quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. koons: i come to the floor this evening to speak about the impending shutdown this week for the federal department of homeland security. mr. president, at a time when the folks i hear from in delaware and i suspect all the members in this chamber what they are hearing from -- as we return from a week spent in our home states, is concerns about our national security, whether it's the heinous acts of isis abroad or the real threats of the weather and recent weather-related events here at home a central concern all of us should share in the senate here tonight is about keeping

our country and our constituents safe. yet, shutting down the whole department of homeland security later this week would show a reckless disregard for our national security by the republican leader and some of the hard-line conservatives who are sadly setting this agenda. in my view,way don't need to be here. democrats and republicans working together on the appropriation committee negotiated a strong bipartisan homeland security funding bill months ago. it's a bill that if it got a vote before the full senate would absolutely pass. it makes wise, needed, brought investments. strengthening all different sorts of organs of our government at federal state and local level that strengthen our homeland security. instead, the other party has insisted on attaching political provisions to the bill that would overturn the president's executive actions on immigration, and i know i don't

need to remind the president the presiding officer or any of our colleagues that we've already debated and passed comprehensive immigration reform in this chamber which if taken up by the house would have made the president's actions completely unnecessary. i think we all agree that congressional action is the preferred path towards fixing our broken immigration system, and if that's what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really concerned about then i'm eager to discuss how we can fix our badly broken immigration system in a bipartisan manner. by the preferred path of congressional action rather than executive action. but i think we should separate that debate over immigration and what's the right path towards a resolution of our broken system? with the discussion about responsibly and sustainably funding our department of homeland security. if we fail to fund homeland security it would have damaging consequences to our economy to the security of our communities

and to our reputation around the world. at this time of heightened concern about our cohesion, about our unity and about our security as a country failing to fund the federal department of homeland security i think sends the worst possible message to our allies around the wrld about our capacity as a mature democracy of reaching responsible resolutions on difficult and divisive issues. if the department of homeland security shuts down this week, tens of thousands of its staff would be furloughed without pay. they include the fema disaster and preparedness staff the very personnel who check immigration status of new employees through everify. critical security intelligence analysts and the folks who run the domestic nuclear detection offices, just to name a few. the list of these tens of thousands of homeland security employees and the vital functions they perform would be longer than the evening could

take. my own state of delaware has the lowest mean elevation in the country. that means we're a really low-lying state. we are incredibly vulnerable to storms and to flooding, and we simply can't afford to have fema's staff suspended furloughed laid off. whether we shut down or just have a short-term funding bill, funding for homeland security grants can't go out. and some of the folks who watch this debate in the week ahead will have difficulty discerning folks on my side who will advocate for a clean bill and others who will of advocate for a c.r. here's what the difference is. in the area of grants for state and local purposes, the difference between actually moving forward the bipartisan bill that was worked through in the appropriations committee in the last congress and simply continuing by a continuing resolution, the previous year's authorizations that difference is $1.5 billion.

for state and local emergency management all over this country. now, in my community which is part of the greater philadelphia area we're about to welcome the pope and something like 2 million people are expected to the greater philadelphia area as we welcome his holiness to philadelphia for the first time in a long time. and i've heard from state and local law enforcement and first responders and emergency managers and planners that they're counting on some of the grants from fema that are currently on hold while they wait to discover the outcome of this week's debates. to prepare for that important very large event. in my own home community, there are volunteer fire companies which even now are working on submitting grants. the safer act and the fire grants act have become an important part of making sure that our local volunteer fire companies have the equipment they need, the training they need the equipment they need to keep our community safe. in delaware, the overwhelming majority of the crash response,

the fire education the fire expression is done by -- suppression is done by volunteer fire companies which often have badly outdated equipment and and insufficient funding to sustain the training for their personnel, they need the grants that have been made available through fema and through the department of homeland security over the last decade to upgrade and update their equipment and materials and training. and they've been vitally important. they've made a big difference in the fire service in my home state. there's grants to police departments that help ensure that they've got the tools and the training and the equipment to be part of emergency preparedness and to keep our communities safe. if we shut down the department of homeland security 130,000 other d.h.s. workers will be compelled to remain at work but without pay. i think the idea that the americans who work to keep us safe at the border, at our airports on our coasts, that we don't value them enough to ensure that they'll receive

their pay for a hard day's work just goes against the grain of what we stand for as a country. so are my colleagues really willing to send the message to everyone at homeland security that their work isn't important enough to our nation to ensure that they can provide for their families? that's the message if the department of homeland security shuts down. it hurts families. it hurts morale. it hurts or preparedness. it hurts our safety. and let me tell you as someone who's privileged to serve on the foreign relations committee and regularly gets the chance to meet with and talk with leaders from around the world it sends the message that our democracy isn't up to the task. i know this isn't what my republican friends want to do and i urge us to come together and work in a way that will end this era of politics by crisis once and for all. no more shutdowns no more manufactured crises, no more demonstrating that we are better

at stopping progress than in enacting progress. mr. president, democrats are ready to work together with republicans to pass a bipartisan bipartisan/bicameral bill that we all know that we can pass that will fund the department of homeland security and and keep our country safe. i hope that after we after this afternoon voted down for the fourth time a bill that seeks to repeal the president's actions on immigration, that we can put aside that partisan issue and come together and find a bipartisan solution to funding the department of homeland security. we already know exactly what that solution looks like. we just need to come together and give if it a vote. in my view, this is too important to trivialize as part of the ongoing posturing and partisan games that for so long that have dominated this chamber. so i urge my colleagues to work with us. fund homeland security and then let's talk meaningfully in this congress about how we can fix our broken immigration system together. i know we're all eager to

continue that conversation. first we need to solve this challenge and make sure that our communities our states and our country are safe. thank you mr. president. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

plaintiff merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be alleviated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you mr. president. i rise tonight to urge congress to quit playing political games with our national security.

it's time to have a clean homeland security funding bill here on the floor of the senate to be debated. now, we are only days away from a potential shutdown of the homeland security department and it's very clear that the reason why is that members of the house here on capitol hill have decided they want to make a clear statement about certain policy statements. they want to have a policy rider that says that young children who came to this country and know no other country need to be prioritized for deportation. well i happen to think that's just wrong. but if members of this body want to put that into a bill and want to put that on the floor of the house want to put it on the floor of the senate, i'm quite ready to have that debate.

yet another policy rider says that the president must no longer prioritize the deportation of those with criminal backgrounds. now, i happen to think we should prioritize deportation of individuals who have conducted criminal acts. if some of my colleagues want to have that policy debate, i'm fine with that. put it into a bill bring it here to the floor of the senate and the let's have that debate and then a vote will be very clearly on that specific policy and people can have some accountability and the american people can have some transparency about what's being voted on. but do not put these policy riders into the middle of the funding bill and work to shut down homeland security. that is the no way to run a country. we live in a dangerous world. we lack for many things but one

thing we don't lack is security threats. it was less than two years ago that terrorists attacked us at the boston marathon. it was just weeks ago that we saw horrific series of terror attacks on our friends in paris. and islamic state or isil, is a fierce and growing threat determined to wreak havoc. it's exactly at a time like this that we should be working together on a bipartisan basis to fund and strengthen homeland security not playing political games with the nation's security. but here we are. is it really more important i ask my colleagues, to have a debate about deporting dreamers than it is to protect americans

against terrorist threats? and if you feel it is more important, not only do i feel you're wrong but i invite you to have that debate. put that into a separate policy bill and have the courage to put it on the floor of the u.s. senate as a separate policy bill. do not compromise our national security by trying to shut down homeland security. it's a misguided strategy and the resulting fallout just isn't to national security. fema grants to disaster stricken areas will be stopped. local fire departments will be hampered. thousands of essential public servants from homeland security to fema to our terrific men and women in the coast guard will be forced to work without pay. now, last week i visited a coast guard installation in newport

oregon. this is an installation that is an advanced rescue helicopter and they have five helicopters that work in rotation to make sure that two -- one is in the newport area and a second ready to back it up if it has troubles. and this port, this is a port that has so much sea traffic. it is a deepwater port. it has commercial fishing. it has sports fishing. it has tourists who play on the rocks at the beach and get trapped by the tide. it has recreational swimmers that get swept out by riptides. it has everybody possible kind of oceanfront disaster that you could look for. and that rescue helicopter is very important. and one of the young men i was speaking to is a rescue swimmer. extraordinary individual. does some of the scariest and most courageous work in the world. these folks are not paid very much. they have bills to meet like all the rest of us.

is it really any way to run a country to say that you have to keep coming to work but we're not going to send you a paycheck? to say that to the thousands and thousands of young americans who are working for our country in national security, you're so important that you have to come to work whether or not we pay you? that is just wrong. wrong that we should be so disorganized so partisan as to compromise our national security security. our folks who work in national security would be asked to continue working. they work in dangerous conditions that ma many of us could hardly imagine. they make sure that our safety is improved p. at a minimum can't -- is improved. at a minimum can't we just have a debate on the funding bill without these political games?

they do their work and they feel a sense of duty. well let's have a sense of duty in doing our work. let's put the homeland security appropriation bill on this floor and let's do so without partisan political riders. that game does no honor to our nation or to this institution. the public's opinion of this chamber has fallen due to exactly these types of games. so let's end them. now, there is bipartisan support for ending this type of political theatrics. one of my colleagues from arizona said -- and i quote -- "to attempt to use a spending bill in order to poke a finger

in the president's eye is not a good move in my eye -- in my view" he said. or my colleague from illinois who serves across the aisle in this chamber said -- quote -- "the american people are pretty alarmed as they should be about security. the way to go forward is just fund the d.h.s." and he continued we ought to strip the bill of extraneous issues and make it about homeland security. a sentiment i think that virtually every citizen feels at this moment. let's make it about homeland security. let's make it about us having the honor to do our duty, our job on this floor to consider this appropriation bill and not to load it down with favored policy riders and political theatrics. every day that goes by puts us

closer to this shutdown. there is no logic in careening from crisis -- careening from crisis to crisis, but some crises come about in the world due to uncontrollable factors. this one's entirely under our control. this one's entirely under the control of the leadership of the house and the leadership of the senate. just earlier this evening i was on a phone call with many folks back home who serve in police departments and fire departments rural departments, rural emergency departments and they were relaying the different types of grants that they get that are so important to their communities. and as some of them are search and rescue, some of are disaster preparation some of

them are grants for funding equipment for fire departments some for funding personnel. but nobody on the phone could understand why this chamber is afraid to have a simple budget debate an appropriation debate, is a rasping debate. they see no reason to load it down with politics that can be debated if you want in separate policy bills. so i say to the leadership of this chamber let's get our act together. put the policy in the policy bills and let's put the spending bill before this body in a clean fashion and proceed to protect our nation's security as we are charged to do. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjou mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: in just a few minutes, democrats will have another opportunity to end the weeks-long filibuster of homeland security. it will be the first opportunity our friends on the other side have to show where they stand after a federal judge >> in just a few minutes democrats will have another opportunity to end the weeklong filibuster of homeland security.

it will be the first opportunity or friends on the other side have to show where they stand after a federal judge preliminary enjoined the administration for moving ahead at present, referred to as quote ignoring the law. ignoring the law quote unquote president obama said that over year ago. the point is it's time to allow the homeland security measure to come to the floor. democrats say they want to amend dhs funding legislation that they vote to block their own ability to offer amendments. it just doesn't make any sense that a presence on a few moments we will give our democratic friends an opportunity to reconsider they can vote to allow the senate to debate the homeland security funding bill. they can vote to allow the senate to consider amendments from both sides and that's what they actually should do.

that is what constituents have a right to expect. let's take the funding bill up and get to work. >> the democratic leader. >> in just a few days, five to be exact, the department of homeland security will be out of money. this unique entity was established right after 9/11. president bush believed there were too many agencies trying to take care of the security of this nation and he got congress to work with him on bringing these 22 different entities to the department of homeland security. they have protected our homeland since 2011 and have done a good job. i'm very disappointed madam president at the political ploy

used by my congressional republican leadership to force a shutdown of homeland security. it will only hurt our nation. but it does make very clear the republican stand on fixing a broken immigration system. 20 months ago some belly and senators democrats and republicans, worked together for almost a year. democrats were led by senator schumer durbin, bennett and menendez. republicans were led by mccain, graham rubio and and they work night and day. they came up with a bill they presented to us democrats and republicans and we worked hard. we have lots of amendments. there was a wonderful debate. one of the great days of this body and we passed it.

bipartisan. it was such a good day for the united states senate and our country. but now after 20 months suddenly people aren't interested. even, graham mccain have stated that we should fund homeland security, fund it. we have all kinds of republican senators who have said the same thing in the last few days. senator johnson said it should be fully funded. he said that today. i don't understand what my republican friends are trying to do here. they want to hold up dhs funding in order to put dreamers and their parents -- that doesn't make any sense. their plan is destined to fail. i have said that many times right here.

republicans aren't listening to me and i understand why. republicans aren't listening to a lot of people. they aren't listening to the president of united states who has warned them that blocking homeland security funding will hurt our ability to respond to these new threats. secretaries of homeland security security, tom ridge and i came to washington at the same time in 1982 to the house of representatives. here is a man who was valiant in vietnam, highly decorated soldier. he has had a stunning career in government. he has been governor of the state of pennsylvania. he has been secretary of homeland security. he along with another republican secretary of secretary of homeland security chertoff who has a great record of his own being a prosecutor, federal judge along with a democrat

janet napolitano former governor of the state of arizona and secretary of homeland security says to republicans and democrats have said the republican should do this. in fact here's what they said in the letter that senator mcconnell and i got a month ago i that quote funding for dhs is used to protect our ports and borders to secure air travel and cargo to protect the federal government our nation's information technology infrastructure from cybersecurity threats. and to fund essential law enforcement activities and to ensure the safety of the president and national leaders. funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy of for the debate of immigration. they didn't mince words. they said that's true. in fact tom weaks said yesterday on national tv and that quote what the republicans plan does irritates the hell out of me

that i think it's bad policy. the men and women of homeland security deserve better. madam president jeh johnson who has certainly been as down the middle as anyone could be on this issue said to not fund homeland security is unacceptable for the public safety and the national security field. the majority leader and secretary -- speaker boehner aren't listening. they are obviously not listening to me. they are not listening to the president. they are not listening to former homeland security secretary's. they are not even listening to their newspaper or what is referred to their newspaper "the wall street journal." here's what "the wall street journal" said. the republicans game of russian roulette of our homeland security is destined for spectacular crackup a direct quote. madam president republicans

obviously aren't listening to "the wall street journal." the eternal order of police has lambasted the republican scheme. republicans aren't listening to the police. united states conference of mayors said please don't do that that. if you do not fund the department of homeland security and if you go with a continuing resolution it's going to affect their ability to protect our citizens are the governors have said the same thing. republicans aren't listening to anyone. they are bound and determined to see this doomed plan. all becomes republicans want to overturn dhs to prioritize that a portion of national security threats convicted felons. it doesn't make sense. right now the administration saw the state of proceedings in texas. madam president the trial judge

in texas never ever declared anything unconstitutional. every word he wrote there isn't the word unconstitutional in anything, nothing. he said the administrative procedure act was not followed. the president has the right to determine who is to be deported and families of these dreamers are way down the list. so the president is welded in this authority and legal process process. so why would we divert resources from real threats just so republicans can deport dreamers long-term permanent residence mothers and fathers and children who supposed no security risk? republicans say they are attacking the president's actions but they are really attacking families. so i suggest to my republican colleagues that they will listen to me the president secretary of homeland security "wall street journal" fraternal order of the police maybe this they should at

least heed what our enemies are saying. we could all picture what happened a few weeks ago. they put a jordanian pilot in a cage and burned him and they show the world that for 22 minutes. we have seen the beheadings. they have not stopped. 21 egyptian christians were just a few days ago and yesterday senator johnson on national tv said we must remain vigilant against threats because now they have told us they are going to go to the malls around america including the mall of the americas. we must listen. we must listen. in this impairment my republican friends why would you want to shut off money for homeland security? let's fully fund homeland security and do it now. republican senators are saying

the same thing. i don't understand what's going on here. the republicans reportedly have a backup plan funding homeland security bypassing short-term continuing resolutions. this is not an answer madam president. it's not an answer. .. funding the department of homeland security, not some rube goldberg procedure that they are making something very simple very complicated. it doesn't need to be complicated. we simply need to give the department of homeland security the resource it needs to do a job as said by republican senators this past week. why are we doing this? is it to please the house republicans who capital agree on anything? madam president, it is important that we wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you

madam president. madam president, as i come to the floor today the senate is continuing to try to debate a bill to fund the department of homeland security. we've made no progress on this >> we have made no progress on this bill for week cloud-based solutions as solutions democrats as the democrats continue to filibuster us getting on the bill and having a discussion. the bill has passed the house of representative cloud-based solutions. the way it is supposed to work is it democrats don't like something about the bill they should amend and change it. that is how the process worked in the past and how it should work in the today. this is how it worked when we debated the keystone pipeline. we had 40 amendment this is an important

piece of legislation. funding for the department of homeland is scheduled to expire on friday. both sides of the aisle should agree this is something we need to do. why are democrats being ob obstructed and why are they so eager to willingly cut off the funding? well this is about our nation's immigration policy and the president's executive anmnesty and action i believe is illegal. congress is the place where the laws are made about immigration.

it isn't something the president gets to decide on his own. it should not be controversyialcontroversial. eight senate democrats have said they disagree with the president's executive actions or have doubts. senator donnelly said in november "the president shouldn't take such significant policy changes on his own" on the same tie it was said "the president's action could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisan in the senate before it has started". even the president himself on 22 separate occasions said he lacked the authority to rewrite the immigration laws. 22 times. way back in march of 2011 he said there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce the immigration system. for me to executive order and ignore those congressional

mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. he did it anyway. he knew it wasn't appropriate. but that didn't stop him. now a federal judge made it crystal clear the president does not have the authority to act on his own as he did. the president cannot make a new law just because he doesn't like the laws passed by congress. this was u.s. district court ruling in a lawsuit that 26 states brought against president obama. usa today described it like this in a front page headline last wednesday. they said "obama immigration plan blocked". will call had a headline that said immigration ruling cast shadow on obama's legacy. what the court did was to stop the secretary of homeland from

implementing any and all aspeths or phases of the president's plan -- aspects -- the federal court said congress and congress alone has power under the constitution to leg slate under the field ofgration. it is congress and congress alone who has power under the constitution to legislate into the field of immigration. the judge added that the president's plan clearly represents a change in immigration policy. this isn't just a minor change. it is not the same thing other presidents have done before. the judge completely rejected the obama administration's claim it was simply exercising prosecution discretion. i know the president didn't understand the last election.

now i am starting to think the democrats in this body don't understand why they lost. it is strange the democrats want to continue trying to protect the president who doesn't have the strong support of the american people. it was a loosing strategy in november. and it will be a loosing strategy now. democrats in this body are continuing to prevent the senate from doing anything again in an effort they are doing it to protect president obama. now that a federal judge has agreed the president exceeded his own authority, it is time for democrats to stop defending the president and the whitehouse whitehouse. senate democrats have already voiced their concerns about what the president did and how he did it. it is time for those same democrats to convince the rest of their members enough is enough. it is time for them to stop pretending that this is about immigration when it is now clear that this is about the president's overreach.

it is time for democrats to end their filibuster and to fund the department of homeland security. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. [applause] >> mr. president? >> senator from maryland. >> mr. president, today the senate will vote for the fourth time on a procedure to take up the house funding bill. we are going to be voting on the closure to motion to proceed because it is a parliamentary way of dealing with the funding for the homeland security department which runs out on friday. mr. president, you were the ranking member on the homeland subcommittee. you did a fantastic job working senator landrieu creating a

funding framework with bipartisan and bicaramel support. i congratulate you and the way the committee work. now we should be voting on the final passage for a clean homeland security bill. now the bill, you know, when we say clean this is washington speak. people don't know what a clean bill is. i mean is there a dirty bill? a dusty bill? is there a muddy bill? no. what we are talking about is meaning no writers on the bill and in this case no poison bill writers. there was no disagreement finally because of the extra bipartisan work on the funding of the bill. but the senate is locked in a game of parliamentary ping-pong on moving this legislation forward where the loseersrs are the

american people. look at what is going on in our county right now. we are absolutely relying on homeland security from some thof biggest challenges not facing the abstract but facing us now. there is the terrorist, cold weather and other issues. in my chesapeake bay right now there is a cutter called shock. it is out there breaking the maryland icy conditions. frigid and windy. and what is it they are doing? it enables commerce to get up and down the bay so people are working and they even work because the bay in maryland and virginia they went out to the famous panegyr island to free residents that were iced in and take food and fuel. the coast guard is on the job. they are working in the cold

they are working in the wind, they are breaking up ice in not only maryland but all over the frozen ports. and what do we say? good job, guys. there they are on tv and we love you. but we might not pay you. what is this? they are out there saving lives and we are playing parliamentary ping-pong. then there is this whole issue of this despicable barbaric group called isil that essentially says we are out to get you and not only are we out to get you but then they threatened the fact there could be attacks on the malls -- the shopping malls here in the united states. we need additional security from homeland security and we also need to be able to work with our local and state partners.

what is congress' response? we will talk about increasing the defense budget in 2016 but we are not going to fund the appropations for 2015 or an appropriation appropriation. what is wrong with that picture? i am for a strong national defense. and having the way of dealing with the threat of isil and any other terrorist group. but they are talking about our malls. they are also going on the web, and i hate to even say this in public but they attack anybody that is in uniform. that is my firefighter. that is my police officer. that is my emt person. really? we are worried about the lone wolves? i am worried, too. we need to be able to protect them and one way to do that is we need to fund the homeland security department so that

people who are on the job protecting us can get paid. there are members on the other side of the aisle continually asking what he is doing to defend america. let's put more troops on the ground, more missiles in the air, well right here in america we have boots on the ground called custer officers, tsa personal special agency, border patrol. we have to fund our own homeland security boots on the ground. and i want to make sure we do it now and you don't have some big crisis at midnight on friday. now where we are is this: we have agreed on the funding. on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome. the house is added five writers for an immigration.

immigration is an important topic. i don't minimize it. and i don't dismiss it. it should be debated. but not in this bill. the other is that the courts have now made a decision to put the texas court on the obama action of executive order of immigration. it is now going to go through the court. texas judge made a decision. that is america. it will go through the fifth circuit for an appeal and then maybe even higher. while it is working its way through we are debating it. let the courts decide whether the president exceeded his executive authority. whatever the courts decide i think we will be able to accept it. we cannot hold up the bill waiting for the courts to decide. and we should not hold up the

homeland security bill waiting for the courts to decide. so with the court decision pending, i say to my friends on the other sides of the aisle who i know are patriotic and want to protect the homeland. put immigration aside on the executive order and all of these others. let the court decide on the executef authority. but between now and say wednesday let's pass this homeland security bill. we can pass it send it to the house, and we can get on with protecting america rather than what we think about president obama. you know, i respect what other people think about president obama. i don't also respect what some people say in their attack on him. is he american? is he patriotic? i think that is despicable to attack our president. but if you think this is a

constitutional question on executive authority it is now in the courts. that can be a valid consideration. but right now we have got a homeland security funding problem. i want to fund the coast guards. i want to fund border patrol. i want to fund customs. i want to fund the tsa at the airport. i want you to protect us on threats related to cyber security. this is the 22-subagencies made up of homeland security. i would hope of the 16,000 people that work for that agency -- 162,000 -- they don't get iou's given what they are doing in this cold weather and incredible intensity and escollation of chatter and threats to the united states we have to help them. we have to give them respect we

have to pay their salaries and give them the right technology to be able to do their jobs to protect us. mr. president, i say here to you and all of my colleagues on the floor, let's stop playing parliamentary ping pong with the homeland security bill. the politics are now over. the issue is going to be resolved in the court. but we cannot resolve it. on february 27th the money to fund the salary for every single man and woman who works at homeland security will be gone. the time and money is running out but we cannot run out on homeland security. we have to help them make us a safe country, protect our country and to do our jobs. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from minnesota. >> mr. president, i want to

thank senator mikulski. i thought the point she made were so well-taken about the fact there has been a new development since we left this chamber and that is the courts are taking on some of the immigration provisions that our colleagues have been trying to attack to this bill. and i would hope they could look at this in a fresh way and see we should simply allow this bill to go forward while the courts are considering this matter. to me that is the answer. and i don't think you should see it -- i don't think our colleagues should see it as a concession but it is simply a fact and something that changed. i come to talk about the importance of the mikulski bill and the critical importance of this funding has been driven home in my state alone. the state of minnesota.

just this weekend a video was released encouraging attacks on shopping malls throughout the mall. a shopping mall in minnesota, mall of america, shopping mall in canada, and shopping mall in london. and i don't think they would be limited in their threats when it comes to shopping malls in america. this is the same terrorist group that carried out a major attack on a shopping mall in kenya killing more than 60 people. it has also called for attacked in other countries. in this video, a spokesman bragged about the previous attacks and the chaos that future attacks can cause. he talked about a handful of fighters brought kenya to a full stop in a few weeks. and he talked about and these are his words american or jewish owned shopping centers across the world -- that is what we saw this weekend and the people in my state weekend --

woke up to. i spoke with homeland secretary jay johnson with our u.s. attorney from minnesota and we are working the fbi and they have boosted the security at the mall of america. we already had good security. we have fine law enforcement on the federal, state and local level. the fbi has advised people to go about their lives in minnesota. the homeland security secretary clearly said people shouldn't be discouraged from going to the mall in any way. so the people in my state, mr. president, are standing tall when it comes to this threat. and our law enforcement is standing tall when it comes to this threat. but here in congress our message to those terrorist cannot be we will shutdown the homeland of security. that can not be the message from the united states of america. there are people that are thinking about a shutdown of the homeland security. the department we created after

9/11 to protect our homeland and country from these threats. this means if it were to go forward over 1700 department of homeland security employees in minnesota would be force today work without pay or be forlowed. 156 immigration and custom enforcement personal. 74 federal emergency personal. we need to act to fund homeland security. these are the people in my state who will spend a normal day going to the mall and waking up to see the video and think about the fact i have to tell them there are people messing around with this bill over provisions that are being battled out in court with places to be battled out in court and not on a bill that is funding our homeland

security. we also know the terrorist organizations like isis and others are trying to recruit people in my state to take up arms and do harm to americans. who do we know that? the first guy killed fighting for isis was from minnesota. and our law enforcement who works so well with the somalia community. 20 people were indicted working with our local law enforcement. 20 people were np indicted and we had nine convictions in minnesota and they would not have happened without this community. this muslim community said we don't want our kids to go be suicide bombers or fight next to isis and that community has worked with law enforcement in minnesota and will continue.

we had four people from the twin cities charged with crime related to travel for the purpose of going to aid cyst. it isn't just the national security the people in my state see is at stake. and i know senator shaheen is here and you understand how important the work is as we go to our neighbor of canada. this is 5, 500 miles and 400,000 people and $2 billion in goods and services cross our border over day. that is economically specific for my state. canada is my state's top trading partner with $19 billion in total business across the border. over a million canadians visit minnesota every year many going to the mall of america and contributing $265 million the local economy. but that relationship relies on a seemless border with u.s.

custom and border protection keeping the border secure and screening traffic. we have made important strides in recent years with trusted travel programs making the northern border secure and encouraging to cross border tourism and commerce that is the life blood of my state. withholding critical funding to the homeland security could threaten that process lead to a less secure border and leading to hendering economic opportunities. without that funding we risk security. even a look at world headlines shows the threats we face. we need to be stepping up our security not stepping down our security. last night i spoke to a group of about 500 minnesotans honored in the city of bloomington for the work they do in the hospitality.

these were desk clerks pizza delivery people many of them work in the mall of america. i told them i was coming back here and this united states senate would stand tall in the face of threats like these videos and people that will not show their faces but do videos to threaten our country. we have to show our faces. we have to stand tall. my colleagues on the other side of had aisle i implore you. this is in the courts. it is being battled in the court. these measures should not be on this bill. we should fund our homeland security and i want to go back and tell the workers in bloomington, minnesota we have done that. thank you. >> president? >> senator from new hampshire. >> thank you mr. president. i applaud senator klobuchar for her comments and threats we

heard against the mall of america this weekend. i heard a news report about this and one of the things they talked about was the very good relations the state of minnesota and senator klobuchar have built with the somalia community. her remarks just as the news remarks underscore the fact we have to address funding for the department of homeland. we are days away from a shutdown. a shutdown of the department whose mission is to protect this country while we are under threats. that is reckless and dangerous. what kind of message does this send to isis and drug cartel if congress can't keep the department of homeland open? we need to have counter terrorism, our intelligence law enforcement officials functioning at their highest

levels. i met with a group of law enforcement and firefighters from the sea coast of new hampshire and they were talking about how important the funding from the department of homeland is to them as they do their jobs. they said two things that i think are really important. first they said they have been able to be proactive about planning to address threats because of the department of homeland security. and second is they can share those resources. new hampshire, like indiana, is a state with a lot of very small communities, and we need to be able to share those resources if we are going to be prepared for the threats. so mr. president, it is time to put politics aside. we can debate immigration. we can debate the president's executive order. i am happy to do that. but we should do it in another place. we should not be doing it on the bill to fund the department of homeland security. i hope my colleagues come together and support a clean funding bill so we can make sure the resources are there to fight

the threats that we face. >> will the senator yield for a question? >> i would. >> mr. president, would the senator believe that if the department of homeland security is shutdown that essential personal will be required to work but essential personal will not be paid? for the first time people engaged in the war, namely the united states coast guard that are in fact involved in the middle east in the war, along with the services from the department of defense for the first time in the history of this country, they will be essential to continue work but will not be paid. and would the senator believe

that in addition customs and border patrol that are essential as well as tsa which is essential, will continue to work but without pay? and that is what will happen this friday if we do not fund the department of homeland security? >> my colleagues makes a very important important. i visited the coast guard on friday and heard about their drug and addiction effort and their search and rescue efforts. and as you point out, they like so many other homeland security employees will not be paid we should not let that happen. that is not conducive to making sure we protect the country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the field. >> mitch mcconnell came to the floor indicating he would put a

stand aloin bill on the calendar to block the president's immigration bill. this is after the senate blocked the homeland legislation from moving forward. this was the fourth time it was repealed. all democrats voted to block the legislation along with dean heller. funding for the homeland security department runs out on friday. coming up on the "the communicators," a look at the consumer electronic show in las vegas. and then jay johnson talks about funding for his agency. and a whitehouse task force looks at police and tactic policy. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and

brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> and now on your screen the calls to the las vegas convention center. home of ces international, the annual trade show. this is the largest trade show in the world and we are on location. we will look at the new technologies coming out from ces international and talk to policy makes as well. now we want to introduce you to austin. he is with the ericsson corporation. senior senior vice president group technology officer. i want to make the statement that ericsson is not the consumer product corporation that it was a few years