to what people react to with incentives i would like to say the pressure of the private sector right now also helps because they're moving in this direction with how they negotiate their payments. >> you think it could be more than a few percent? >> i think that depends on which incentives you are using so those details matter. >> braddish 2016 you can say 30% direct the alternative model only shifting and water to%? that is not interesting to us because we are penalized all the time so we want the

country to move as fast as possible it is better care for the patient we don't want to lose doctors in the northwest because they're paid us because they are more efficient so we hope that is the incentive that moves people with those previous discussions that basically you will move that glacial pace but to move so slowly you are continuing to reward bad behavior. >> a secondary goal that is not covered. . .

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president yesterday, our friends across the aisle blocked -- filibustered really, a funding a $40 billion funding bill that would have paid the funds necessary to keep the department of homeland security up and running through the rest of this fiscal year. now, i understand that they had some differences over the content of the legislation that the house passed, but it's undenial that the house acted responsibly by passing a -- this appropriation bill, particularly in a time of heightened security concerns not only here at home

but around the world. and of course the part that, i guess, confused me the most is our democratic friends said well we don't want to debate the bill, but what we want is a clean d.h.s. appropriation bill. so they wanted to get to the end of the process without even starting the process which strikes me as odd. as i pointed out last week during the senate debate on the keystone x.l. pipeline, senator durbin from illinois, the assistant minority leader, spoke very sincerely in support of a process surrounding that bill. we didn't all agree that the keystone pipeline bill should be passed but we did at least have an open amendment process that allowed everyone to express their point of view and to get votes on amendments, up or down, before concluding that piece of

legislation. of course, this was something that i think the most notable part of that was that we actually had more votes in the united states senate during the three weeks we were on the keystone x.l. pipeline than we had all of last year under the previous management. so it was amazing to me that -- to see that the democratic leadership the senate minority, worked so hard to marshall their caucus together to block debate on this $40 billion appropriation bill to fund the department of homeland security. especially considering the promise of the senator from illinois to continue to work with us to foster an open debate process and an open opportunity on both sides of the aisle to offer good ideas and to put them up for a vote on how to improve legislation. it was also amazing to see this

outcome, considering what so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last fall when the president made his executive action on immigration. again, i said yesterday and i want to repeat it again, we are not upset with people who are seeking a better life here in the united states. all we're asking for is a legal process. we are very upset with the president violating his oath of office and purporting to make unconstitutional executive orders. that is the problem and that is what the house is focused on like a laser. the fact is this president's actions were a stunning display of executive overreach. you don't have to take my word for it. take his word for it. at least the first 22 times that he talked about it. he said he didn't have the authority to do it 22 different

times. and then there is the view of some of our colleagues in the minority. for example the senior senator from west virginia put it simply last november when he expressed i think the feeling of a lot of democrats when he said i wish he wouldn't do it. this was echoed also in a very straightforward manner by the junior senator from minnesota who said i have concerns about executive action. and of course it's easy to understand why because this is a uniquely legislative responsibility and the president doesn't have authority to make laws on his own. at least he's -- that used to be his position. and then the senior senator from missouri said of the president's unilateral action, she said -- quote -- how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable and i think it probably makes most missourians uncomfortable. well the public opinion polls

i've seen bear that comment out that while many people think that we do need to fix our broken immigration system, the majority of people in the public opinion polls i have seen disagree with the way the president has tried to act by doing this unilaterally or purporting to do it unilaterally. well, i have good news for senator mccaskill senator franken, senator manchin. the house of representatives has actually passed a piece of legislation that addresses their concerns and should give them some comfort. the legislation we're trying to open debate on fully funds as i said the department of homeland security while reigning -- reining in the president's unconstitutional actions. this is one of the tools available to the united states congress using these legislative riders on appropriation to in effect express disapproval and defund certain acts by the

executive. that's one of the tools we have available to us. i will renew my request to senator reid, the democratic leader from yesterday and ask the assistant minority leader to honor his commitment that he made when we were debating the keystone x.l. pipeline. please work with us to achieve at least debate on the floor if not some significant legislation, but to just throw a fit and say we refuse to even start debate on the legislation strikes me as more of a political move than it is a legislative solution. so i'd ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who so boldly stood up to express their concerns with the president's executive actions only a few short months ago to again stand up this time to their own

leadership and to join us in reining in the president's executive overreach and to not hold hostage the $40 billion that the house has appropriated to help fund the department of homeland security through the end of the fiscal year, through september 31. if there are parts of the house bill that you don't like -- and there are parts of the house bill that i have concerns over and that i hope we have a chance to vote on -- that that's the way the senate and the house are supposed to relate to one another. the house passes legislation the senate passes legislation and if they are different then they get reconciled in a conference committee or through a ping-pong back and forth before they go to the president. but to just throw a fit and say we refuse to do our job of legislating, just because you don't like where we're starting to me is extraordinarily

counterproductive and is an unfortunate return to the dysfunction that i believe the voters repudiated in their vote on november 4. so we'll see whether there is a different point of view. i know the majority leader, senator mcconnell will come back to the floor and ask to reconsider the vote yesterday and so it will be another opportunity for our friends across the aisle to reconsider their vote, blocking even beginning considering this legislation, and i hope they will reconsider and join us in trying to come up with a consensus solution. mr. president, on another note, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and

that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president with that i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president. mr. cornyn: i'm sorry. i will withhold. i didn't see my friend from missouri here, so i will withhold that request. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to follow up on what the majority whip has been talking about. clearly, the country is and should be concerned by the president's unilateral executive action on immigration. he announced this action november 20 of last year. the majority whip has already gone down that list of a number of our colleagues on the other side who said this is the wrong way to do this. the house happens to agree. in fact, the house of representatives has passed legislation that agrees that this is the wrong way to do it and try to come up with a

remedy. frankly, mr. president if there is a better remedy, you're not going to find that better remedy if you don't have a debate. you're not going to find that better remedy if you don't come to the floor and say here's how we think that bill should be changed. this clearly -- the action taken last november by the president was clearly an executive overreach. it was an affront i believe to the rule of law and it was an affront to the constitution. article 2 section 3 of the constitution states that the president quote shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that's the end of the quote right out of the constitution, but it couldn't be clearer. shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that's why we call the president the executive. the president's job is not to make the law. the president's job is not to rule as a court would on the law. the president's job is to

execute the law. the question here is does the law matter or not. the question here is what do we do when the house of representatives has passed a spending bill that would allow the funding for the u.s. department of homeland security for the rest of the fiscal year, between now and september 30, their bill does try to stop president obama's executive amnesty plan. many people, it appears if you believe what people have said, a substantial majority of the senate agrees that the president shouldn't have done what he did. what's our obligation to try to undo that? the house has done their part by sending a bill over that does that. the president himself said 22 times that he didn't have the authority to do what he eventually did. i guess this is one case where i agree with the president 22 times. if anybody's thinking i don't

agree with the president here's 22 times i agree with the president that 22 times he said he can't do or couldn't do what he eventually decided to do. and what was that? the president said he can't unilaterally change the country's immigration laws. he didn't have that authority the 22 times he said he didn't have that authority. he didn't have that authority on november 20, thowrt, when he took -- november 202014 when he took actions not to enforce the law and he doesn't have that authority now. the house sent a bill over that tries to clarify that the president doesn't have that authority. the legislative branch of the federal government is the house of representatives and the senate of the united states. it's not whoever gets to act last. occasionally the president will say i'm going to take executive action if the congress doesn't do its job. well the key point there is

it's the job of the congress to pass laws, not the job of the president. if the president wants to repeal the law, if the president wants to change the law nobody is in a better position than the president of the united states to encourage the congress and the country to do that. but that doesn't mean the president has that default option, if the congress doesn't act by some certain date, i'll just do it myself. that is not in the constitution. the president's is not going to find it, i continue to believe the house-passed funding bill is the way to send a message to the president that he can't act unilaterally that there is a constitutional way to do this. i've not given up on winning over six democrats in the senate that clearly we need. everybody understands the importance of 60 votes in the senate and there are 54 republicans, not 60. but there are more than six

democrats who said they didn't agree with what the president did. i think in all cases they say we agree with the funding levels, or we would vote for the funding levels for the department of homeland security. it seems to me those two things come together pretty nicely. you get a chance by debating this bill to undo what the president did and to fund the department of homeland security. there are at least six democrats who said that those are two different things that they are for. well, this is a case where we get to do that. we need to do this by passing the house measure that ensures spending at an important time, with critical needs of homeland security. but it also would stop the president's illegal amnesty. we should not let that stand. you don't know where these legislative fights wind up until

you have them. maybe that's why no democrat yesterday was willing to have this debate. because maybe they don't know what happens if really the attention is called to the past positions they have had or the need to fund the department of homeland security, but you don't know how these legislative battles work out if you don't have them. i think we need to have this one. leader mcconnell said our first choice is to try to pass the house bill. mr. president, if the law shouldn't be followed, advocate it be repealed, advocate it be changed. don't advocate that it be ignored. the ignore clause of the constitution doesn't exist. there is no ability of the executive to do that. the united states is a nation founded on rule of law. every trade agreement we enter into all our relationships with other countries people who come here we talk about this is a

country where you can look at the law and rely no matter what your status is on the law itself. the president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. yet, president obama repeatedly has found ways to circumvent the congress by picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. or in the case of the overwhelmingly complicated health care law picking and choosing what dates the law is to be complied with, even though the law often has very clear other dates. the president well, i think there's a better day. this is a bill the president was a major advocate was. he had a chance to put the dates in there and didn't. i recently reintroduced, madam president, as the senator from iowa has taken the chair i recently reintroduced the enforce the law act to ensure

that the president can't just continue to blatantly not do what the law says has to be done. this is a bill i introduced in the last congress where it passed the house with a bipartisan vote, but in the last congress we weren't allowed to vote on it. apparently there are a number of my colleagues here who think that not only are we no longer allowed to vote on bills. now it's even a bad idea if we debate the bill. that's what the vote was yesterday. let's debate the bill. this wasn't approving anything except let's debate the bill. that's what we should be moving forward now so we can fund this part of the government that the president complicated the funding for with his action last november. the enforce the law act permits the congress, if the congress believed that the president isn't enforcing the law, to go to court. not to wait months and years for an aggrieved citizen to have to go to court with their own money

and say we don't believe the government has the authority to do this. but the congress could go to court and go to court early and let that judge decide if the law is being enforced as written or not. the enforce the law act would reestablish the proper limits of the executive branch. it would restore checks and balances. it would also provide a defender of citizens who in their capacity don't have to defend -- fight the government by themselves if the congress itself believes the president has taken authority that he doesn't have or is enforcing the law in a way that wasn't intended. i think we have to stand up for the rule of law. i've joined in a court case supporting the state of texas who is suing the administration over what they believe is a all kinds of added expenses put on them by the president's power

grab in deciding on his own which immigration laws will be enforced and which shouldn't. senator cornyn, senator cruz and i were signatories to this brief filed this december. 24 house members joined us, including the chairman of the judiciary committee saying we agree with these states that many responsibilities have been placed on them because the president of the united states chose not to enforce the law as written. 26 states have now joined on to that lawsuit filed by the state of texas and i look forward to the conclusion of that suit because i think the judge is likely to decide that, no, there isn't the selectivity of which laws you enforce that the president has applied here. and there are great costs created for states as a result of that. every senator in this chamber madam president, has a constitutional obligation to curb the unilateral executive

overreach. we have a chance to do that with the bill that could be before us. we have a chance to do that with the bill that the house has sent over. this whole issue goes to the very heart of the stim of checks and balances in our country and reiterates the importance of the constitution following the constitution adhering to the rule of law. i'd like to see us have a chance to do that as this department of homeland security funding bill should and eventually i'm confident will come to the floor. and i would yield. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: first it's good to follow my good friend, chair of the rules committee which i am ranking member. i don't agree with him but he's a fine man. now, i rise to dispel attempts by the other side of the aisle

to dodge responsibility for funding the homeland security department in a responsible way. here's what's happening. the right wing of the republican party is risking a d.h.s., a department of homeland security, shutdown to get their way on immigration. they're saying take our hard right stance on immigration or we won't fund national security. now most americans don't agree with that view. most americans are for a rational immigration policy. the large majority in this body, bipartisan led by senator mccain and myself, voted on that in 2013. but you have a small group led by the junior senator from texas who says it's our way or we're going to shut down one of the premier agencies dedicated to

our security. as i engaged in a colloquy with my good friend from texas the majority leader, our republican colleagues have the majority, they can debate immigration any time they want. and in fact, we welcome that debate. we think the american people are on our side. we're willing to have that debate. we're eager to have that debate. but not with a gun put to the head not only of us, but of the american people. don't do what we, a narrow minority want or we're going to shut down the department of homeland security at a time when security is of utmost importance given what's happened around the world, what we just saw happen to the jordanian pilot yesterday. this strategy makes no sense. the junior senator from texas is leading his party at best into a

cul-de-sac. at worst over a cliff. we are not going to be taken hostage. and if he thinks -- if my good friend, the majority leader, senator mcconnell thinks that by bringing this bill up again and again it's going to change what happened yesterday it's not. so we're saying to the other side now that you're seeing the vote now that you've shown speaker boehner that we can't pass his bill, or even in the senate get real. i say get real to my friend, the majority leader, and to speaker of the house. roll up your sleeves. let's work out a d.h.s., a department of homeland security, bill and pass it. let's not hold that agency hostage. let's not just renew them every

couple of months, as the secretary of d.h.s. said yesterday, that's like getting a car and only having -- giving it five miles of gas at a time. it just doesn't work. so get real. let's negotiate a d.h.s. spending bill. i know that our senator from maryland the ranking member on the appropriations committee the ranking member on the homeland subcommittee are eager to fund a bill we can agree on. then we can debate immigration. then we can debate immigration. but no hostage taking. none of this bullying. if you don't do it my way i'm going to hurt a whole lot of innocent people. it didn't work in 2013 when republican numbers plummeted after they tried to shut down

the government. it won't work today. we will not allow a government shutdown. we will not allow hostage taking. we will ask our colleagues to get reasonable, do things the way they used to be done, debate each issue on the merits. they have the floor. they can debate any issue they want. and move forward. now, i would just say one other thing to my republican colleagues. the junior senator from texas has you tied in a knot. i'd say that to speaker boehner as well. speaker boehner the junior senator from texas has you tied in a knot. now you're going to have to find a way to untangle it. but we will not be bullied. we will not be told we have to negotiate because you seek to hurt innocent people and hurt our security.

we will move forward. so let me suggest the way to go forward. let's put a good, clean homeland security bill on the floor. let's make america secure. and separately we are happy to debate immigration to the republican's heart content. but let's stop this governing by crisis mentality especially when national security hangs in the balance. so madam president i urge speaker boehner i urge senator mcconnell to come to their senses end this wild goose chase, and let us vote on a clean bill forth with. i yield the floor up to 10 minutes each. thank you madam president. madam president, i come to the floor in my position as the vice chair of the appropriations committee, and to urge the senate to pass a clean homeland security appropriation bill. now, yesterday the senate

rejected a procedural vote to take up the house homeland security funding bill. that's this is not about debating the this bill versus that bill. there's two distinct differences. the house bill has both the funding for fiscal year 2015 in it that would take care of every single agency under the department of homeland security to defend and protect the nation but at the same time it is loaded with five immigration riders that we call poison pill riders because the president said if legislation to fund homeland security passes with these five immigration rideers, he will veto the bill. the president wants to fund an appropriation bill, so do i.

the house homeland security bill if taken up by the senate would simply be a delaying tactic. we could talk, we would debate we would offer lots of amendments on immigration and after we did lots of fast amendments on immigration it might go to the president, the president would veto it, it would come back and after all is aid and -- said and done, more gets said than gets done. we've got to pass the funding for the protecting of the homeland. yesterday the entire world was just gripped with poignancy and sorrow about the ghoulish murder of a jordanian pilot. the threat of terrorism is in the world. attacks by isil on people, the possibility of a lone wolf in our own country a cyber attack and retaliation because we dare

fight back against isil or we're willing to challenge some of the other international predators directed at us. you know, we've got to protect the united states of america. that's what the department of homeland security does. the department of defense protects us over there, the department of homeland security protects us here. after 9/11, one of the worst days in our country's history the congress came together shortly and we passed legislation to create the department of homeland security so we would take every agency that is involved in protecting the homeland, put them under one umbrella so that they could look out for us. now, we need to look out for them. every day we ask men and women who serve in the coast guard in secret service on border control, protecting our

borders, in customs, making sure, you know, fraudulent products like counterfeit drugs are not crossing our borders into our country. now we need to pass believe that. -- that bill. we need to make sure we do not have a shutdown or a slamdown when the funding expires february 27. in december, when i chaired the committee, in the closing hours of the past congress, i worked with my subcommittee chairman, senator landrieu, the vice chairman of homeland security, senator coats and we put together a crucial funding bill that totaled $46 billion to investigate in agencies that protect us. it was $1 billion more, $1 billion, and a continuing

resolution. we could have taken that bill up then but there was a desire because of controversy over the president taking executive action on immigration not to do it. so now here we are in february. now it's our time to fund a clean homeland security bill. immigration is a serious policy issue. i don't dispute that. it deserves serious debate. but don't add it as a series of riders on a funding bill. rather let's take up immigration separately. now, i remind our colleagues that in the last congress, this senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill only to have it die in the house. so we say let's pass our bill again, let's have the house take it up, and let's have a real debate on it, but in the meantime, we will have funded

the homeland security bill. now, this just isn't barb mikulski talking about more government spending. every past head of homeland security the department of homeland security, has urged the senate to pass a separate bill. tom ridge, the original chief executive of this agency. michael chertoff, who also served under president bush and janet napolitano, they're calling for it. and so am i. madam president, right now our coast guard is out there safeguarding our waterways. we in maryland, we just love our coast guard and we love them because number one they're always there for search and rescue. number two they're always there to protect our bay whether it's against a possible oil spill or drug dealers trying to sneak up the bay they're there. we also know how brave they are. we all recall how with

helicopters they went in and rescued people during the horrific hurricane katrina and they to it every day. then there's secret service. secret service is in the process of reforming itself. they need to protect the president, the vice president the first families, but you know what, they're also out there being the government g-men fighting things like credit card fraud and then there's the cyber warriors protecting our critical infrastructure, our critical infrastructure, our banking, our power grid. then there's fema. right now responding to disasters, whether it's blizzardsor hurricanes. and then there's state and local first responders. one of the programs i'm so proud of in the department of homeland security is the fire grant program. the fire grant program is a competitive grant program not an earmark program a competitive grant program

where local fire departments particularly those in our rural communities, can apply for a grant to buy the necessary equipment they need to protect them so they protect us. madam president, i know you're familiar with this in nebraska. turnout gear for a firefighter the respiratory equipment to protect their breathing the telecommunications the fire retardant, repellant material, that can cost as much as $1,000 to $2,000 per firefighter. you can't do this on pancake breakfasts. you can't do it on fish fries and chicken dinners. they need the help of their own government to be able to help them. so madam president i just say let's pass a clean homeland security bill. let's stop terrorist threats let's secure our borders let's safeguard our waterways let's make sure we're protecting our

lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i was very pleased to hear the ranking member of the appropriations committee senator mikulski, who has done such great work on the committee and in putting together the bipartisan agreement that was negotiated last december with the chairman of the house appropriations committee congressman rogers, that was a bill that as she pointed out funded the efforts of the department of homeland security to keep people safe, to address emergencies, to try and protect us from cybersecurity threats a whole range of efforts that go on within the department. and i wanted her to hear a comment that i just -- understand was made by the house appropriation security committee chairman john carter, a

republican from texas who when he was asked about what the outcome of this debate would be on funding the department of homeland security, his comment was -- and i quote -- "ultimately, there may be a clean bill." well senator mikulski, if the house republicans the chair of the subcommittee in the the house are acknowledging that ultimately there may be a clean bill to fund the department to do what was negotiated by you and congressman rogers last december doesn't it make sense that we should get a clean bill done now as soon as possible so there's some certainty for the department of homeland security so they can continue the planning efforts so they can continue to address the threats to our national security, shouldn't we just get this done now and stop this ideological fighting and putting at risk people in this country because of somebody's got an ideological

concern about this bill? ms. mikulski: first of all, i thank the gentlelady for bringing representative carter's comments to my attention. i absolutely do agree with your analysis and actually even the comments by representative carter. we should have a sense of urgency in passing the homeland security bill. the terrorists and the bad guys whether they're organized crime trying to get across our borders, whether there's the terrorists watching us, they're saying hey, they're so busy fighting each other they don't have time to think about fighting for ourselves so they're watching us, they're laughing at us because while we squabble and quibble and dribble, they're out there plotting against us. and, madam president -- and i say to the chair -- the ranking member of the subcommittee, i do think that there is a sense

of urgency. i also want to comment on the house. when we were working in the closing hours on the actual money part of the bill, i found remarkable bipartisan consensus. left to our own, you know, analysis about how to be, you know wise stewards of the taxpayer dollar, make those important security investments there was widespread bipartisan agreement. oh maybe a priority here or a different line item there but by and large we knew exactly what public investments to do it. and you know what, we did it within the caps, we did it within the allocation, and we got the job done. we could do this job this afternoon, i feel a great sense of urgency because while the bad guys are plotting against us, we're busy plotting how we can fight each other. mrs. shaheen: i certainly agree with the ranking member of the appropriations committee and i

would just point out we have heard in the last two days from the national -- the conference of mayors, who have urged us to pass a clean bill fund the department of homeland security. we've heard from the emergency managers across this country who are concerned about the risk to assistance for disaster relief and for fema, and we just today got a letter from the national association of counties urging the passage of a clean bill to ensure that the safety of our communities can be maintained. so this is, as you said, we should not put at risk these communities, the efforts that are going on across this country to keep the nation safe, because there are those people who are angry at the president about an executive action. we can have that debate, but we should be having that debate separately. now we need to fund this

department of homeland security to ensure that there are no risks to our citizens. thank you very much, senator