to devise ways to harm americans and our interests. in pakistan and afghanistan we see a resurgent al qaeda which continues to plot attacks from

its increasingly ungoverned safe havens throughout the broader middle east we see al qaeda's affiliate groups from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula to al-shabaab. in syria we see the self-proclaimed islamic state shocking the world with its brutality and announcing its deadly serious intent to kill all americans. and within western societies we see the potential for radicalization at home, the danger of which has been made manifest in the attacks on ottawa sidney, and paris. inside the united states the department of homeland security serves as our critical line of defense against many of these threats from our borders and our coasts and our ports. in the realm of cyberspace, criminals, terrorists and other

governments present sophisticated threats on a variety of fronts. defending against these many serious threats requires efforts that range from securing critical infrastructure to guarding against the sort of espionage and blackmail that sony recently experienced. these are enormously difficult tasks especially in an ever-changing high-tech operating environment. as the agency charged with protecting civilian networks and coordinating on cyber defense issues with the private sector, the department of homeland security stands at the crossroads of our nation's defense against this next generation of interests. -- of threats. and when the dangers we face are natural rather than manmade the department plays no less of a critical role. from hurricanes and tornadoes to volcanoes and forest fires the department's component agencies such as fema and the coast guard play a critical role in the

preservation of lives and property. the house-passed bill provides the department with nearly $40 billion in funding a level consistent with the budget control act's spending limits. that money will not only fund the critical programs i mentioned so far but will also provide critical improvements on a wide range of fronts, including four more border patrol agents, new i.c.e. detention facilities increased funding for everify more effective screening at our airports improved secret service protection, increased support for cyber defense and important disaster relief. these provisions all enjoy brought bipartisan support and i commend my colleagues on the appropriations committees for their hard work on this package. but this work has been complicated by a troubling development by some of my

colleagues, almost all democrats, actively seeking to block consideration of this vitally important funding. why? only because they seek to protect a president of their own party who has acted lawlessly and overstepped proper constitutional bounds. instead of following the examples of great senators of the past who stood up to presidents of their own party on behalf of the constitution and the rule of law today we have witnessed far too many senators instead shamefully toeing the party line. madam president, our nation's founders knew in the sage words of montesquieu that all tranial governments the right of making and enforcing the laws is vested in one and the same man. and wherever they two powers are united together there can be no public liberty. for this reason, when drafting

the constitution the framers divided power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches and between the federal government and the states. despite these constitutional foundations, president obama has decided that he -- quote -- "won't take no for an answer" -- unquote when congress refuses to go along with his agenda. in direct opposition to our centuries-old system of legislation and to the binding authority of the constitution the president has audaciously declared that -- quote -- "when congress won't act, i will" -- unquote. and he has followed up these threats with a variety of unilateral executive actions many of which are flatly inconsistent with the law and the constitution. over the past weeks and months i've come to the senate floor to speak out about a series of specific instances that exemplify the brazen lawlessness of this administration. the perverse and illegitimate

overreach has come in many different forms. with his latest move in the field of immigration president obama seeks not only to prevent enforcement proceedings against millions of people unlawfully present in this country but also to license their unlawful presence with affirmative work permits as part of the process. in doing so he not only ignores the duly enacted laws of the land but also seeks to unilaterally replace them with his own contradictory policies. the president and his allies in this chamber want nothing more than 0 to turn this into a debate about immigration policy. but that is not what this debate is about. immigration is a complex and divisive issue and americans hold a wide variety of views on the matter that don't always divide neatly along partisan lines. many conservatives myself

included share is some of the same policy goals as president obama. instead, this is a debate about loyalty. as senators, where do our loyalties lie? do we owe our loyalties first to the constitution, to the protection of the american people and to the goal of lawful and lasting immigration reform? or do we owe our loyalty out of reflexive partisanship to a president bent on dangerous unilaterallyism? madam president, president obama's executive action is a direct affront to our system of government. the constitution vests authority with the congress, not the president leap. instead the president is charged with the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. this is not a suggestion or an invitation for the president to enforce the law, it is an obligation for him to do so.

the president and his executive branch exercise prosecutorial discretion the discretion to choose not to prosecute certain cases but that power stems from considerations of fairness and equity in particular cases. instead of requiring individualized determinations in specific cases, the president's latest actions sweeps up millions of people based on a few broad widely shared criteria. an administration, of course, cannot prosecute when there are not sufficient resources to do so but the obama administration has never explained how these executive actions will save money. in fact, the administration's own policy advisors have acknowledged that a work permitting program will be expensive and will actually take away resources from law enforcement. and while no one disagrees that capturing and removing violent

criminals should be our highest immigration priority, president obama has gone much further and made current immigration law essentially a dead letter for millions of illegal immigrants. despite the administration's claim to the contrary, president obama's action is not comparable to the executive actions taken by president reagan and president george h.w. bush. even "the washington post" editorial board found that claim by the white house to be -- quote -- "indefensible" -- unquote. presidents reagan and bush simply implemented the enforcement priorities established in laws that congress actually passed. by contrast, president obama sought to change the law before congress has acted so he cannot rely on congress' authority to enforce the policy he prefers. indeed president obama has acted directly in the face of

congressional opposition, and we should call his executive order what it is, an attempt to bypass the constitutionally ordained legislative process and rewrite the law unilaterally. perhaps the most persuasive case against this disturbing unilaterallyism was laid out by president obama himself on at least 22 different occasions since he took office. the president acknowledged that he lacked the legal authority to carry out these actions. as he himself said by broadening immigration enforcement carveouts -- quote -- "then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally so that's not an option. what i've said is there a path to get this done and that's through congress in-- quote -- ." he was right. he was right then. he is wrong now. faced with this brazen

lawlessness, the house of representatives passed a bill that both funds our homeland security priorities and fulfills our duty to respond to the president's lawless executive actions. this is a careful line to watch and our colleagues deserve praise for their admirable work. their bill represents a responsible approach by funding our critical homeland security needs while preventing president obama's -- i should say constitutional abuse. when faced with such a sensible approach i have franklily ben shocked and dismayed by the opposition mean of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed to this bill. on the floor today many of my colleagues have indicated that they will oppose letting us vote on homeland security funding and even on amendments to the bill unless we allow president obama 's executive action to come into effect.

madam president, senators of both political parties have often set up -- stood up to political encroachment not for partisan gain but in defense of congress as a co-equal branch of government with its own responsibilities. implicit with in the congressional design in separating the federal government's powers is the act that each branch would have the incentive to resist enroachment from the other branches ensuring unfettered power is not concentrated in any one set of hands. the founders recognized this as indispensable to preserving the individual liberty of all citizens. as madison counseled in federalist 51 -- quote -- "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists of giving to those who

administer to each department the means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others" -- unquote. senator robert c. byrd of west virginia embodied this ideal. although he helped to lead this body more than half a century and left us less than five short years ago i was surprised and dismayed to learn recently that nearly half of current members never served alongside robert c. byrd. senator byrd fiercely department of homeland securitied this body's prerogatives and independence against the encroachments of the executive branch. whether they were republicans or democrats in the executive branch. and he neither sensorred his criticisms or weakened his defenses based on the president's political party. even in his twilight years when president obama took office with extraordinarily high approval

ratings, senator byrd was willing to hold his feet to the fire to defend the senate's right to give advice and consent to nominees. he chastised the white house for his reliance on czars observing that chieftains can threaten the checks and balances at the worst, white house staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of senate-confirmed officials" -- unquote. madam president, how far we have fallen since the days of senator byrd. indeed this brinksmanship by my colleagues in the minority represents the height of irresponsibility. they risk our homeland security funding at a time when our terrorist enemies have repeatedly demonstrated the renewed capability to threaten the homeland. they risk our very system of

constitutional government by sacrificing our power to make the laws and the president's duty to enforce them. and they risk many of the immigration reform goals that are shared across party lines. madam president, i'm committed to making real progress towards implementing lasting immigration reform. i supported the senate's comprehensive immigration bill last year, and even though that bill was far from perfect i voted for it because i believe in working together to make much-needed progress on this vitally important issue. as i have long argued, the way to get real immigration reform back on track is not for the president and his allies to insist on his my way or the highway approach. responsible legislating none unilateralism, is the right way toward on immigration. the president's executive action risks the opportunity for meaningful bipartisan progress

and undermine the constitution in the process and now his allies in this chamber are apparently willing to risk the security of our nation at a time of extreme danger just to close partisan ranks to provide political cover to the president. madam president, if my colleagues in both parties are serious about protecting our constitution's separation of powers and the liberty it ensures, if they are committed to protecting americans from the sorts of terrorism attacks that we have lately witnessed with alarming frequency and if they are committed to working together to achieve lasting immigration reform in the right way, i urge them to reconsider their vote earlier today and to agree to at the very least debate this critically important bill. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president i rise today -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. manchin: dispense with the quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i rise today to voice my opposition to what seems to be a politically motivated department of homeland security funding bill that we had to vote on. funding the d.h.s. should be really a priority of congress. it really should be. we cannot atoward to play political partisan games. it is not what the people in this country want to see. it doesn't do any of us justice whatsoever. we jeopardize funding for the third-largest agency in the country that will risk lapse in not only our border security which is most important to all of us, but also cybersecurity also secret service protection, disaster response, fema, t.s.a. in airports. our nation faces many threats from our enemies both overseas and here at home more so than ever before.

the world is a troubled place and i think we all go home and i think the number-one thing that people are concerned about is the security of our own nation. and when they see this evil going on and now this horrific, barbaric action we just saw take place with the jordanian pilot it is unimaginable to us that people could act this way to other humans. with that being said, we have to stand united in supporting our values and protecting our citizens here in the united states of america. this is not the forum for debate on immigration and i have said that and i would hope that some of my colleagues would feel the same way. we should fully fund the d.h.s., and this is one that has necessary levels that must be funded for the protection of our country. and then we can deal with our immigration system which is broken. i think that we have stated that in the senate here. we've stood we voted and we

made tough votes that need to be made. i agree with all of my republican colleagues, madam president, that our borders need to be secure. i don't think any of us disagree with that. it has to be secured first and it must stem the tide of illegal immigrants flowing into our country. we see them coming in in all different sizes races and sexes and continues to be something that we should be concerned about. i also agree with my republican colleagues that president obama should not have executed action -- he should not have used his executive action to make changes in our immigration system. i think that we should have doubled down here and get this bill before us and get the house. but i also agree and i disagree with the house decision to even take the bill up that we sent. in a bipartisan fashion it was debated on this floor put together by democrats and republicans. i've been here for four years. i haven't seen a bill work more intensely than the immigration bill. i haven't seen the border

security work more intensely than republicans and democrats working together to make sure that we had a homeland security that would secure our borders. that's the first time i really saw the senate work, if you will since i've been here, and saw what the potential would be if we work together. and i was very excited about that and i thought for sure we would get a vote, and now we're back to the same, putting together who's for what and how we're going to posture on this one. but i just believe -- and i've said this. i believe that this is not the place and this is not the bill for us to get into political squabble. i really don't. i know the house put us in a difficult position. it came over here, had to be voted on. it was. and now we've got to get on to the serious business, how do we take care to make sure that our department of homeland security has the necessary funding through an appropriations bill that both democrats and republicans worked on. not, not for another continuing

resolution which does not let our different branches that are responsible for homeland security be able to upgrade to fight the battle that we need to fight. when you think about all the new equipment that's needed for forces out there and our national guard and also our coast guard what they need to be updated and upgraded to and the things that have been planned, it will only happen through a bill that we pass on this side. it won't happen through a continuing resolution bill. it will be the same as we've had, status quo will not change. i'm willing to work with all of our friends in here to have a good clean homeland security bill that really does the job and protects the united states of america. i'm not willing to do it in a bill that will jeopardize the security of our homeland, which is what i think we have received and i think we can all do better than that. so madam president i urge all of our colleagues, all of us to

work together to get a piece of legislation that really helps protect america and keeps america safe and also puts the emphasis where it needs to be. here. that's what the people back home in west virginia expect. i know the people in new hampshire expect the same from you, and i know we can deliver working together in a bipartisan way, putting america first and not our politics and that's what they expect. i hope we're able to rise above this and we will get through this to and i think we'll get to a clean bill that basically secures america and keeps us safe. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president i come to the floor today to join my colleagues to call for an end to any political games that are being played with this bill to fund the department of homeland security. i want to thank senator shaheen

and senator mikulski for their leadership on this issue. they'vent dued legislation that i'm -- they've introduced legislation that i'm proud to cosponsor that provides the critical resources the department of homeland security needs today and the remainder of 2015. the issue of funding the department of homeland security has become particularly important to my state. it is important to every state. new hampshire cares a lot about the coast guard and many of the other agencies involved in security. in minnesota we've actually had active recruiting first from he will -- el shabab that recruited young men to go to somalia and fight to become suicide bombers. we had 18 federal indictments that came out of that. half of those people have already been convicted because of the fact that our community our somali community has been able to work with law enforcement positively. we have been able to get the information to prosecute those cases. and then you go to syria

something that our madam president knows a lot about and is an expert on. you go to syria the first american that was killed fighting on the side of the terrorists was from minnesota. there was active recruiting that has been going on there. i have seen the ads and some of the recruiting from the f.b.i. that's been going on there. and in fact we've also had an indictment of people involved in going to fight for isis. so this is real for us. this isn't just something that is thousands of miles away. it's happening in our communities. this fall a young man from the twin cities area arrested by the f.b.i. at the st. paul minneapolis airport as he was trying to fly to turkey. the next day the young man's partner was able to board a flight for turkey and is thought to be fighting for isis. these are real people, real terrorists. i think we all know when it comes to homeland security, it's not just our national security that's at stake. it's also our economy. our border with canada stretches

over 5,500 miles the longest in the world. over 400,000 people and nearly $2 billion in goods and services cross our borders every day. in minnesota we understand the economic significance of cross-border commerce. canada is our state's top international trading partner with over $19 billion in total business across the border. think of that, $19 billion. over a million canadians visit minnesota every year. okay that's a lot of canadians contributing $265 million to our local economy. a lot of them visit the mall of america in bloomington. many of them go fishing up north. that relationship relies on a seamless u.s.-canadian border with u.s. customs and border protection keeping that border secure and efficiently screening all cross-border traffic. we have made important strides in recent years with the trusted traveler programs to make our

northern border more secure while encouraging the cross-border tourism and commerce that is the lifeblood of so many northern states, including minnesota and new hampshire. withholding critical funding from d.h.s., from the department of homeland security, could threaten this progress, leading to a less secure border and also hindering economic opportunity. so withholding critical funding risks the safety of our people, the strength of our economy and even our relationships abroad. at a time when other countries around the world are stepping up their security, we can't be standing ours down. even a cursory look at world headlines shows which threats the united states and our allies face from the terrorist attacks in paris and sydney to cyber attacks by north korea. we need to be stepping up our security. that's why it's so important that we turn immediately to this bill to fund the department of homeland security, a bill that we can all agree on. the funding bill introduced by senators shaheen and mikulski

and that i am proud to cosponsor does just that. it would provide funding for security while keeping crossings open for business. it would support,23,775 customs and border protection officers working at our country's 329 ports of entry. it would ensure we keep 21,370 border patrol agents at work keeping our country safe. it funds cyber security initiatives that protect our critical infrastructure and allow us to track down and punish hackers who are responsible for cyber crimes. it provides over $1 billion for security-related grants to states. we're talking about firefighters. we're talking here about our first responders, localities to help ensure that they're prepared to handled both man-made and natural disasters. no one knows this better than our state when we had that bridge fall down in the middle of a summer day on august 1 in minneapolis, minnesota. an eight-lane highway in the

middle of the mississippi river 13 people died, dozens injured dozens of cars submerged in the water after falling 111 feet. no one knows this better than our state after we had the floods we shared with north dakota across the red river floods that nearly swept homes away and resulted in a lot of economic loss. that happened in our state. no one knows better than our state where we've had tornadoes like so many places in the midwest sweep across the prairies taking everything in their path. that's when you know what fema is all about. that's when you know what homeland security is all about. and that's why we must continue to fund this important agency. madam president, it's my hope that we can come together to pass the shaheen-c mikulski homeland security appropriations bill. we should never play politics when it comes to protecting our homeland. and that's why former homeland securities secretaries of state from george w. bush and the obama administration have come together. tomorrow ridge and janet

napolitano agree on the need to pass a bill, what we call a clean bill and in most places where you need to know, anyone watching on c-span that says what are we talking about a clean bill, it goes through the laundry machine? this is a bill which focuses on what it needs to focus on which is funding homeland security and doesn't have other provisions in it on other bills. this bill should not have those kinds of things on it. this bill is about homeland security and we shouldn't be shutting down our security over political fights. if this bill funds the department of homeland security for 2015, as senators, chief among our responsibilities is to do everything we can to do to keep americans safe. as a senator from minnesota no job is more important to me than keeping our state and our country safe. i was a prosecutor for eight years. i know how much this means to people, and i deeply respect the

work of the department of homeland security and what they do every single day to protect us. those workers deserve the best and the people of america deserve the best. that's why we have to pass this bill. i urge my colleagues to pass the shaheen-mikulski bill without delay. thank you madam president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: i ask consent to address the senate as if in morning business for such other time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you very much. i'm back on the floor to talk about an issue i spoke just a few days ago the choice act. let me take my colleagues back in history. just a few months, just to last year. and i don't imagine any of us don't remember the scandal that the department of veterans' affairs was facing, the stories across the country of fake waiting lists of services not provided the potential death of veterans while waiting for those services to occur. i also would think that at least many of my colleagues would agree that for much of the last few years, the united states senate hasn't done much of the business it was designed to do and that needed to be done in

our country. but i remember a day in august of 2014 in which the united states senate, the u.s. house of representatives were successful in passing a bill and it's somewhat embarrassing to me to be on the senate floor praising the accomplishment of a bill passage. it's part, a significant part of what should be the normal course of business of the united states senate. but those of us -- and i would put all of my colleagues in this category who care about the service men and women who sacrifice for the benefit of their fellow countrymen and came home to a department of veterans' affairs that failed to meet their needs. i've indicated that since i came to congress both in the house and the senate in the senate i've served on the veterans committee. this is an issue that we need to make certain we get right. just this week in fact this morning we passed a page, the

clay hunt suicide prevention act. that's an accomplishment. i remember the testimony of the two mothers in the veterans committee who came to talk to us about the importance of this legislation and their experiences as mothers and the death of their sons by suicide. in the time that i've been in congress it's among the most compelling testimony i've ever heard. and the part that sticks with me the most is the belief by these two mothers that had the department of various done their work -- veterans' affairs done their work their sons would be alive. what that tells me is the decisions we make and those decisions as implemented by the department of veterans' affairs in some cases -- in fact, in many cases are a matter of life and death. we saw the scandal that came about last year.

we know that the decision we make have huge consequences on veterans and their families. we rejoiced -- at least i did -- in the passage of the choice act that gave veterans the opportunity to choose v.a. services to choose health care to be provided in their hometowns by their hometown physicians and doctors and the criteria that is set out in the choice act for that to occur is pretty straightforward. interest says if you live more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility then you are entitled to have the v.a. provide for the services at home if that's what you want. it says if those services can't be provided within 30 days, of the time that you need those services then the v.a. shall provide those services at home if you choose. you can see the hospital, you can be admitted to the hospital of your choice, you can be seen by the doctor of your choice. that was actually something to be rejoiceful about, to be

excited about that this congress this senate came together and patched what i call -- what i know to be a significant and important piece of legislation. it's important for the reasons that common sense tells you it's important, that veteran who lives a long way -- veteran who lives a long way from a v.a. facility can now get services at home. a v.a. -- a veteran who had who had to wait in line for too long can now get those services at home. and the other aspect of that is the department of veterans' affairs has told us time and time again about the inability to attract and retain the necessary health care providers, the doctors and others who provide services to our veterans, so one way to improve that circumstance is to allow other health care providers, those in your hometown to provide that service. the choice act was a good thing for the department of veterans' affairs to meet its mandate to care for our veterans, and the choice act was a good thing for veterans who live long distances, especially in states

like mine and yours mr. president, where it is a long way to a v.a. facility. so i remember the moment in which that bill passed and was sent to the president and i think finally finally something good has come, a bill has been passed, something important to our veterans is occurring. but the reality is the implementation of the choice act has created many problems and in my view the department of veterans' affairs is finding ways to make that implementation not advantageous to the veteran but self-serving to the department. here's what catches my attention today. we're reviewing the president's budget and within that budget is this language. in the coming months, the administration will submit legislation to reallocate a portion of the veterans choice program funding to support

investments in the v.a. system priorities. what the president's budget is telling us is that there is excess money within the choice act. we allocated money emergency spending to fund the choice act, and the president's budget is telling us, well, we think there's too much known there we're going to submit legislation to reallocate that money to something we think is a higher priority. i don't expect many of my colleagues to remember, but i just was on the senate floor last week talking about a specific problem in the implementation of the choice act and it was this -- the department of veterans' affairs shall provide services at home to a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a facility. well the problem was that i described last week is, the v.a. has determined a facility punks if there's an outpatient

clinic within that 40 miles even if it doesn't provide the services that the veteran needs, that veteran he or she must drive to the v.a. wherever that is located and do not qualify for the at-home services. does this make any sense to any of us, that the v.a. says oh, there's an outpatient clinic within 40 miles of you mr. veteran, even though it doesn't provide the service that you need, we're still going to require you to drive to a v.a. hospital to receive those services and you don't qualify to go see your hometown doctor or be admitted to your hometown hospital. who would think -- in fact, i admired secretary mcdonald in his early days at the department in which he talked about how the v.a. is going to serve the veteran, the decisions we make at the v.a. will be directed at how do we best care for our veterans. i respect secretary mcdonald for that attitude and approach and i want the department to follow his lead in accomplishing

that mission. but clearly deciding that a facility even though it can't provide the service you need doesn't -- precludes you from getting services at home, that makes no sense and it certainly doesn't put the veteran at the forefront of what's in the best interest of a veteran. so why would the department of veterans' affairs make that decision? you got a facility within 40 miles, you don't qualify drive three or four hours to the v.a. hospital. well one might think that they made the decision we are going to enforce that aspect of the choice act we're going to enforce the idea that you don't qualify because they don't have enough money to pay for those services. but lo and behold the president's budget says there's excess money that we now want to transfer to other priorities. so clearly it's not a funding issue. the department is making decisions for some reason,

again, that makes absolutely no sense, defies common sense and certainly doesn't put the veteran ahead of the department of veterans' affairs. i don't know what the story is that these kind of decisions would be made but it certainly is worthy of the united states senate to make certain that the department implements its moment of triumph the choice act in a way that benefits those we intended for the legislation to serve. you know, i would ask some questions of the department and i wonder about the attitude. i've been on task trying to get services provided closer to home for veterans for as long as i've been in congress. one of the other programs, aside from the choice act is a freshman pram called arch, accessing services closer to home, there are pilot programs across the country to do that. one of them is in kansas.

in an internal memo from washington, d.c. to a v.a. hospital in kansas, the department of veterans' affairs indicated to the v.a. hospital in kansas that they could not promote, encourage or market the idea of a veteran seeking services at home. so already i bring a skepticism about the attitude at the department of veterans' affairs for a long time they've been told not to encourage veterans finding health care outside the v.a. hospital. outside the v.a. outpatient clinic. a few questions. how do you reach the conclusion that there is excess money when the program is just now being implemented and, in fact, there's been a significant delay in getting the choice cards out to veterans so they could determine whether or not they were interested and qualified? i also have learned that the

department of veterans' affairs has intentionally narrowed the veteran population that is eligible for the choice program by rule, narrowing the number of medical procedures for which they will consider whether or not it can be performed outside the v.a. on the 30-day rule. i didn't say that quite right didn't say it quite as well as i'd like, but the v.a. already narrowed by regulation the services that might qualify for hometown services if it takes longer than 30 days to get those services. the v.a. added an unnecessary reimbursement requirement. i'm told now that if there is a third-party provider, you have some insurance, the v.a. is going to require that the veteran pay the co-payment up front and then seek reimbursement from the department of veterans' affairs. and of course the fourth one is how can you reach the conclusion

that a veteran who needs a colonoscopy in my hometown as up talked about last week, must drive three or four hours to wichita to the v.a. to get the colonoscopy because there's an outpatient clinic within 40 miles of my hometown but the out patient clinic doesn't provide colonoscopyies. now we learn it's not a matter of money it's got to be a matter of attitude approach and culture. just today just a few minutes before i came to the senate floor to talk about this issue i received an inquiry from a constituent who is a health care provider. and what they indicated to me was their interest in providing services under the choice act. and they contacted the v.a., pure sued the opportunity to be a provider for those veterans -- veteran populations

in rural kansas, and they were told that the rate of reimbursement would be something significantly less than medicare. now, the choice act says the department of veterans' affairs shall provide these services up to paying medicare rates. the v.a. says if you're going to provide services to our veterans we're going to only reimburse you at something significantly less. that's something that this health care provider didn't believe they do make any money doing, but ultimately they concluded it was their responsibility to try to help veterans who lived in rural kansas and so they went back to the v.a. and said we're willing to take less rates. certainly, let's negotiate and see if we can't find something that's mutually agreeable between the v.a. and us to provide those services. you have to have received a return inquiry from the v.a. again trying to preclude a willing provider who is willing to provide services at less than

cost. how can that be common sense? how can that be putting the veteran ahead of the v.a.? mr. president, i look forward to working with my colleagues. i look forward to our committee one that you serve on, on veterans' affairs trying to make certain that we get this right. i want us to return to the day in august when the senate passed the choice act and there was this feeling of accomplishment, something beneficial and useful, and if the v.a. continues to implement this bill, if it doesn't reverse course, if it doesn't put the veteran first we will have missed another opportunity to care for the needs of those who served our country. who would we expect? what american would we expect to receive the best health care possible in this country? well, i want all americans to receive quality health care,

affordable costs but i would tell you there is no group of people more important that they receive what is their due, what was committed to them than those who served in our military and now our nation's veterans. -- and are now our nation's veterans. i represent a very rural state. my congressional district that i represented as a house member is larger than the size of the state of illinois. it has no v.a. hospital. how do you get to a v.a. hospital when you're a 92-year-old world war ii veteran and the hospital is four, five, six hours away? mr. president, i thought we had finally come to a solution. i thought that earlier with the passage of legislation that i introduced in the house that ultimately became the arch pilot program. while it gets rave reviews from veterans who are in those pilot program areas it has not been expanded it doesn't solve the country's -- the rural part of the country's needs. and then i thought well, a great day has occurred. we passed the choice act.

but as you look at the implementation you look at the decisions that are being made today at the department of veterans' affairs, you have to wonder if one more time we are providing false hope, false promises to those who served our country. we owe them something different than what is occurring today. and i reaffirm my commitment to my colleagues but also to the leadership of the department of veterans' affairs to work closely, side by side to make sure that the choices made fit the reality of those who served our country and the circumstances they find themselves in today. help those veterans who can't get the service because they can't get there. help those veterans who need the services more quickly than the department of veterans' affairs can provide them. it seems straightforward to me, but i raise this concern today to make sure that my colleagues and i are united in the effort to see that good things happen as a result of the passage of the choice act in august of

2014. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. moran: mr. president i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: mr. president, it is no secret that we are living in dangerous times and that we face a variety of threats. we face the threat of isil, a barbaric and despicable terrorist organization. we face threats to the security of our personal information both online and in our daily lives. we still face threats from al qaeda and rogue nations such as north korea. with all of these ongoing threats to our nation and its

citizens shouldn't our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to work together in a bipartisan manner in order to fund the government agency responsible for protecting us from those threats. evidently, they do not. instead, they are playing a partisan game while threatening to shut down the department of homeland security. they are playing politics with our homeland security. now, mr. president the vote that the senate just took relates to a bill that put partisan politics ahead of our national security while also needlessly creating another manufactured budget crisis, and that's why i voted no. mr. president, i understand our republican colleagues have concerns about the president's

executive actions on immigration, and i believe that there is a time and place for this body to debate those issues as we have in the past and we must in the future. but to jeopardize our nation's security by playing politics with this vital funding measure is extremely extremely disappointing. i would actually like to remind our colleagues that the president's actions on immigration reform devote even more resources to securing our southwest border and to deporting felons, not families, and identifying threats to our national security. the president's executive actions on immigration also provide certain undocumented immigrants temporary relief after background checks and other security measures are

passed bringing families out of the shadows so that they can work and pay taxes like everyone else. i remain committed to finishing the job on bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform here in congress, but until we can achieve that goal, i support the president keeping his promise to take action and do what he legally can to fix our broken system. consistent with the actions by previous presidents of both parties, president obama is right to follow in the footsteps of every president since eisenhower to address as much of this problem as he can through executive action. the status quo is simply unacceptable. in fact, the congressional budget office, also known as the nonpartisan scorekeeper recently found that including a

reversal of these executive orders in the homeland security funding bill, would actually increase our deficit. instead of attaching these transparent attacks on the president, the congress should pass a clean straightforward bipartisan bill, and there is such a bill. that bill was previously negotiated and it was just introduced by appropriation vice chairwoman barbara mikulski and homeland security appropriation ranking member shaheen. mr. president, as a new member of the homeland security appropriation subcommittee, i am a strong supporter of their bill because it would fund programs that are critical to our nation and to my home state of

wisconsin. their straightforward funding bill funds essential departments like the coast guard which keeps the great lakes safe and open for business, and it funds fema grants which would help communities in western wisconsin, for example plan and prepare for floods. it funds fire grants that help rural fire departments with equipment that they could never afford through the proceeds of annual pancake breakfasts. mr. president, these are critical assets that my constituents rely on, and putting them at risk is simply irresponsible. it's time for our colleagues to drop this dangerous political stunt, to join with democrats to pass a bipartisan bill that gives the department of homeland security the resources it needs to keep americans safe. thank you and i yield the

floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: wowcts. mr. brown: today the house of representatives held yet another -- maybe they are up to 50-something, i think vote to

repeal the affordable care act showing again their objective is to dismantle the law house republicans voted to repeal the law. they like to say repeal and replace but the replace doesn't ever quite come forward. think what that would mean. that would bring us back to the days when children with preexisting conditions like cancer or asthma could be turned away from health coverage. let me illustrate with this story. downstairs several months ago a couple came to my coffee which i hold every thursday when the senate is in session open to anyone from ohio who wants to stop in. this one from cincinnati, the most conservative part of the state. we talked for a few minutes about home schooling and her desire to be able to get some support from the federal government in a variety of different ways, but for home schooling. then she said i want to thank you for the affordable care act. i said certainly, i was proud to support it. she said you can see my son and she pointed across the room. he is about 15. she said he was diagnosed with

diabetes when he was seven or eight years old. she hesitated. she said 32, 33 times she said i counted them, 33 times we were turned down for health insurance because of his preexisting condition. we signed up last week for the affordable care act. so if the house had been successful or the -- if the house effort to repeal the affordable care act had come to the senate and become law someone would have to explain to her why she loses her health care. insurers could place -- again if this is repealed, insurers could place lifetime or annual caps on health coverage. we know that thousands tens of thousands of people in this country have gotten sick, their insurance has been canceled because the illness was so expensive. that's prohibited under the affordable care act. that would be back if we repeal the affordable care act. seniors are forced to pay huge out-of-pocket costs when they hit the gap in prescription drug

coverage known as the doughnut hole. a decade ago when i was a member of the house of representatives i voted against that medicare plan in part because it had this huge gap in coverage. so during the period when, if you're -- if you have an illness or a series of illnesses where you buy a lot of prescription drugs worth thousands of dollars, between your second thousandth dollar you spend and the five thousandth dollar there is a gap in coverage. in other words you continue to pay the premiums for your prescription drug coverage but you get no assistance from the government. we, under the affordable care act, have closed that gap. we've already cut it in half, better than half over the next three or four years it will be eliminated entirely. we know the affordable care act is working. my state 100,000 young ohioans a little older than these pages between the ages of 20 and 26, 18 and 26, 100,000 ohioans are on their parents' health

insurance plans right now. they would be dropped from that coverage if the affordable care act were repealed. ohio seniors saved $65 million by that closing of the coverage gap, the so-called doughnut hold. $65 million in prescription drug costs, that would end. any of those savings would end. those with preexisting conditions would no longer be denied coverage or would be charged higher premiums. 700,000 ohioans 700,000 people in my state now have hirches -- health insurance that did not have health insurance five years ago. somebody if we repeal the affordable care act somebody's got to explain to those 700,000 people why they no longer have insurance, those 100,000 young people why they're getting dropped from coverage, those families like the woman from cincinnati whose, who would lose her insurance because her child has a preexisting condition. all the consumer protections that the affordable care act has been part of. last month i spoke with charles

mcglennen, a cincinnati residents who suffered from epilepsy and unable to work. after ohio chose to expand medicaid and i gof governor kasich credit for that, his health care was able to schedule surgery. thanks to this lifesaving coverage he has returned to work. isn't that what we want people to do? if people are ill, have been injured, if people are sick, don't we want to take care of them so they can return to work. mr. mcglennen never wanted to miss work but he had to. because of the c expansion of medicaid, because of the expansion of the affordable care act, because of the governor of ohio expanding affordable care act, people like charles mcglennen can go back to work and pay taxes. since its creation, medicaid has

been a joint federal and state program, provides free or low-cost health coverage to individuals. one of the key components of the affordable care act expands the eligibility and federal funding for medicaid. states were given the opportunity to expand medicaid to individuals with incomes up to 130% of the federal poverty level. many people on medicaid that are now in the expanded medicaid in ohio and kentucky and many, many other states, many of those people hold jobs just like those parents of children who are in the children's health insurance program, those 130,000 ohio children who now have insurance because of the children's health insurance program. their parents are working. those parents are working in places like wal-mart, in places like mcdonald's. they're making $8, $9 and $10 an hour. those companies generally don't provide health insurance and they don't pay wages high enough to be able to buy health insurance. what kind of society do you want

to be where people are working every bit as hard as all of us as u.s. senators work, every bit as hard with very little compensation without health insurance, generally without pensions, do we want to say we don't care about you? if you weren't smart enough or you weren't educated enough or lucky enough to get a good-paying job with insurance we're going to turn our backs on you. of course we should not be that kind of society. that is what the expansion of medicaid in ohio is about. that's what the affordable care act is about. this has been a savings -- the expansion of medicaid saved ohio about $350 million. it also helps ohioans who already have insurance. where people lack health insurance, someone has to pay for their car. as a result ohioans every year, and the presiding officer's state of colorado is not much different, ohioans spend over $2 billion on care for people who can't pay. it's a hidden tax for the insured, on the insured estimated to be about $1,000 for

insured families. prior to the affordable care act, somebody that goes to a hospital in denver, a hospital in cleveland or a hospital in dayton or a hospital in colorado springs or pueblo or youngstown, when they -- if they had insurance, they were often -- because those without insurance would go to those hospitals and get care, that's what we do -- we take care of people if they show up in an emergency room -- because they weren't paying, they were low-income, they were unemployed and they had no insurance, the cost of that treatment gets shifted on to those of us with insurance. so pretty much everybody economists say pretty much everybody pays about $1,000 additional for their health insurance because of the problems of the uninsured. when we expand medicaid, when we expand the affordable care act when we get people into the health exchanges it means that we're taking away, we're not charging people that $1,000 in tax.

so it saves those of us with insurance and ultimately it's better for taxpayers ultimately it's better for our health care system. and most importantly it's better for a healthier society. we should be helping ohioans gain health care, not cutting them off. that's the importance of expanding medicare or medicaid. i urge the ohio legislature to work with the governor to include medicaid expansion in the budget. i urge my colleagues here in this chamber to end their grand standing attacks on a law that's helping americans like charles mcglennen get the care they need. it helped him go back to work. it will help others live more healthy lives. it will help all of our communities. we should be helping ohioans gain health care, not cutting them off of health care. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings your honor the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i call for thing are order with respect to the motion to proceed to h.r. 2 h.r. 240. the presiding officer: the motion is pending. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, 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 the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, signed by 16

senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask that he had radioing of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as it made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 64 submitted earlier today u. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 64, designating february 2 through 6, 2015 as national school counseling week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will froatd measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until:30 a.m. wednesday -- until 9:30 a.m. wednesday february 4. following the prayer and pledge,

the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 12:30 equally divided with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, following morning business the senate recess until 2:00 p.m. to allow for the bipartisan conference meetings meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until forge

these bipartisan leaderships.ent, i >> mr. president, may i come to the floor to call for a vote against the motion to proceed the house homeland security funding bill. this is a shock for sen. barbara calls me to call for a vote against motion to proceed on an appropriations bill. for the last two years i have i have been on the floor speaking out pounding the table saying let's bring our bills, let's bring them up on the time. now why am i on the floor asking for a vote against motion to proceed? well, i can tell you it is because the homeland security bill has two parts. one, and essential bill, the funding for the department of homeland security, which

i hope we get to as expeditiously as possible. but they have another component to it, poison it poison pill writers five wires from the house of representatives designed to attack the president on immigration. of these if passed, will guarantee that the president will veto the bill, and bill and we we will be back to parliamentary ping-pong. we posture when.and vote, send it to the president. he will veto it. we will get we we will get into more posture and pomp and partisan. 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 pres., 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 both the house and the senate are under republican control. criticize the president for not acting. where is his lead? and when the president acts they want to punish them by adding poison pill writers to and essential, essential national security bill. colleagues say why are you seeking to delay the funding bill? i'm not seeking to delay the funding bill for my masking we put in a claim bill and vote on the money part. all of my democratic colleagues and i wrote a letter asking them to schedule a vote. the ranking member or subcommittee or homeland security and i put in a

claim bill. deserve -- preserve the debate. calling upon the house to do the job. 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 cyber security. we need them searching out. proud of the brilliant job that our homeland security provided to protect all of the people who so enjoy the super bowl. we have got a lot of work to do. in my own own home state we are dependent when the coast guard would protect us in terms of search and rescue her against drug

dealers, and what about our border patrol down they're every single day in dangerous circumstances. don't they deserve 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 the political party and its partisan points of immigration. our job our job is to protect the homeland of the united states of america. i am i am adamant about this. we are now four months into the fiscal year. we can be heading for i hope, not another continuing resolution. we need to stand up for america and americans are endangered at home and abroad. i know other colleagues are waiting to speak but we do face terrorist threats cyber threats, cyber criminals, secret service,

fence jumpers at the white house and drones over the white house, yet we we will dicker dicker, dicker dicker over five poison poison pill amendments. let's claim this out vote against the this out vote against the motion to proceed today, come back with the claim bill that sen. shaheen and i introduced. the money money has been agreed upon or both sides of the aisle, and both sides. the closing hours of the fiscal 14 debate working hand-in-hand with fashion of bill here in the senate and we have it agreed upon in the house so that we can do our jobs so that homeland security needs to do theirs. this ill-conceived notion to proceed. let's proceed to a claim bill, protect america and then get on with other important debates. i yield the floor. >> i am happy to follow my leader on the appropriations

committee. she and i know what it was like on september 11, 2,001. we were looking out the window down the mall and some black smoke billowing from the pentagon. we did not no what had happened but happened, but we were told immediately, evacuate this united states capitol building. i have never heard those words before. we raced out of the building standing on the lawn outside unaware of exactly what was happening. we knew about the tragedy but we did not no what was next and stood their in bewilderment thinking what we can do's mobile we did was protect ourselves and our nation and come together let us in seeing god bless america that evening on the steps of the united states.

the feeling of bipartisanship brought about by the tragedy. we did. i am proud of the role that senator from maryland played in that. one of the aspects rolling up our sleeves and deciding how to make our government work more effectively and we had two outstanding leaders in that effort senator lieberman of connecticut, collins of maine the waking -- ranking republican and democratic chair of that community came together and crafted a a bill to literally create a new department in our government the department of homeland security, the product together, i believe, 22 agencies, 22 agencies under one roof so that we could effectively coordinate keeping america safe. we agreed on a a bipartisan basis and created that department which has served as well. the current sec. is an outstanding individual.

so many areas of responsibility. other agencies play an important role but the department of homeland security is the coordinate department for america's safety against terrorism. that is 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. consistent in december in the house of representatives they want to enter into a debate with the president. there's nothing wrong with the debate over immigration policy. in fact the republicans now in majority control the house and senate did have started that debate weeks ago. the homeland security appropriations bill, and they said we we will not allow that department to be properly funded unless the president accepts these five

immigration writers. i writers. i want to speak to one because it really tells the story. fourteen years ago i introduced the dream act very basic. if you are brought to america as an infant toddler, child by her parents and you are undocumented america we believe you deserve a chance. many of these are people are undocumented, drawing up knowing finally that you did not have the necessary legal documentation to stay in this country. i introduced the dream act. act. for those kids you should not be held responsible for

anyone can, give them a chance. never enacted into law despite 14 years of good effort. the president said by executive order if their is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, is a complete high school, came hear as infants, toddlers, and children we will give them a chance to stay and work in america go to school in america. 2 million young people would qualify, 600,000 have gone through the process pay the filing fee have the protection and do not have to fear deportation. these are people are some of the most inspiring stories i have met. the house of representatives

has said they wanted to put the dreamers. they will not allow the department of homeland security to renew the protection from the partition, and they we will not allow any others to apply for protection. that that means 600,000 young people currently protected would be facing deportation another million and a half would be facing as well. if that is the answer of the republican party when it comes to immigration, take these children who have shown that they want to be part of america's future and deport them get rid of them. the republican.of view we have know use. well, let me introduce you to one of these are people. brought from pakistan.

she grew up in chicago. no memories except those living in the united states. i am an american in every way except on paper. an outstanding student who graduated in the top 10 percent of her high school class where she was secretary of the spanish club, the math team the member and a member of the national society of high school scholars. her dream was to be a dr.. they 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 ability

to change it. in january 2012 she graduated from rutgers university with a major in psychology. she was on the dean's list six times with a a grade.average of 3.75. psychology in the local cardiologist. she took the medical college admissions test after graduating magna cum laude from rutgers, mr. president, the mcats scoring in the 90th percentile, 1st -- her score is better than 90% of those to subject to test. shortly after she graduated from rutgers she was told that pres. obama had an executive order that gave her a chance to stay in america. she applied and was accepted. it meant that now the 1st time she could honestly think about going to medical school. she has never received any

government assistance as an undocumented person in america she does not qualify it is a considerable challenge and hardship. she never did. she said i went from feeling hopeless and full of uncertainty regarding my future to feeling confident and optimistic that one day i might get the opportunity. and then something amazing happened. at at loyola university in chicago after the president's executive order decided that they would create ten spots ten spots in they're medical school for doctoral students around america. she applied. i got i got to go to loyola the data started classes and met ten of them.

she is an amazing young woman an extraordinary academic achievement in her life and she is surrounded by those just like her. protected by president obama's executive order. serve in underserved areas. they gladly agree. they are going for the enrichment of a profession. that is where she yesterday. i want to thank loyola university forgiving her and nine others is chance.

the opportunity to serve those in america who have no doctors. the house republicans want to deport this chairwoman. that is what they have said. we don't believe she should stay in america. after all she has accomplished in her life, after all the she promises to bring to our great country, the republicans have said know. we don't need you call what you believe. that. that is what they say on the department of homeland security. i come to this floor virtually every day and tell another story like the story i'm a, the story of what she has been through and the policy as she holds out for the future of this country. i 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 and. some of the things they have

said about these dreamers are sad. i got a chance to meet them and i will continue to work for them. so them. so let's do this pass a clean department of homeland security bill. take off take off the writers, take up the political extraneous things and pass a bill to fund the department that gives america safe. and then turned turned to the majority party, the republican majority party. if you want to debate immigration bring it to the floor of the senate and the house. it is 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. immigrant immigrant stock has made this the greatest country on earth. let's let's continue that tradition. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the senator from vermont.

>> i see the senator from new jersey mr. president it has been discussed that the senate will vote on whether it should proceed to a bill. addressing the broken immigration system. now, in doing that it appears the wants to hold hostage the operation of the department of homeland security and office charged with protecting socials -- national security. that is simply irresponsible. sometimes the sense of

history around here is what was the last soundbite 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 or republicans coming together in the senate approved a package of comprehensive immigration reform. we did this after the senate judiciary committee had held hundreds of hours of hearings debates in markup. we passed it here. overwhelmingly. the republican leadership the speaker of the the house refused to even allow a vote on the measure even though most of it would have passed now because they would not act at all leaving it all in

the void the president acted because they did not and because the president acted when he had waited 1st a couple of years to see if congress were act the house of representatives to take up the bill, he had to act and because it is almost alice in wonderland the republican refuses to act on the immigration bill and then get mad because the president has to take responsibility. they now want to put at risk the very operations that the agency charges in forcing the immigration laws in

question to blame it on the president because they fail to act. i mean, this is alice in wonderland. i know republicans object to the president's executive action. they like they like to get involved in everything whether it involves the issue were not. we spent hours hearing the 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, and cameras, and it went on until the cameras were turned off. well i would say, instead of complaining about what they fail to do in complaining about the president does to protect this country, why don't they offer meaningful solutions to appropriate immigration system? the president's executive action is a a positive step toward keeping the committee state -- the committee safe. it encourages immigrants with long-standing ties to our committee who do not pose a danger to register

with the government, come out of the shadows. house republicans have said they're proposal holsters bore her border security in the way the president's executive action did not. of course those claims are not realities. border security has become my game of who can develop the most outlandish, unrealistic goals. around-the-clock road surveillance, waiving all environmental laws. requiring dhs prevent every last undocumented person from crossing the southern border. these proposals are not serious, serious, did not work in the past, and will not work now. at least we have a choice, we can set aside politics and act like grown-ups only can waste days on legislation which the president has made clear that he we will veto.

i suggest that we respond to the american people, act like grown-ups, introduced legislation. that bill that bill which was negotiated last year by senate and house members democrats, republicans alike would ensure the department of homeland security has the critical resources it needs to protect the national interest. it funds the largest operation force of border patrol agents and cbp officers in history. it it provides resources to respond quickly when natural disasters devastate our states and communities and provide funding for the essential services provided by the coast guard, secret service. all of our states, including rural border states like vermont.

support our state and local law enforcement, fire departments, and 1st responder emergency services what it does is replaces rhetoric with reality. i think the american people are tired of rhetoric and would like some reality. we we all know our immigration system needs comprehensive reform which is why i held hundreds of hours of hearings from markups and the judiciary committee and why the senate came together and passed a comprehensive immigration bill. i am so sorry that the house republican leaders refuse to bring it up even while their is a vote to pass it. the president took the 1st step. fine. but this appropriation bill is not the place for that debate. have a real debate on immigration. we cannot send the message

that we are more willing to play politics and promoting protect national security. that posturing is beneath the senate. we should pass a clean funding bill for the department of homeland security renew our effort to enact meaningful immigration reforms such as those passed by the senate in 2013. i ask it be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> once again i think the distinguished senator from new jersey for yielding. >> mr. president discuss always discussed by the previous two senators, the senators, the urgent need for a clean bill.

>> the attack. but people pull together 1st responders from new jersey all over new york and all over the country come together. and what we did emergencies, crises, disasters. what has happened from that unity evidenced by this body join together the steps and working 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 of the united states. there is way too much is daycare. let me give you a few examples. something we have learned from past attacks, the urgency of coordinating between different layers of law enforcement and 1st responders. well, if we do not pass a clean cr resources for that coordination, getting everyone working together will be put at risk. let me give you another example. it is it is critical in this day in a set technologically we stay on the cutting edge one step ahead of those people who seek us -- seek to do us harm him. we see clearly that if we do not get a clean bill passed we we will not be able to stay on that technological edge and we see that in many areas. one great example is in our ports. critical technological

equipment. upgrades that can help us to make sure that we detect nuclear devices or materials coming to our country. we won't have those resources. the past few months about cyber attack a critical agency that must be funded appropriately to protect our businesses and our infrastructure in they're 1st responder capability to not fund this agency adequately is unacceptable. we are americans, and this idea of unifying together is our strength. we stand united against attacks, and if we do it right as we have learned

proper events for performance. as we have seen, weakness is exposed. as we go into a presidential election to provide adequate security and protection for the next potential president, and of this harms our businesses as well. the e-verify system which we need to make sure that people who are being hired by my companies do not have things in the background that would undermine our security. those symptoms as well. well. this is an example where petty politics and recklessness is about people policy command reason.

we as a nation who hosted in unity after the most horrifying attack to have seen a world where ebola and cyber attacks, a world where vicious weather events like sandy, 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 to offer 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 strengthen the security of our country. mr. president the critically

most important part of our own government to provide for the common defense this is the time to bring us together, not together, not have a swap rate every bit of washington that people have grown tired and sick of let us pass a clean bill as a bipartisan group of former secretary of homeland security. this is not a time for recklessness. it is a time for reason. it is not a time for petty politics. it is time to put people 1st. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> 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 government, passing an appropriations bill for a vital part of the government

and it is also important to address and debate and vote head on on president obama's illegal executive advocacy which she announced last december that were to give basically amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens with no basis whatsoever in statutory law. in fact, statutory law is opposed to the sort of executive action. now, i find it ironic the very same members, the very same party and ideology that is constantly beating the drum about for god sakes we can't shut down the government apparently preparing to vote against even moving to the spending bill which is necessary to fund a vital a vital form of government. it makes no sense. we need to move to the spending bill debate

debate it, act on it not moved to the spending bill is a vote for government shutdown. 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 will they're we will be amendments offered available to be debated and voted upon to do anything and everything with regard to this bill. the house the house put several policy provisions in the spending bill including those that i agree with light defunding this unconstitutional executive advocacy from december. i i agree and support that and certainly will vote to support it.

but the.is, they're we will be plenty of opportunities to vote on that we we will have an open debate as we should hear on the senate floor. let's move to this vital spending bill. let's not let's not threaten to shut down government. let's have a debate hear on the floor, and let's vote. vote. that is what we were elected to to represent our constituents, to debate major issues of the day which certainly include the president's executive amnesty i can only come to one conclusion you ask for

the job and he got it. do our job, which means putting the country's business on the floor of the senate. moving on with this essential spending bill that is the responsible thing to do do, and then i will strongly support the provision in the bill that the house enacted, including biting the presidency illegal executive amnesty. with regard to that, mr. pres., this is an important matter for two reasons. first reasons. first of all i believe this executive amnesty is really bad policy that we will grow the problem, not solve it. a fundamental role in life

is that when you reward something you get more than common unless. it is it is true of our tax code in in parenting. we are rewarding illegal crossings, warning that flow of illegal immigrants. and so we are rewarding after the president's executive amnesty. it is only going to produce more of it. that is my 1st objection. it is a bad idea and it we will grow the problem, not decrease it. my 2nd objection is even more fundamental. i believe i believe this action is clearly way beyond the president's executive authority way beyond his true powers under the constitution. as spring court has said many times that their is nothing that congress as more clear straightforward powers regarding that

immigration policy and certainly includes anything like a major amnesty. what the president did is not filling in the blanks of statutory law, executing statutory law but acting completely contrary to all sorts of statutory law. statutory law is clear, on the books, has been passed through a valid process and is clear that folks who enjoy the country illegally break the law are hear illegally, subject illegally, subject to removal and cannot work in the country legally. in contrast to that clear to -- clear statutory law pres. obama versus giving them authorization to stay here for at least three years. secondly, he is handing them and document that he is making up out of thin air called work permits, giving them authority to work even though that is clearly contrary to statutory law given the means by which they each of the country.

we need to put that issue that topic to be directly on this floor and debate and act on that as well. mr. pres., as i i suggested, the only way we do any of that is to take a 1st responsible vote and put the house spending bill on the senate floor. to vote otherwise is to block unnecessary spending bill, to basically threatened shutting down part of the government and to avoid responsibility in terms of debating and voting on the major issues of the day, to deal directly with that. i urge all of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to put this necessary bill on the floor and then we we will have an open and a full 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 we will act. that is all we should do. that is all we were elected to do. thank you and i yield the floor. >> dissented from iowa. >> elections and are in our representative form of government are supposed to have consequences and if they do not their is not much.in having elections. one one of the issues in the most recent election for congress was the promise of people running to office to overcome the president's constitutional actions particularly what particularly what he didn't immigration but on a lot of other things as well. so the bill that we have before us is a demonstration a demonstration on the part of people who were victorious in that last election to deliver on the promises of that election.

obviously i am hear at this time to speak of 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 effort to move ahead. in in doing so i want to discuss what we are doing. it is built is no unilateral actions that the president has taken with respect to the country's immigration laws in doing it without congressional approval or scrutiny. it is 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. .. 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 pre >> >> however the rule of law in our country has been slowly eroded away but the current administration is not the only culprit. this administration has expedited its erosion more than others. that is the basis for the president to say if congress

won't, i have a pen and a phone and i will. so let me explain this erosion under article two of the constitution the president shall take care that the laws me faithfully executed" end quote. this is not a permissive clause to taken choose which she will enforce the article uses the mandatory shall which requires him to enforce all laws. however the president has not done that and has taken the attitude he is above the law and is not required to obey it. just in the last couple years we have seen president obama completes disregard for laws passed by congress rather than enforcing the affordable care act he rewrote the deadlines prescribed by law a and as the enforced of controlled substance act and has

allowed them to open the 85 federal lot. 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 of the constitution and in that regard he was is overruled by two members that he appointed to the supreme court in that decision that says only congress can decide when a house is in session and the president cannot say that they are not in session to make recess appointments. in other words, with the constitution says is what it

says. so he took constitutional action for those appointments into the drastic step of changing immigration laws on the books without authority approval of congress. when the president acts in contravention to though law he sets an example of the future president who expands for the policies they don't agree with. and send some message it is written by the legislative branch are not important thereby removing it reducing faith in the rule of law. of the founders understood the serious dangers of investing all powers of our government in a single body and the interested that because the revolution was all about colonists' being

sick and tired of one man, ed george crumb act three so under the doctrine of the constitution dividing power among three bridges of government so one person could not we george the third they gave all powers to the president or all judicial powers to the judicial branch nobody of government may exercise the powers of other bodies of the government separation of power is fundamental to the constitution of the united states. at the same time the declaration of independence with certain unalienable rights. just last week during the nomination hearings we had

an outstanding professor at george washington law school that testified '' the separations of power at the core of our constitutional system and was designed not is a protection of the powers of the bridges but a protection of liberty because we are in doubt by our creators with certain unalienable rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". the same body new not matter how large or small would be tyrannical lake teetwelve. however president obama has overreached the limits of his constitutional authority with the separation of power

the executive branch action took with respect to immigration laws is only the most recent if not the most pervasive of legislative actions he has taken under the proposition that i can do almost anything that congress is not doing that i want them to do. the president has supported those laws in order to implement the policy that he wants. contrary to the laws of the books the actions would give people across 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 rights to work the president's actions expanded the program he created without congressional approval of the deferred action for childhood of rivals or the

deferred action of parents of united states citizens and lawful permanent residents or the teethree program. under the constitution only congress has the authority to create these types of programs that grant the lawful status to people to come here and documented. congress has a responsibility to write laws, not the president. i remind my colleagues congress considered a lot that looked like the teethree program but it never passed so what has the president done? he has enacted a law that congress had rejected. the president justifies his actions that congress has failed but that does not give him the license to act

on his own. womack our government requires compromise to function. it goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a nation less intense to get done but such division is no license to go above as the president has suggested''. the genius of our government is allows for the collection of ideas and opinions it allows these ideas to work together to find common ground. once that is reached the laws are enacted. they're president does not represent that many different views of the country but obviously congressman from all over this geographical area member present those views. there are elected by the people directly in the there is a disagreement in congress how immigration should be handled that meet

sarah is disagreement in the country out immigration should be handled. the president cannot imagine everyone agrees with his plan is the best plan purpose is the job of congress to find compromises to solutions that most people can agree with them particular right here in the united states senate where it takes 60 votes to pass legislation. this is where a consensus is build with only 46 to aircraft and 56 republicans there has to be a consensus to get anything done. he also uses the ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion. but while he does have that authority to decide whether to prosecute or allocate resources that is not unlimited. the president's actions go far beyond prosecutorial

discretion and that is exercise case by case a lawful prosecutor is not excluding entire categories to tell them that going for were the law will not be applied. >> the senator's time is expired. >> that would ask unanimous consent to proceed for a minute. >> without objection. >> in addition lawful prosecutorial to reward illegal behavior to confer substantive benefits to those who have violated the law but under individuals who have entered without inspection or overstayed the ibiza unlawfully now will get work permits and social security numbers, driver's license, and planning and

education opportunities, and many of their benefits afforded to only those who abide by the lot. further the president argues because the department doesn't have sufficient resources he is excusing -- executing the most dangerous aliens for better security of our country but yet the reality is that fiscal year 201,336,000 criminal aliens were released and what is more a report just issued by homeland's security reveals 1,000 of those criminal aliens have gone on to commit further crimes so the president is not even doing what he says he is doing instead of removing criminals from our country as required by law he just releases back into the community to commit further crimes to jeopardize public safety.

no matter how the president paints the picture here is immigration is the use of constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law with an overreach under the separation of powers congress has several tools to do check the president to trade him in when he operates outside the constitution. among those tools is the power of the purse. congress appropriates funds it has the authority to dictate how those may be used if he exceeds the limits of his executive authority to have an illegal program like teethree congress has the power to defund such a program so the part of komen securities bill is a check of the executive branch when

elections are supposed to have consequences this is our way to show the american people we carry out a campaign promise to make sure the president does not actively and constitutional way and abused his authority so i asked my colleagues to take this under serious consideration to vote in favor or against to proceed to this bill. i yield the floor. >> marty business is close. under the previous order the senate will proceed with that consideration h.r. 203 which the clerk will report. >> snack to direct the secretary of veterans affairs for the conduct of the annual evaluations of mental health care and suicide prevention and programs and broader purposes. >> under the previous order until 12 noon will be equally divided in the usual

form. >> the senator from alabama. >> i would ask consent to speak in morning business up to 10 minutes. >> without objection. >> i think senator grassley for his remarks with the judiciary committee a longtime advocate in the senate he was your to solve the problems of the 1986 amnesty and i believe we will listen to senator grassley understanding of what really is at stake we would be in better shape than we are today. the american people want to lawful system of immigration for immigrants that want to come to america but not for eliminating immigration but

a system that allows people to apply if they are qualified to be admitted then if they don't not be admitted. they want that in force and they don't believe we should have open borders were opened visa programs to allow people by the millions to become unlawfully into this country. the president obviously has a different view of that and we have a situation where the constitution is at stake in a lot of ways. moving forward with a common security bill it was passed by the house of representatives finds the department of homeless and security. the basic funding mechanism with allocations as of monday in that legislation was approved a bipartisan basis.

the house of representatives simply said the money that was in the homeland security funding mechanism that money will be spent for a lawful purpose to secure the homeland in the effective way. that money however will not be spent by anyone to do something in outside the limitations and powers but that is what the president wanted to do their executive action. he has created and is now establishing across the river in crystal city, the new building they have leased with 1,000 new federal employees and they

are processing the applications for up to 5 million people providing those people with photo id id, they are unlawfully in the country and not lawfully allowed to work in america and businesses and not allowed to higher people that are not lawfully here. they're not eligible to qualify for social security or medicare. so the president has declared he will set up the office, they will process the individuals they will provide up to 5 million photo ids, and 5 million social security numbers and the right to work in america. there will be allowed to participate in social security and medicare and he says i am entitled to do that. he is not.

as caller after scholar and common sense tells us the president does not have that power. so that is what this is about the activity that the president asked congress to allow him to do and congress rejected. his proposal was presented and congress refused to pass it. so he does it anyway. is a very ghent overreach as a direct challenge with the american system. now our democratic colleagues say they don't want controversial immigration writers on the bill. so they want the congress the united states to do what

it is required to do do from the program that needs to be funded not for those that it doesn't believe that should be funded so as a matter of policy it does not support what the president wants to do and in fact, has prohibited. to allow the president to spend money to advocate a program they don't approve of or certainly one and the colleagues are blocking to the bill to fund homeland's security to the level the president has asked. there is a policy change your.

there was a headline in the washington and "new york times" today there's betty the idea so with:security is disrupting with controversies of mechanisms so in that article of "the new york times" democrats looked through protect immigration directives. that is exactly what this is about. mcauley says said they don't agree with the policy of the president of executive amnesty to provide work permits at least seven have

explicitly said that. they are to protect president obama directory. back during the campaign last fall they did not agree with it but now when it hits the floor to not fund the unlawful policy they stick together to protect old dogmas immigration and directives this is a bad thing and disappointing the article goes on to say to force the republican majority to drop the erasure

provision to send a spending bill to the president. is spending $40 billion of a homeland security. not allowing any of it to be an approved policies the absolute power that congress had. and violating the fundamental duty to allow the president to carry out powers he is not authorized to visit ports and fund's actions about a president of the al lot. >> but to shut down the

debate of the measure altogether fearful it could lead to the bill's approval and final negotiations to put the added disadvantage. with that process to lead to the bill's approval through negotiations with the house. isn't that what legislation is all about? shed and our colleagues have the right to if they don't like the right to restrict the unlawful act? offer the amendment to strip out. they have that ability to strike the language. why don't they do that? their blocking even moving to the bill in its entirety. to look through the looking

glass they said that republicans are shutting down homeland's security. so also does this fund the department of romance security that we agree upon on a bipartisan basis of $40 million. the answer is clear what "the new york times" said to protect president hamas political immigration directives. isn't a good idea to protect the constitution? is a lot to protect united states of america or our duty to protect america's workers from the decline in wages now to legalize

5 million people? to is a getty jobs whatsoever including the county commission the power company isn't that what the duty is? >> for the president wants congress to appropriate money to give him all lan security so he could spend it to undermine the lot of the night is states of america. what unthinkable that is the fundamentally that is what happened. for this congress not to follow its promises to the american and people are constitutional duty but to

carry out day paula c. and contradiction to the laws of the united states of america. this is the way we do business in this country. so i think the democrat colleagues don't want to move to the bill is because they don't want to debate. but no one to debate that substance because the position is untenable. but congress is not shutting down the government or homeland security to push off the legislation to fund, and security and the president is encouraging

them and has twisted dollars or something that only seven members said they did not agree. and more would have had they were asked. but now they stand together with senator reid the leader of the senate they all stand to gather to advocate this policy. to save time and again that some of how congress is acting improper not funding homeland security. this is through the looking glass. in "the new york times" said it directly i don't believe the media buys the argument with the american people buy it and congress should not

buy it. the right thing to do is i know many if you are not easy about this but said to develop in a way to support and we will protect the lawful constitutional powers of congress to fund homeland security that strength is the rule of law in america. those that rightfully have demanded in congress and the politicians are now over 40 years. that is a problem. with those friends and

relatives and neighbors that emigrated to america we're not against immigrants. but with that willful refusal i would just say one more thing. american wages are down and then falling $0.5 per hour after reword told everything is getting so much better. and then how many we can take with a limited number of jobs and falling wages the lowest percentage of americans in the work force since the 1970's. you can't check -- except everybody in the whole world

we just had a report produced yesterday there is another 5 million people that looks like of lawfully admitted to work in the country with the freedom of information act it was discovered that 1 million people per year, with green cards have permanent residency we have 700,000 guest workers to come every year with refugees but what they found out now that in the last five years under this administration and a given work authorization with 5 million more people than anybody needs. you don't think this impacts people's wages?

impacts' women to have the better job. somebody needs to think about this. to create an awful system will need to be less concerned about protecting president obama directive said more concerned to protect the interests of the american working person. i yield the floor

success in the awards are the best magazine essays of the year with journals over the land gore in a skier magazine. is touring christmas and new year's to step back to not even read newspaper articles but to step back to look is something deeper and longer and i do believe magazine's change history and a really did change history and a voice for moderation liberalism.

and david of voice. >> next the inauguration ceremony for a the first to governor in the state of texas in 40 years. end at the state's capital of austin the 25 minute ceremony comes to us courtesy of k abc-tv. [cheers and applause] >> date you so very much.

let me welcome everybody here to the people's capital of the great state of texas teefive texas is so great we say the pledge of allegiance twice. [laughter] lt. governor dan patrick can speaker soused -- other forward to working with both of you as we continue to elevate tax is higher than it has ever been before. teefive to members of the texas senate and members of the texas house, to all

elected officials and most especially to all of my fellow texans to the governor of the greatest state an indebted states of america. teefive for 48 years we the people have place our trust that i am humbled to succeed along with his wife evita he has been a faithful steward of the miracle that is texas. and thanks to rick perry for

his unwavering leadership for this great state teefive --. [applause] so what brought me to this point today could not have been traveled alone. today with so many people started with the woman h.j. towards and character my beautiful wife cecilia. something special about texas is we are a blending of cultures from across the globe.

but my wife represents an ad as she has now made texas history as the first hispanic first lady and the history of the great state of texas. and we share this very special day with their daughter audrey. [applause] it is through your eyes that we see the promise of the next generation of texas. [applause] i am honored to be the texas

governor. of the title that makes the -- matters the most to be is dad. i am proud to be your dad. [applause] family is everything to us. shown by the legions of family members here today. i do want all of them to know how grateful i am for your love and support. i do want to recognize my father-in-law. [applause] and perhaps the most famous

mother-in-law in texas. [laughter] [cheers and applause] also to recognize gary abbott. [applause] but also a retired commander of the united states navy where he served for 20 years in the most powerful military in the history of the world. [applause] the south take you to every man and woman with us and has ever worn a uniform of

the united states military. their extraordinary service to celebrate even some of democracy like we celebrate today. but for me, a face it. this moment was highly improbable during this month in 30 years ago i obeyed in a hospital bed recovering from injuries that broke my back that left me for ever and able to walk.

that journey from that houston hospital to the governorship was possible with the two powerful forces which is first the grace of god cop cop. [applause] the book of matthew reminds us that with god all things are possible. i am reminded of this that i eat here in churches across the texas untitled you raised via. so i can stand on mountains. you raise me up to walk on stormy seas.

i am strong when i am on your shoulders. you raise the debt to more than i can be. as i start my governorship by homily ask god think for his continued grace and guidance and i assure you that we will never forget we are one nation under god. [applause] the other force that brought me to this inauguration to have the good fortune to live in the great state of texas.

texas is the place where the improbable becomes the possible that you realize many people thought it would be improbable that texans would overcome the total devastation at the alamo. in the ideal dean drive to help them go on to achieve victory. for of the legend that texas has become. so to start humbly but who's succeeded spectacularly.

where a boy like day and don't kid who'd grew up dirt for in texas started a business with just two trucks and $10,000. to be executive assistant to one of the most powerful women in america as president of southwest airlines and where a 13 year-old lagerfeld of immigrants from mexico for tonight's in a drapery factory but never gave up on her dreams.

and now the first latino justice on the supreme court of texas, cop. [applause] and tex is is where another mother from wichita chose to stay in rome to instill the values that were important. although she is in heaven today with my dad. in the inspired her son to become the 48th governor of texas cop cop. [applause]

these stories are the promise of texas. they're not the exception because our state truly is exceptional i am living proof that we live in the state were a young man's life can literally be broken in half to be governor of this great state teefourteen [applause] as governor i will ensure that has that brand of opportunity for every single texan it truly is the land of opportunity. the place where anyone can

achieve absolutely anything. but there is more we must do. for our towns that our thirsty for water or for parents who fear their children are falling behind in schools. and searching for skilled workers? more for our veterans to richard broken from battle.

and we must do more for the millions of texans to see the state sovereignty to be ignored by a federal government that refuses to secure our borders. [cheers and applause] i will ensure to keep texas growing. en will build more roads in texas. [applause] n] to speed up the native water project and i will ensure that we secure our borders any government

that uses the guise of fairness to rob us of our freedoms will get a uniquely tax in response. time and take it. [applause]

don't get me wrong we're not spoiling for a fight but the will not shrink from one when the cause is right. [applause] for far too long washington has tried to remake america in its image in texas we offer a different approach. we don't put our trust in government, we put our trust in the people. [applause] and we will never forget the government is the servant of the people, not the other way around as governor, and

i will ensure that we keep texas number one in the nation for job creation. [applause] we will promote policies that limit the growth of government, not the size of your dreams. yet we all know that there are too many who live on the fringe of opportunity for them there is no solace of number one rankings to touch their lives and i am talking about our children to live in broken homes and children

who are stuck in broken schools. on this point we cannot be captive to partisan arguments because our children transcend the politics in this state. if we are dead leader of job creation rate must become a leader to educate our children when you think about it because of the military might states are different because of our mental might. texas should be the source

of the greatest minds the country has ever known. they will not be bolted buy a cookie cutter approach to teaching. [applause] instead to be the product of great teachers to recognize the product of value of each and every student we will educate the students and to build the grueling job market to keep texas the economic engine of united states of america. with us here today is one of those teachers. my english teacher from duncanville high school

school, nancy nickel. [applause] tgv far more than how to read and write she taught me how to reach for retrieves. thank-you this is nickel and all the tremendous teachers we have here in the great state of texas. there truly is no place like texas. we will assure that remains just as true for the next generation as it does for those here today. just take a moment and

actually look we were sitting or standing. the ground beneath your feet is far more than pavement or grass. it is the soil that centuries ago pour a host of the dreams of settlers who risked all to come to a land that promised freedom and opportunity. scripture teaches us the tribulations perseverance have perseverance, a character and character help. taxes are filled with hope because our lives have been abused with the perseverance and character from a the

tribulation from those that came before us said we must make sure that this hallowed ground stirs the hopes and dreams of those to be sure we keep taxes on a path that from years for now it will spend on this very ground as a grateful to this generation as we are to past generations. we must do more than just to find common ground to solve our problems we must seek higher ground to elevate texas even more as a leader in this world. because as goes texas so

goes america and as those america so goes the world. [applause] so we have to take the lead here in texas amarillo to do it all pass so we must work together to ensure that even the future is bigger in texas. may god bless each and every one of you and bake gone forever plus the great state of texas. [cheers and applause]

. .