Harry Reid

Mr. President, I do appreciate--and that is an understatement--what the majority leader has to go through to try to please the extreme voices on his side. The fact remains we are 4 very short days away from a Homeland Security shutdown--a shutdown, Mr. President. We have a couple of bills on the floor that, unless there is unanimous consent, we can't get to in 4 days. Funding expires on Friday, yet last night the majority leader moved to bring a bill to the floor that does absolutely nothing to fund Homeland Security--nothing.

If the majority leader wanted a vote on this bill, he shouldn't have wasted a month repeating the same failed procedural vote four times with the same result. Albert Einstein said that is the definition of insanity, when you keep doing the same thing over and over again, getting the same result.

We have said all along that we are more than happy to have an immigration debate once Homeland Security is funded. Nevada so badly needs full funding of Homeland Security. State and local governments demand full funding of Homeland Security. It is not only for Nevada, it is all across the country, because the homeland cannot be protected the way the law is now set up unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the ability to grant. If there is full funding, it would be almost $2 billion worth of programs to allow the homeland to be protected by State and local governments.

So we are happy to have a debate on immigration, but we have to fully fund Homeland Security. We have said that all along. We have said it not once, not twice, but we have said it many different times.

In fact, there was a proposal brought to the Senate floor 3 weeks ago, sponsored by Senators Mikulski and Shaheen, only to have the Republicans object to that.

We want a debate on immigration. We are happy to have a debate on immigration. We are eager to debate immigration now or any other time, but we can't do that until we fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have been saying that for 4 weeks and nothing has changed in the last 24 hours.

The majority leader should allow a vote on the Mikulski-Shaheen funding, which is sitting on the floor right now. It is on the calendar. That is the only way to resolve this mess which the Republicans created. The only thing that can pass the Senate is a clean bill to fund Homeland Security. And then, once that is done, there is a consent pending here on the Senate floor that says once that is done and the President signs that, we will be happy to debate immigration for whatever time the Republicans deem necessary.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Madam President, in just a few days--5 to be exact--the Department of Homeland Security will run 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, so he got Congress to work with him, and they came up with 22 entities for the Department of Homeland Security. They have protected our homeland since 9/11, and they have done a good job.

I am very disappointed that the political ploy used by my congressional Republican leadership to force a shutdown of Homeland Security will only hurt our Nation, but it does make very clear where Republicans stand on fixing our broken immigration system.

Twenty months ago some valiant Senators, Democrats and Republicans, worked together for almost a year. Democrats were led by Senators Schumer, Durbin, Bennet, and Menendez. Republicans were led by Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Flake. They worked night and day. They came up with a bill that they presented to us, Democrats and Republicans, and we worked hard. We had lots of amendments. There was a wonderful debate. It was one of the great days of this body. And we passed it with a bipartisan vote. It was such a good day for the Senate and our country. But now, after 20 months, suddenly people are not interested.

Even Senators Flake, Graham, and 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. They want to hold up DHS funding in order to deport DREAMers and their parents. That doesn't make any sense. Their plan is destined to fail. I have said that many times. Republicans are not listening to me, and I understand why, but my Republican colleagues are not listening to a lot of people.

They are not listening to the President of the United States, who has warned them that blocking Homeland Security funding will hurt our ability to respond to these new threats.

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. He was a highly decorated soldier. He has had a stunning career in government. He was the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and the Secretary of Homeland Security. He, along with another Republican Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, who has a great record of his own as a prosecutor and Federal judge, and a Democratic Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who was a former Governor of the State of Arizona--so three former Secretaries of Homeland Security--two Republicans and one Democrat--have said the Republicans should do this. In fact, here is what they said in a letter Senator McConnell and I received a month ago:

Funding for DHS is used to protect our ports and our

borders; to secure our air travel and cargo; to protect the

federal government and our nation's information technology

and infrastructure from cyber-security attacks; 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 by the

debate about immigration.

That is what the former Secretaries of Homeland Security said. They did not mince words.

In fact, Tom Ridge said yesterday on national TV that the Republicans' plan ``irritates the hell out of me. I think it is bad policy . . . The men and women of Homeland Security deserve better.''

Jeh Johnson, who has certainly been as down the middle as anyone could be on this issue, said that to not fund Homeland Security is ``unacceptable from a public safety and national security view.''

The majority leader and Speaker Boehner are not listening. They are obviously not listening to me, they are not listening to the President, and they are not listening to former Homeland Security Secretaries.

They are not even listening to their newspaper--it has been referred to as their newspaper--the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal said that the Republicans' game of Russian roulette with our homeland security is destined for ``a spectacular crack-up.'' Republicans obviously are not listening to the Wall Street Journal. The Fraternal Order of Police has lambasted the Republican scheme. The Republicans are not listening to the police. The United States Conference of Mayors said: Please don't do that. If you do not fund the Department of Homeland Security, and even if you go with a continuing resolution, it is going to affect our ability to protect our cities. The Governors have said the same thing.

Republicans are not listening to anyone. They are bound and determined to see this doomed plan to the end. This is all because Republicans want to overturn DHS directives that prioritize the deportation of national security threats, convicted felons, and individuals apprehended at the border. It doesn't make sense. The administration sought a stay of the proceedings in Texas, but the trial judge in Texas never ever declared anything the President did as unconstitutional. If you read every word he wrote, the word ``unconstitutional'' is not written. He said the Administrative Procedure Act was not followed.

The President has the right to determine who is to be deported, and the families of these DREAMers are way down the list. So the President is well within his established constitutional authority and legal process to hear this out. So why would we divert resources from real threats just so Republicans can deport DREAMers, long-term permanent residents, mothers and fathers of U.S. citizen children who pose no security risk? Republicans say they are attacking the President's actions, but they are really attacking families.

I suggest to my Republican colleagues that if they won't listen to me, the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Wall Street Journal, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the United States Conference of Mayors, maybe they should at least heed what

our enemies are saying. We can all picture in our minds what happened just a few weeks ago. They put a Jordanian pilot in a cage and burned him, and they showed the world that for 22 minutes. We have seen the beheadings. They have not stopped. Twenty-one Egyptian Christians were beheaded just a few days ago.

Yesterday on national TV Secretary Johnson said that we must remain vigilant against threats because now they told us they are going to go to malls around America, including the Mall of America. We must listen. Why would our Republican friends want to shut off funding for Homeland Security in this environment? Listen to reason. Let's fully fund Homeland Security and do it now. Republican Senators are saying the same thing. I don't understand what is going on here.

Republicans reportedly have a backup plan--fund Homeland Security by passing short-term continuing resolutions. That is not an answer. It is not an answer. A continuing resolution will prevent the Department of Homeland Security from working with communities and States and their first responders in addressing new threats and emergency situations.

Our Nation is depending on the Department of Homeland Security, and fully funding it is what is needed to keep us safe. More than 230,000 Homeland Security employees are depending on a paycheck for their families. A simple way of doing this is to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, not some Rube Goldberg procedure where they make something very simple very complicated. It doesn't need to be complicated. We simply need to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to do its job, as said by Republican Senators in the past week.

Why are we doing this? Is it to please the House Republicans who cannot agree on anything? It is important that we fully fund this agency and do it now.

Would the chair now announce the business of the day. I am told the motion to proceed is now pending. Is that true?

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to one of the finest staffers I have encountered in my years in the U.S. Senate. Roger Cockrell is retiring this week after 15 years of service to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which was proceeded by more than 20 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, mainly in Vicksburg, MS.

I spent many years as either the chairman or ranking Democrat on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. It is a great bill. It not only funds a lot of important energy and science priorities, it also provides the annual funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, both of which are tremendously important to my home State of Nevada. Sorting through all of the projects and programs that are funded through these two agencies is tremendously technical and complicated work.

I realized fairly early in my time at the top of that subcommittee that I needed an experienced engineer to ensure that we were prioritizing and funding these thousands of projects according to both technical merit and also national priorities. So, I brought in Roger as a fellow from the Corps of Engineers and it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made. As all Members have been known to do, I kept him as a fellow for as long as the Corps would pay him and then I hired him away.

Roger is exactly what you want in a staffer, particularly one who represents you on the Appropriations Committee: Smart, extremely well- prepared, hard-working, and, in the case of Roger, more willing to work with the staff of other Members to make their priorities work within the rules than anyone I have ever met. If Roger could not make your project work within the rules, regulations, and laws regarding a water project, it is a pretty safe bet that it was a bad project. So far as I know, Roger never turned down a meeting with anyone and his eternally sunny and friendly nature always made him a delight to work with.

I left that subcommittee many years ago now, but Roger stayed there and has gone back and forth to both the Republican and Democratic staffs several times depending upon who is in the majority around here. I can think of no higher compliment to a Senate staffer than to be held in such high esteem by both sides that he or she is retained by the majority year-after-year, Congress after Congress because of his or her expertise and, more importantly, fairness. And Roger is nothing if not fair to all who have appeared in his doorway over the years. The Senate is a better place because of people like Roger Cockrell.

I wish Roger and his wife Anna Lisa all the best as they move on to whatever is next in their lives. I am sad to see him go, but he has earned more time with his family, including his daughter Melissa. I have known him long enough to know that he won't be able to sit still for long. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in expressing my gratitude for his long and dedicated service to our Nation.