Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am really pleased to be able to join my colleague Senator Isakson from Georgia as we have introduced our bipartisan legislation, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. I think this is a welcomed piece of bipartisan legislation at this point in the year.

I want to start by thanking the Senator from Georgia for his very good work on this legislation. He has been leading this effort since he first came to the Senate in 2005, and I have been fortunate enough to partner with him on the legislation in the past two Congresses.

I think that by working together, we could pass this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that could change the way we do business in Washington for the better. As Senator Isakson said, there is no question that our budget process is broken.

Since 1980, we have only finished two budgets on time. In that timeframe, Congress has resorted to nearly 170 short-term funding bills or continuing resolutions. We also experienced a costly and dangerous government shutdown in October of 2013 that cost our economy $24 billion.

It hurt small businesses. It hurt the people across this country.

That is no way to govern. I understand, as Senator Isakson said, that biennial budgeting will not fix everything, but it is a reform that will encourage us to work across the aisle to become better stewards of taxpayer dollars. I can attest to this personally because, as Governor of New Hampshire, I saw how you make a biennial budget work.

In each biennium, I worked with a Republican legislature, and we put together a balanced budget in the first year of the legislative session. In the second year, we had the opportunity to do oversight. That is exactly what this bill would allow us to do here in Washington. It is a reform that has worked in New Hampshire, and it has worked in 18 other States. So as Senator Isakson said, 19 States in all have biennial budgeting, and it really gives us a better opportunity to review the budget to see what is working, what is effective, and what is not.

One example that I think shows how we can do this better is looking at several reports that have been issued by the Government Accountability Office. They have found areas of waste, fraud, and duplicative programs. And they have identified ways to reform things, like our farm program, to cut down inefficiencies in defense, and to reduce fraud in health programs. But today, Congress hasn't really taken the time and effort to go through those recommendations. Under biennial budgeting, we would be able to look at those kinds of recommendations and implement savings in the second year of the budget process.

Biennial budgeting also reduces the number of opportunities for manufactured crises, like a government shutdown. As Senator Isakson said, we have gotten real momentum in the last couple of years. We had a great vote in 2013 in the Senate, where we had an overwhelming bipartisan group endorse the concept. We saw a vote in the House Budget Committee, where legislation on a biennial budget passed with a bipartisan vote. It not only passed the House but had over half of the House Members as cosponsors. And we saw a favorable hearing in the Senate Budget Committee on the legislation, so I think momentum is growing for this idea. It is a real way for us to take action to reform the budget process and make it work better.

The bill that we are introducing has 13 bipartisan cosponsors. We are going to keep working to get more bipartisan cosponsors, and I hope that all of our colleagues will join us in this effort.

I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Isakson and with Senators Enzi and Sanders on the Budget Committee to get this important reform through the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to address the nominee for Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Sessions. The U.S. Constitution provides that the Senate will advise and consent on all nominees put forward by the President. This fundamental check on Executive power continues to give confidence to the public that the individuals charged with the immense responsibilities and authorities of our Federal Government are of the highest ethical and professional character, are highly qualified, and are committed to exercising those powers in a manner that is consistent with our founding principles.

Any person seeking to serve in such high positions of public trust ought to be able to explain his or her record of personal and professional conduct, not only to close colleagues and friends but also to the public they seek to serve.

I have great respect for Senator Jeff Sessions for his commitment to public service, but I don't believe that he is the right choice to serve as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer. Time and again in the course of his career, his actions have demonstrated disinterest or even hostility to many of the civil rights that we rely on the Attorney General to protect and defend, from voting rights to civil rights, to equality for women, minorities, the LGBTQ community, and people with disabilities.

Senator Sessions' record in the Senate provides little evidence that his views have evolved since the last time the Senate evaluated his fitness to serve in high Federal office, when President Reagan nominated him to serve as a Federal judge in 1986. Three decades ago, the Senate voted against his confirmation to serve as Federal judge. Today, I believe the Senate should not confirm him to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

At this time in our history, with the growing concern about this administration's commitment to basic democratic principles, such as equality before the law, separation of powers, freedom of the press, and protection of minority views, I cannot support a nominee who has failed to demonstrate appreciation for these ideals, regardless of our personal relationship. We need an Attorney General who will fight for justice and equal protection for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

One of my principal objections to this nominee is his record of making it harder for certain groups of people to vote. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, also

known as the preclearance provision. And while the overwhelming majority of civil rights organizations considered this ruling, which invalidated a landmark achievement of the civil rights movement--a devastating defeat--Senator Sessions was quoted as saying that it was a ``good thing for the South.'' He has been quoted as saying that he views the Voting Rights Act as an intrusive piece of legislation. We often refer to the shorthand name for this case, calling it simply Shelby County. But I believe the full title is instructive: Shelby County v. Holder. Holder, of course, was Attorney General Eric Holder. And in this case, the Supreme Court ruled against the Department of Justice and against the views of this Congress, which voted in 2006 to extend section 5 for another 25 years.

It also demonstrated the awesome responsibility and discretion of the Attorney General. Eric Holder was fighting to protect minorities in States with a history of racial discrimination from future voter suppression efforts. In contrast, as U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions prosecuted several members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the great civil rights organization formerly led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He indicted these people for allegedly attempting to fraudulently register people in minority communities to vote. All of those counts were dismissed in that case. However, the chilling effect of this type of use of government authority on our civil society should not be underestimated. This illustrated the awesome power of the prosecutor in our judicial system. That power is exponentially greater in the Office of the U.S. Attorney General.

As I said, Senator Sessions is also an outspoken advocate for voter ID laws, including at the Federal level. In State after State, including my home State of New Hampshire, unnecessarily stringent voter ID laws have been passed by Republicans with the clear intent to deny access to the ballot box on the part of minorities, the young, and the poor. Striking down the laws passed by Republicans in North Carolina, a unanimous Federal court ruled that they ``target African Americans with almost surgical precision''--that is a direct quote--and ``impose cures for problems that did not exist.''

Invalidating similar laws in Wisconsin, U.S. District Court Judge James Peterson wrote: ``The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in the elections, particularly in minority communities.''

President Trump has falsely claimed on numerous occasions that 3 to 5 million undocumented immigrants voted in the election in November. We have even heard that claim in New Hampshire, where our deputy secretary of State, a Republican, has said those claims are not accurate.

Throughout our history, these arguments, not grounded in fact and data, have been used as a pretext for advancing new voter ID laws, including at the national level. Yet, as Attorney General, Senator Sessions would enthusiastically support this agenda. I believe that to be disqualifying for any nominee to serve as Attorney General.

When I was Governor of New Hampshire, I had the honor of being able to appoint the attorney general in our State. My qualification was that the attorney general should be the people's attorney. I think that is no less true of the Attorney General of the United States.

I am also deeply concerned by the nominee's record on issues associated with women's health and autonomy. For example, as Senator Blumenthal said so eloquently earlier this afternoon: Senator Sessions voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This law has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis each time it has been brought up since 1994.

The 2013 reauthorization expanded the scope of domestic violence programs, yet Senator Sessions was one of only 22 who voted no. This is of particular concern when we see the framework for what is suggested will be the Trump administration's budget, which would eliminate the Office on Violence Against Women at a time when one in five women is a victim of rape, either completed or attempted.

Senator Sessions has also been a fierce opponent of a woman's right to choose. He voted against a resolution supporting the Roe v. Wade decision, which affirmed the constitutional right of women to control our own reproductive choices. He has cosponsored legislation to prohibit Federal funding for health insurance plans that include coverage of abortion. He even opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers to women who bring charges of discriminatory wage practices.

Senator Sessions voted against it in 2008 and again in 2009, when it became law over his opposition. Senator Sessions has consistently argued for ``color blind'' enforcement of our Nation's civil rights laws. He contends that racism in the United States has been effectively addressed, and, therefore, diversity programs unfairly discriminate against White Americans.

For the same reason, he has voted against legislation to protect the rights and safety of the LGBT community. In 2009, he vehemently opposed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which protects LGBT Americans from hate crimes. In debate on that proposed law, Senator Sessions said:

Today I am not sure women or people with different sexual

orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't

see it.

Well, Senator Sessions, if you talked to the members of the gay and lesbian community, as I have, if you would talk to women across this country who have faced discrimination in employment practices, who have faced discrimination before the Affordable Care Act, in terms of our health insurance, who have faced discrimination in terms of getting justice in cases of violence against women, you would understand that we need to make sure that the laws protect women and minorities.

In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against a measure to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. He also voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Mr. President, I will yield to the honorable Senator from Missouri.

So in 2013, as I was saying, Senator Sessions voted against a measure to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And similarly, he voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Finally, Senator Sessions' views on immigration are just outside the mainstream. Most Americans want fair, humane treatment for would-be immigrants to the United States, as well as for undocumented immigrants who are already here.

Senator Sessions has amply demonstrated that he does not agree with this view. Since he came to the Senate, he has been a leading opponent of bipartisan immigration reform efforts. In 2007 and again in 2013, he was instrumental in defeating immigration reform proposals that had widespread support in Congress and the country.

More recently, he has been a key adviser to Candidate Trump and now President Trump on immigration policies, encouraging extreme positions such as a ban on Muslim immigration and harsh treatment of DREAMers, those undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as young children.

I have also had the opportunity to work with Senator Sessions in trying to renew and extend the special immigrant visa program for those Afghans and Iraqis who helped our men and women in the military as we were fighting conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have heard from multiple members of our military who served that these interpreters and these people from Iraq and Afghanistan who worked with them to make sure that they could help keep them safe have saved lives and have made a difference in that military conflict because of the

help they provided to our fighting men and women.

Yet Senator Sessions, as we were trying to extend that program, was unwilling to allow us to make sure that we could bring them to the United States, with all of the vetting that goes on to make sure that the people who come here are actually people who helped us. He opposed extending that program to allow all of those folks to come here.

I believe we need an Attorney General who will not only insist on equal enforcement of the laws but who has a passion for pursuing justice and fairness for all Americans, as well as for those who want to visit or who want to immigrate to the United States. In my view, Senator Sessions has failed to demonstrate that commitment.

Indeed, I worry that as Attorney General, Senator Sessions would affirm and encourage Trump's most troubling tendencies, especially with regard to minorities, to women, to immigrants, and to the LGBTQ community. I believe Senator Sessions is the wrong person for the critically important post of U.S. Attorney General. I intend to vote against his confirmation.

Mr. President, I just wanted to take a minute. I know we have several people waiting to speak, but I wanted to respond to my colleague from South Dakota because I think for Senator Thune to come to the floor and castigate Democrats for holding up Judge Gorsuch, who has just been nominated, and for suggesting we are going to filibuster, the fact is, throughout most of last year, we saw the Republican majority in this body hold up the nominee Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee.

For the first time in history, this body refused to hold a hearing on a nominee for the Supreme Court, refused to give an up-or-down vote, and to suggest that we should not get a fair hearing on the nominee to the Supreme Court--Judge Gorsuch--I think is just not someone who is going to be good for the American people.

Unlike the Republican majority, I haven't heard any Democrats saying: We don't think that Judge Gorsuch should get a hearing or that he should get an up-or-down vote. Everybody I have talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.

As for the time that it is taking us to review the nominees of this administration, the fact is, the Trump administration was delayed in putting forward nominees. They were much later than the previous two Presidents. We are still waiting for many of those nominees to provide the background information that is required for those positions to have the background checks done, to have the questions that have been put forward to them in hearings answered. So I think we should all work together to move these nominees. That is what I have done on the Small Business Committee as the ranking member, and we have worked very well because that nominee provided all the required information. She had the FBI background check done, and we were able to hold a hearing on her. Well, that is what we expect from every nominee.

So I am disappointed to hear my colleague come down and say that we are not going to give Judge Gorsuch a fair hearing. I think we are going to do that, but we are going to do it in a way that provides information to the American people so we all know where this judge stands and what he thinks about the role on the Supreme Court.

I think rather than name-calling, it would be more effective for us to work together to get this done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I came to the floor today to join with Senators and people across this country in speaking out against the President's misguided and, I believe, destructive Executive order that has abruptly closed our borders to all refugees as well as citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries.

During the campaign, Candidate Trump called for a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' I had certainly hoped that once in office, he would receive wise and prudent counsel and he would realize that elevating such a Muslim ban to the status of official U.S. policy would have very negative consequences.

Instead, what we have seen is that a small group in the White House acting in secret produced this Executive order. They did so without legal review and even without the knowledge of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, or the nominee to be Secretary of State. As a result, as we all know, we saw a weekend of chaos and confusion--a self-inflicted wound to our national security and to our reputation in the world.

The consequences go far beyond the scenes of disorder that we witnessed in recent days. By singling out Muslim-majority countries and banning their citizens from entry into the United States and by denying entry to all refugees, the President has greatly damaged America's image across the world and, perhaps, worst of all, this Executive order is a gift to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and to every other radical jihadist group. On social media they celebrated the travel ban as a confirmation to their narrative that the United States is at war with Islam and that they are engaged in a clash of civilizations. One ISIS sympathizer praised the Executive order as a ``blessed ban,'' comparing it to what he called ``the blessed invasion'' of Iraq, which inflamed anti- American anger across the Islamic world. This is dangerous because this is a powerful recruitment tool for our enemies.

I am also deeply concerned that this Executive order endangers our troops and our diplomats who are in the field. Today, more than 5,000 American troops are supporting Iraqi troops in the fight to reclaim Mosul and drive ISIS out of Iraq. By discriminating based on religion and nationality, the President's order undermines the local alliances and the trust established by our troops and diplomats in the field. This order is so ill-considered that, as originally drafted, it even barred Iraqi civilians, including translators who provided essential assistance to the U.S. mission.

Just to be clear, this Muslim ban is un-American. It is offensive to our Nation's core values and ideals. The right way forward is not to carve out small exceptions to the Muslim ban. It is to repeal the ban entirely. The President has called for what he has termed ``extreme vetting,'' but the truth is that our vetting procedures are already thorough and rigorous. It takes as long as 24 months for a refugee to make it through the process and come to the United States. The entire screening process takes place outside the United States. So it doesn't pose a threat to people here in America.

In my home State of New Hampshire, the President's Executive order has caused shock and profound concern, especially in our business and academic communities, as well as in our immigrant communities. T.J. Parker is the CEO of PillPack, a company that employs nearly 400 people in Manchester, which is the largest city in New Hampshire. He said on Monday: ``This ban is wrong and goes against our values as a company and as Americans.''

He continued: ``I'm also deeply concerned about any measures that could discourage talented individuals from studying and working in the

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my neighbor from Vermont, Senator Patrick Leahy. We also had a very inspiring march in the capital of New Hampshire on Saturday that Senator Hassan and I both attended. But I am not here to talk about that so much as about the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. That anniversary happened this past Sunday. That ruling affirmed the constitutional right of women to control our own reproductive choices. It made birth control safer and more accessible for women across this country.

On Saturday, as Senator Leahy said so eloquently, we saw millions of women and men come together in Washington and Concord, NH, and other cities across New Hampshire and across the United States and all across the globe. There were events in all 50 States and in 32 countries. We came together to defend this constitutional right, as well as other critical gains for women in recent years. Our message, expressed peacefully and powerfully, was that we will not allow these gains to be taken away. We will not be dragged backward.

Despite the progress since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, women's reproductive health care remains under constant assault. States have passed restrictions intended to shut down clinics and limit access. Sadly, Republican leadership here in Congress has repeatedly attempted to defund Planned Parenthood, which is one of this Nation's leading providers of high-quality, affordable health care for women, and over 95 percent of the work that is done by Planned Parenthood is done to provide preventive services and health care to women, such as mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and other important preventive care.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration and Republican leaders here in Congress have exhibited a dangerous obsession with rolling back women's reproductive rights. President Trump has promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. It is interesting--he has talked about court decisions around LGBT rights as being settled law, and yet we have the Roe v. Wade decision, which is 44 years old, and for some reason he doesn't include that as settled law.

Just yesterday, in one of his first official acts, the President signed an Executive order reinstating the global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy that began with Ronald Reagan's Executive order. That Executive order prohibits U.S. financial aid to many international organizations that offer contraception and comprehensive family planning services to women. But what we have seen with this Executive order that President Trump signed is a broad expansion of that Mexico City policy.

The new Trump administration has joined with Republican leaders in Congress in pledging a much broader assault on women's rights and the gains women have made in recent years. In addition to terminating funding for Planned Parenthood, which more than 12,000 Granite Staters depend on for quality, affordable health care, they have promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have profoundly negative consequences for women's health. The repeal would end ObamaCare's ban on discrimination against women in health insurance. Depending on how the law is crafted, it would allow insurers to once again classify pregnancy as a preexisting condition and to deny many women coverage; it would allow insurers to charge women more simply because we are women; it would reverse women's access to contraception without cost- sharing; and it would end access to preventive health services, such as mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, without cost-sharing--all very significant benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

Last week, we also saw reports that at the Justice Department, the Trump administration plans to eliminate the Office on Violence Against Women, including all 25 grant programs that have been working to prevent domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of violence against women for more than two decades--this at a time when one in five women in this country still reports being the victim of a completed or attempted rape.

Taken together, these actions amount to more than a dangerous obsession with throwing back women's reproductive rights, they amount to an assault on the safety and well-being of women and girls in the United States and across the globe. This is exactly what millions of women and men were protesting on Saturday.

Sadly, people are not just concerned, they are frightened, and unfortunately with very good reason.

As those of us who gathered and marched on Saturday made very clear, we are not going to stand still for this assault on our rights and gains. We are not going to be taken backward. This week, I am introducing bipartisan legislation to permanently repeal the global gag rule, with Senator Collins. This rule bans Federal funds for nongovernmental organizations that provide abortion services or information about abortion as part of comprehensive family planning services.

As I said earlier, the Trump administration's reinstatement of the global gag rule is even more extreme and harmful than it has been in previous

Republican administrations. Previously, under President Reagan and the Bush administration, this policy applied only to family planning funding, but under President Trump's order, it applies to every program that falls under global health assistance. This means that it puts at risk 15 times more funding and millions more women and families. This targets some of the most effective health organizations that work in the developing world--organizations that are doing great work to provide HIV services and maternal health care and to counsel women on the risks of the Zika infection--and it ignores decades of research. We know that when family planning services and contraceptives are accessible, there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer maternal deaths and child deaths, and fewer abortions. So if you want to prevent abortion--something I think we all agree on--then why not give women and their families access to family planning services? I don't think we can allow extreme ideology to triumph over the urgent practical needs of women and families across the world.

The facts make clear that when family planning services are accessible and contraceptives are affordable, rates of unplanned pregnancies and abortions go down. Here in the United States, the abortion rate has dropped to the lowest level since 1943--a success that is directly attributed to reduced cost-sharing for contraception under the Affordable Care Act. And what do we have? We have the leadership and Congress trying to reverse that assistance to women and families.

In recent days, we have been presented with a fateful choice. We can stand aside and allow the Trump administration to lead an across-the- board assault on women's rights--on women's access to health care, on programs that protect women from sexual assault and other forms of violence--or we can come together on a bipartisan basis to protect the important gains women have made in recent years and decades.

Back in the early 1980s, I chaired a committee in New Hampshire that was working on women's employment in the State. One of the conclusions we came to was when women are supported, their families are supported. So this is not just about women in this country; this is about families. It is about women and their children and their husbands and their brothers and their fathers and their mothers. This is about what is in the best interests of the American people.

Millions of Americans joined together on Saturday, peacefully and passionately, to urge Congress to make the right choice, to protect women's constitutional rights, to protect our access to health care. I urge my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to those voices, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in ending the global gag rule once and for all.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of hundreds of thousands of New Hampshire--

--patients who need health care, I vote no.

Mr. President, I am here to join so many of my colleagues to oppose efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Outright repeal without a replacement plan will hurt hundreds of thousands of people in New Hampshire as well as millions across this country. The estimate is anywhere from 20 million to 30 million people who will lose their health insurance coverage.

There are all kinds of reasons why this is a bad idea. Many of those have been addressed by my colleagues very eloquently. I wish to speak about a couple of those reasons.

The first is one Senator Durbin alluded to earlier; that is, what repeal of this law will mean for the heroin and opioid epidemic that is facing New Hampshire and so many States across this country. Repeal will dramatically worsen that epidemic because it will deny treatment for people who are abusing substances, and it will also deny them access to mental health services. That will mean a surge in overdose deaths, and it will reverse so much of the progress we are beginning to make.

I understand that sweeping health care reform is not easy. We all know the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. It needs work. The way to address it is not to repeal it, it is to work together to make it better. Rather than rush to destroy the Affordable Care Act with no replacement in sight, we should be working together, on a bipartisan basis, to make commonsense improvements to the law. It can be done. I know, because Tim Scott and I worked together to pass the PACE Act last year to make it easier for us to control health care insurance increases and to allow States to make the determination about group size for health insurance plans.

One of the things I am hopeful about is that President-Elect Trump, in the course of many visits to New Hampshire over the last year, again and again pledged to take robust action to combat the opioid epidemic in New Hampshire and across America. Yet, by repealing the Affordable Care Act, President-Elect Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress will make the opioid crisis so much worse. This would be a broken promise to communities all across this country that are struggling with addiction.

The Affordable Care Act has given millions of Americans access to treatment and recovery and saved countless lives, and repealing it would deny treatment to people suffering from substance use disorders. It will cost lives. It will take a terrible toll on communities across America.

In New Hampshire alone, health care reform has helped over 100,000 people gain access to health care coverage--people like Keith from Rindge, NH. Keith was one of the thousands of Granite Staters able to access quality, affordable health insurance through our State's Medicaid expansion program.

Keith told my office that the Medicaid expansion literally saved his life. Keith was suffering from several health issues when he went to see his doctor after he signed up for the New Hampshire Health Protection Plan, which is what we call our expansion of Medicaid. He told us that had he not had insurance, doctors likely would not have caught his kidney cancer early like they did, but because he had that health insurance, Keith was able to afford and quickly access treatment for

his cancer. He is thankfully now cancer-free, and he credits having insurance through Medicaid expansion with saving his life.

As I said, New Hampshire is in the midst of a heroin and opioid epidemic. We have talked about the grim statistics frequently in the last year as we have come to the floor. In 2014, we lost 47,000 Americans due to heroin and opioid overdoses. In New Hampshire, when all of the analysis is in for 2016, we are expecting to have lost almost 500 people due to overdose deaths. As Senator Durbin pointed out, we have one of the highest percentages of overdose deaths in the country.

It doesn't have to be that way because addiction is an illness. It is an illness that doesn't have a cure, but we have made progress in treating it. The Affordable Care Act ensures that substance misuse services are covered by insurance. As a direct result of the Affordable Care Act, many of those suffering finally have access to counseling and therapy like medication-assisted treatment.

In addition to covering substance misuse counseling, the Affordable Care Act is also built on mental health parity provisions that require group health plans and insurers offering coverage of mental health services to provide comparable coverage to what they provide for other medical care when it comes to substance misuse.

The Affordable Care Act extended these parity goals by requiring mental health services to be covered as essential health benefits, and it also helped expand access to these services by insuring more patients.

We worked very hard, in a bipartisan way, over the last year in this Chamber to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and to pass the 21st Century Cures Act that provided $1 billion to address heroin and opioid problems in this country. Both of those bills provide significant benefits to people who are suffering from substance misuse. If we repeal the Affordable Care Act, we are going to undo all of the progress we have made through these supplemental pieces of law because it would reverse the treatment access so many people in New Hampshire and across this country have. Why would we deliberately take away access to this lifesaving treatment from so many people who are struggling to overcome addiction?

Repealing the Affordable Care Act will affect people like Ashley Hurteau of Dover, who said her access to health care as a new Medicaid enrollee was critical to her addiction recovery. She told our newspaper, the Union Leader: ``I am living proof that, by giving individuals suffering with substance use disorders access to health insurance, we, as a society, are giving people like me the chance to be who we really are again.''

I had the opportunity last Friday to visit a program called Hope on Haven Hill in Rochester, NH. It provides help for women with substance misuse issues who are pregnant or who have just delivered babies. It works because these young women are enrolled in our Medicaid expansion program. Without that, they would lose any opportunity for treatment for their substance misuse. When I visited them, they talked about what it was like to be in a place where it was like a home, where people wanted to help them so that they could provide a better life for themselves and their children.

Without access to lifesaving addiction treatment, many people like Ashley and like those young women at Hope on Haven Hill would succumb to their addiction. Again, what is so frustrating about this situation is that it is completely preventable. It is not only the right thing to do, but it is the economic thing to do because the cost of failing to provide treatment for people who have substance misuse disorders is to make sure that they cannot become profitable, taxpaying members of our society.

One other benefit of the Affordable Care Act that, as Senator Murray said, is so critical to 50 percent of our population is access to health care for women. Before the Affordable Care Act, women paid more for health insurance, and contraceptives were something that made insurance cost more. Particularly for women who don't have the economic means, the Affordable Care Act has, for the first time, made contraceptives available to women without cost-sharing requirements like copays, deductibles, and coinsurance. Study after study has shown that access to contraceptives is one of the greatest indicators of success for women. When women are able to plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to graduate from high school, to enroll in college, to have stable and higher paying jobs, and to make sure that their health outcomes are better for themselves, their children, and their families.

It is especially frustrating that last week our Republican colleagues in the House leadership announced that they are going to use the budget processes not only to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the help that it provides to women for contraceptive coverage, but they are also going to use this vehicle to defund Planned Parenthood. This is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous.

Just this morning, Senator Hassan and I visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Exeter, NH. We talked with women who have benefited from the vital services this center provides to thousands of Granite Staters. They talked about how 94 percent of the services provided in New Hampshire Planned Parenthood clinics are related to prevention. This is what one of the volunteers said in talking about the women with whom she had met who had come to Planned Parenthood clinics: What they tell me is that Planned Parenthood saved me.

For so many women who have economic challenges, for low-income women who need access to services in New Hampshire and across the country, they don't have any other place where they can get services if we close down Planned Parenthood clinics. Two counties in New Hampshire don't have community health centers and a place where women can readily go. So defunding Planned Parenthood, closing the doors to Planned Parenthood health centers--in New Hampshire and across this country-- would put millions of women in a situation where they have nowhere to go to access basic health care services. This will cost women and their families access to preventive care, and, ultimately, it is going to cost the lives of women.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act is going to actively worsen health outcomes. It will provide less access to care for our most vulnerable populations. It will increase unplanned pregnancies. It will mean that people who have preexisting conditions will not be able to access health insurance in the future. The list goes on and on. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act will not only throw millions of people off their health care, but it will also impact the coverage of millions of others because millions of Americans will see their premiums rise. They will see reinstatement of lifetime limits. They will see reinstatement of expensive cost-sharing requirements, higher deductibles, a reinstatement by health insurance companies of coverage denials, or sky-high premiums because of preexisting conditions. Why would we go back to those exclusionary and detrimental practices? Why would we go back to a time when we had over 20 million fewer people in this country who had access to health insurance?

Now is the time for us to come together. Instead of scrapping this law, we should be working together to improve it, to make it work for all Americans.

Make no mistake, repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan, stripping away health insurance for tens of thousands of Granite Staters and over 20 million Americans is not only counterintuitive but it is dangerous. We can do better in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I applaud Senator Klobuchar for her comments and for pointing out there are real threats that we heard this weekend from al-Shabaab against the Mall of America. I heard a news report this morning about that, and one of the things they have talked about are the very good relations the State of Minnesota and Senator Klobuchar have built with the Somali community.

But her remarks, just as those news reports, underscore the fact that we have to address funding for the Department of Homeland Security. We are just days away from a shutdown, a shutdown of the Department whose mission it is to protect the citizens of this country while we are under threat of attack by terrorist groups. That is reckless and it is dangerous. What kind of message does it send to ISIS, to cyber criminals, to drug cartels if Congress can't keep the Department of Homeland Security open?

Because of the real and dangerous threats we face, we need to have our counterterrorism, our intelligence, and our law enforcement officials functioning at their highest level.

I met this morning with a group of law enforcement officials and firefighters from the sea coast of New Hampshire, and they were talking about how important the funding from the Department of Homeland Security is to them as they do their jobs. They said two things that I think are very 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, similar to 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.

It is time for us to put politics aside. We can debate immigration. We can debate the President's Executive orders. I am pleased 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 will come together and support a clean funding bill so we can make sure the resources are there to fight the threats that we face.

I yield to the Senator.

My colleague makes a very important point. I visited the Coast Guard station in Portsmouth, NH, on Friday and heard about their drug interdiction efforts and their search and rescue efforts. As the Senator points out, they--similar to 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 this country.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the status of the floor debate and how much time might I have?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor, with just 16 days left until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, to again call for Congress to pass a clean full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. With our Nation facing very real and very dangerous threats--Senator Murphy was just on the floor talking about the ISIL threat and pointed out what the risks are--it is time for us to put politics aside and do what is right for the security of our Nation.

If we don't pass a full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, we will not be able to make critical investments in border security, maritime security, and in nuclear detection activities.

If we don't pass a full-year bill, grants to protect our cities and our ports from terror attacks would be halted, and new grants to police and firefighters will not be awarded. If we don't pass a full-year bill, we are shortchanging counterterrorism efforts, and we will put our Nation's cyber networks at risk.

Senator Mikulski and I have filed a clean, full-year funding bill that is on the Senate calendar and ready for action. Our bill fully funds these key security priorities, but if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to support a bill that Senator Mikulski and I have filed, certainly we can support a clean Republican bill that includes the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Our bill--our clean bill--is based on the bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was reached in December by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Hal Rogers. The legislation was agreed to by Democrats and Republicans, and it was the result of bipartisan, compromised negotiations. Not everyone got what they wanted in the bill, but it is a good budget that strengthens our Nation and protects against the many threats we face.

Appropriations bills are only possible because of the art of compromise. Senators from both parties identify priorities important to them or their States. They work with Members of the Appropriations Committee on bill language, funding priorities. Everyone works together to influence the final product. All Senators have the opportunity to participate in crafting appropriations bills.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about the funding and how it is allocated in the appropriations bill before us, in the funding bill for Homeland Security. Senator Cochran, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, came to the floor and touted all of the benefits in the funding bill for Homeland Security. Senator Hoeven, who chairs the Subcommittee on Homeland Security that I am the ranking member of, came to the floor and, similar to Senator Cochran, touted what is on the bill. I have been on the floor, Senator Mikulski has been to the floor many times to talk about what is in the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security and why we need to pass it.

This morning I wish to highlight a few more of the priorities in a clean, full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, priorities that will be at risk if we can't pass a clean bill.

There is bipartisan support that the Homeland Security appropriations bill includes strong funding for fire and SAFER grants. I know the Presiding Officer understands these programs because he has been the Governor of his home State. So he knows how important those fire and SAFER grants are to local fire departments, to first responders because they help purchase new equipment, they help with training exercises, and they can help fire departments cut down response times and save lives.

There is also bipartisan support that the Homeland Security funding bill include grants to help our Nation's largest cities protect against terror attacks. There is funding for port security grants, State and local law enforcement grants, emergency preparedness grants. There is bipartisan support for funding to upgrade the FEMA Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, AL.

There is a compromise most of the people on the Democratic side of the aisle didn't agree with, to deny President Obama's request to increase air passenger fees and reinstitute the air carrier security fee.

The Coast Guard needs to continue the acquisition of its eighth national security cutter, which is so important for our maritime security. Republicans and Democrats secured $627 million in the bill for the cutter.

We have all seen how devastating the attacks were against Sony when it was hacked. Cyber attacks are an area of security that former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft called ``as dangerous as nuclear weapons.'' That is why Republicans and Democrats pushed for full funding for DHS cyber security activities.

The increase to the southwestern border of unaccompanied children and families last year is a major concern for States along our southern border--States such as Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. It has been a key priority for a number of my Republican colleagues, and for all of us who are concerned about border security, to meet the statutory mandate of 34,000 detention beds for undocumented immigrants that is required for the Department of Homeland Security.

The clean funding bill includes support for those 34,000 detention beds, and it also includes funding to meet Republican requests to build 3,000 new family detention beds in Texas.

The National Bio and Agro-Defense facility construction in Manhattan, KS, which is an effort to help us deal with threats against our food supply and other bioterrorism threats--in a clean funding bill will receive the final amount needed to begin construction.

Senator Roberts and I talked about this today. One of the things he pointed out is he has been working on this project for 16 years. There is $300 million in this clean, full-year bill. If we don't pass this bill, if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, if we are in a continuing resolution, then this funding is at risk and they may have to rebid the project, which will drive up costs. That makes no sense.

There was bipartisan agreement to include $12 million for the National Computer Forensics Institute in Hoover, AL, to support the expansion of basic and advanced training for State and local law enforcement personnel, judges, and prosecutors to combat cyber crime.

These important investments in counterterrorism and cyber and border security are not controversial. That is not what we are arguing about here. We are arguing about whether we are

going to debate what the President did with respect to immigration, and we should not be having this debate on the Department of Homeland Security's funding bill. We can have that debate. I am all for it. I was happy to have that debate when this body passed comprehensive immigration reform 2 years ago, but we should not be having this debate on this bill. The House should understand, just as the Senate understands that. We should not be having that debate on this funding bill for Department of Homeland Security.

We need to come together to pass a clean bill--a bill that was the result of bipartisan negotiation and bipartisan compromise. We have a bill on the Senate calendar to do just that.

I am hearing from communities all across New Hampshire--we are hearing from communities across the country--about the need to pass a full-year funding bill.

Last week the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International Association of Emergency Managers, and the International Association of Firefighters joined our call for a clean, full-year funding bill because they understand, as I know we all do, how disastrous failing to fund this agency would be. Three previous DHS Secretaries, two Republicans and one Democrat, have done the same.

Earlier this week, the National Fraternal Order of Police joined that call for action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police printed in the Record.

Their letter expresses frustration with the fact that a policy dispute over the President's immigration actions ``could compromise the safety and security of our country.''

The letter continues:

What kind of message does this send to the men and women in

DHS who put their lives on the line in defense of our

homeland--three of whom fell in the line of duty over the

past two years?

What kind of message does this send to our enemies?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 60 seconds.

Congress's most basic function is to provide for the Nation's security. It is time to stop playing politics, to get to work, do our jobs, and pass a clean full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

If I could ask my colleague a question, isn't it true, I say to Senator Durbin, that the bill you are talking about, the clean bill Senator Mikulski and I have introduced, is the legislation that was agreed to last December by Senator Mikulski, when she was chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Hal Rogers, chair of the House Appropriations Committee? It was a bipartisan agreement, a bicameral agreement, and each side gave some.

What is at issue here is not that underlying bill. What is at issue are the five riders, the amendments the House put on, that have nothing to do with funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, can the Chair tell me what the status of the floor is and how much time I have to speak.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, despite the fact that we are just days away from the Department of Homeland Security shutting down, we don't yet have an agreement to fund a clean bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security operating. Unfortunately, we haven't heard from the majority that there is interest in addressing this issue this week. I think that is very unfortunate.

We are ready to work to pass a clean full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and last week we actually asked unanimous consent to take up and pass the clean bill that Senator Mikulski and I introduced to fund the Department for the rest of the year and to then have votes on immigration matters. I think we are happy to debate immigration, but we don't believe we should do it on the bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, that unanimous consent was rejected.

Now, we could pass a clean bill this afternoon, and we should. We should stop playing politics with our national security. In just a few days, with our Nation dealing with real and dangerous terror threats, some Members of Congress have suggested we should shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Because of their extreme opposition to the President's Executive actions on immigration, they are willing to put at risk the security and safety of this country. So I have come to the floor today to talk about why we need to put politics aside for the security of our Nation and why we need to pass a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

A short-term budget, which is what some Members of Congress are discussing, should be off the table. A short-term budget, a continuing resolution, or a CR, means the government is on autopilot, and that is extraordinarily bad for business and for security. We need to pass a full-year bill.

If the Department of Homeland Security operates under a short-term budget, grants to protect our cities and our Nation's ports from terror attacks would be halted, grants to police and firefighters won't be awarded, contracts and acquisitions would be postponed, hiring would be delayed, and employee training would be scaled back.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently said:

As long as this Department continues to operate on a CR, we

are prevented from funding key homeland security initiatives.

These include funding for new grants to state and local law

enforcement, additional border security resources, and

additional Secret Service resources. Other core missions,

such as aviation security and protection of federal

installations and personnel, are also hampered.

A little while ago, Senator Booker and I held a conference call with Mayor Anisse Parker of Houston, TX, Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia, and New York City Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller. They talked about how very real and dangerous the consequences would be for cities if we don't fund Homeland Security. Our big cities and our major urban areas are unfortunately top targets for terrorists, and if we don't pass a full- year funding bill for DHS, a grant program specifically designed to help cities plan, prepare for, and defend against possible attacks will be halted.

One of the things that Deputy Commissioner Miller talked about is the fact that there have been 16 plots that have been thwarted against New York City, and that was done, to a great extent, by programs funded through the Department of Homeland Security. At risk is nearly $600 million in funding to keep our cities safe that will be put on hold. Without those resources, cities and the millions who live there are at risk; and that is not to mention all of the other small communities around this country that are at risk. That is just unacceptable.

Now, Mayor Nutter, from Philadelphia, talked about how they are not able to train first responders because the funding is uncertain. They do not know if we are going to get a bill, and so they do not know if they can continue to train. He said they do not have reimbursement for their fusion centers if we don't get a funding bill for Homeland Security. He said: It is not right to put the heavy burden on those on the front lines, those first responders who are there in cases of emergency.

Mayor Parker from Houston talked about her employees at the police department, at the public health agency, and the Department of Homeland Security employees who are affected by our failure to get a funding bill. She said right now they are dealing with measles in the city of Houston, and it is very important they have public health workers who can go out and deal with that epidemic. Yet those health employees are going to be at risk if we don't get a clean funding bill. She also mentioned the three airports they operate and one of the busiest ports in the world, and those are at risk if we can't get a funding bill.

Our major commercial ports are also targets for terrorism attacks. If we don't pass a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, the Port Security Grant Program will be put on hold, meaning nearly $100 million won't be allocated to keep our ports safe throughout the Nation.

One of those programs where we will see a gap is in radiation detection. One of the things our investigators do, as they are looking at making sure our ports are secure, is to check for radiation, for nuclear materials that might be coming in to this country. Yet they won't have the instruments, the equipment they need to do that if we don't get a clean funding bill.

Deputy Commissioner Miller talked about, as I said, the 16 terrorist plots against New York City that have been thwarted. But he also pointed out that at virtually every major New York City event when they do the security, whether it is the New York marathon or New Year's Eve in New York City, the security that protects those events is funded in whole or in part by Department of Homeland Security programs.

A short-term budget for the Department of Homeland Security would mean there are no new grants for police and firefighters in every State in the country. I don't mean that is a new program. I mean the grant funding doesn't turn over each year. That means our firefighters in New Hampshire won't be able to apply for SAFER grants again to make sure we have the force we need.

I heard from our Laconia police chief in New Hampshire last week, and he talked about what the impact would be if they can't get that funding from the Department of Homeland Security. He told a story about how they had been able to save a young man, 22 years old, who was snowmobiling and who went through Lake Winnisquam in New Hampshire. The reason they were able to save his life was because they had four firefighters they could put into water-resistant suits and send them out, because they had additional funding through a SAFER grant, giving them the ability both to train those firefighters and to make sure there was somebody else there directing them and taking that call. So there are very real impacts if we fail to get this funding done.

In the last 2 years, New Hampshire alone has received more than $7 million in grants to provide training for more than 3,800 first responders across our State and another $6 million over that same period to help hire more firefighters--firefighters such as those in Laconia who saved that 22-year-old young man. Nearly 300 police officers in New Hampshire have been given live-action training for active-shooter situations in recent years. We were also able to train and equip the State police bomb squad and the Nashua bomb squad--Nashua is the second largest city in New Hampshire--through those DHS resources.

A short-term budget, a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security puts all of these critical support programs in jeopardy, and that is why we are hearing from communities across the country. That is why last week we got letters from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International Association of Emergency Managers, and the International Association of Firefighters, all calling on Congress to pass a clean, full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. They understand that our failing to do that would be disastrous.

Three previous Department of Homeland Security Secretaries, two Republicans and one Democrat, did the same last week. Then on Sunday the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial. I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

DHS funding runs out this month, and the GOP has now

marched itself into another box canyon. If Homeland Security

funding lapses on February 27, the agency will be pushed into

a partial shutdown even as the terrorist threat is at the

forefront of public attention with the Charlie Hebdo and

Islamic State murders. Imagine if the Transportation Security

Administration, a unit of DHS, fails to intercept an Islamic

State agent en route to Detroit?

Well, the Wall Street Journal is right. These are dangerous times. Our Nation is on high alert for terror threats after the attacks in Paris and Ottawa and Sydney that have shocked the world in recent months. We don't have the luxury of playing politics with Homeland Security funding. We are trying to keep pace with threats that can occur at any time, anywhere, with little or no warning. We have to be prepared.

It is not just security grant programs for State and local first responders that would get shortchanged if we fail to pass a full-year bill. Border security, maritime security, and nuclear detection activities would be underfunded as well.

Under a short-term budget, Immigration and Customs will not have the funding they need to meet their legal mandate to have 34,000 detention beds in place for immigration detainees.

Under a short-term budget, there is no additional funding for ICE-- Immigration and Customs--to hire additional investigators for anti- trafficking and smuggling cases to combat the influx of unaccompanied children at the southern border.

Under a short-term budget, there is no funding to address Secret Service weaknesses identified by the independent Protective Mission Panel in response to the White House fence-jumping incident.

Under a short-term budget, aging nuclear weapon detection equipment will not be replaced, causing gaps that could allow our enemies to smuggle a nuclear device or dirty bomb into the country.

A short-term budget would delay upgrades to infrastructure that allow for emergency communications among first responders.

A short-term budget would delay the contract for the Coast Guard's eighth national security cutter--a cutter we need for maritime security. Life-extending maintenance work on the important 140-foot icebreaking tugs, 225-foot oceangoing buoy tenders, and the Coast Guard's training vessel would be scaled back. The deep freeze on the Great Lakes in 2014 cost the shipping industry $705 million and 3,800 jobs. Upgrading the Coast Guard's 140-foot icebreaking fleet is critical to dealing with these conditions.

A short-term budget would prevent Customs and Border Protection from awarding contracts for new remote video surveillance systems to detect border crossings and track threats.

Funding DHS should not be controversial. Playing politics and threatening to cut off critical programs that protect the country from terror attacks would result in consequences we can't afford. We should work together to pass a full-year, clean funding bill to continue the important work the Department of Homeland Security does every day to keep Americans safe.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I certainly want to give my colleague time to finish his remarks. I just want to make sure there would be an opportunity for me to also speak before the vote.

That is fine. Thank you.

Mr. President, in a few minutes the Senate is going to have yet another procedural vote on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

The bill before us, the House-passed version of the funding bill, can't become law. We have already heard the President reaffirm yesterday that he is going to veto the House-passed bill before us. That means we could face a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

At this point, given the threats from terrorism, given the work that is done by the Department of Homeland Security, that is not a tenable position to begin.

Let me say, I very much appreciate the efforts of my colleague from my neighboring State of Maine, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins. But the amendment she has put forward still raises some serious concerns about the impact on our security, because it includes language that would defund all of the Department of Homeland Security directives from November 20, 2014. So it would defund those provisions that direct law enforcement officers to place top priority on national security threats, convicted felons, gang members, illegal entrants apprehended at the border. It also defunds the southern border and approaches campaign which establishes three joint task forces to reduce the terrorism risk to the Nation. And, as she has indicated, it defunds the deferred action programs.

While she suggested that it would allow the 2012 Executive action that refers to the DREAMers to stay in place,

it raises serious questions about whether USCIS could effectively process renewables of those DREAMers--such as the young man whom Senator Durbin spoke so eloquently about--so who knows what the court action could be on that.

While I appreciate the effort, I don't think it adequately addresses the concerns we have in the Democratic caucus, that we need to pass a clean bill. We need to have a separate debate about immigration.

The Presiding Officer worked very hard 2 years ago to help us get a comprehensive immigration reform bill that most of us didn't agree with everything in it, but most of us supported. We are happy to have that debate, but what we need now is a clean bill--one that allows the funding for the Department of Homeland Security to go forward.

I noticed on the news this morning, one of the issues that is at risk in this debate over whether we are going to support funding for the Department and the security of this Nation versus an ideological objection to the President--this morning one of the lead items on the news had to do with the cyber security breach at Anthem, the second largest health insurance company in the country. I happen to have my health insurance through Anthem, so I paid particular attention to this.

But one of the things that is in this clean bill that was agreed to last December by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers was funding for the cyber security center within the Department of Homeland Security to address the next-generation threat to our cyber networks.

That is critical funding we need if we are going to intercept the kinds of breaches we saw with Anthem and heard about this morning. Yet that funding is at risk because there is not agreement to get a clean bill done to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

What we have heard from almost everybody who has spoken is: We agree we should fund the Department of Homeland Security; we agree to the dollar levels that are in that bill; we agree to making sure the safety and security of this country should be paramount. We have heard a number of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle and from the House who have said ultimately this is about getting a clean bill. So we should do that now. We should provide certainty, we should get this done, and we should stop having an ideological debate about whether we are going to support immigration and the President, or whether we are going to support the safety and security of this Nation.

I think we should all be able to agree that the safety and security of America comes first. We should get this clean bill done, and then we can go on and debate immigration reform.

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

I think it is worth noting some of the great work done by the Department of Homeland Security, which interfaces with the American people more than any other department.

Every day Customs and Border Protection processes nearly 1 million travelers entering the United States and seizes 19,000 pounds of illegal drugs between the ports of entry. The Transportation Security Administration--the people who work at our airports--screen 2 million passengers and their baggage. The Coast Guard patrols 3.4 million square miles of U.S. waterways and conducts 54 search and rescue missions that save lives annually.

Every day FEMA provides $3.7 million in Federal disaster grants to individuals and households and provides $22 million to States and local communities for disaster response and recovery. Every day the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center trains 8,000 officers from across the country. This work is just too important for our security to be delayed or disrupted because of ideological reasons concerning immigration reform.

We need to pass a clean, full-year Homeland Security funding bill. We need to pass it without controversial riders, and I hope we will do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as we continue this debate on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, we face some fundamental questions. Are we going to prioritize the safety and security of the American people or are we going to put the country at risk because of an ideological disagreement? That is the choice we face with this bill.

We can debate immigration. I think Members of the Democratic caucus would be happy to do that. The Senate did that 2 years ago when we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with 68 bipartisan votes. But this is not the time for us to have this debate.

We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security now so they can continue to do their work. We can either pass a clean bill that makes critical investments in our Nation's security or we can put our Nation at risk by playing politics with funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

I appreciate what the Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, did earlier today by coming down and laying out what is in the funding for the Department of Homeland Security and laying out the important work of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe most of us appreciate the work they do and why it is so important to the safety and security of the country. That is why we need to pass a clean bill to ensure that they are funded for the rest of this year.

For those who are in the Senate Chamber and for those watching at home who have not been following what has gone on here in Washington with this bill, I will provide a little history on how we got to where we are today.

In the closing weeks of the 113th Congress, Senator Mikulski, then chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Rogers, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, negotiated spending for the entire government, including the Department of Homeland Security. This was a compromise measure. Not everyone got what they wanted, but the bill funded Homeland Security priorities at levels that would ensure that the Department could fulfill its mission.

Then, sadly, politics came into play. Some Members of the House Republican caucus demanded that the Homeland Security bill be removed from the larger budget because of immigration issues. They didn't like the President's Executive action on immigration. Now the entire Department is funded on a short-term basis through February 27, which is just 23 days from now.

Last month the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to fund Homeland Security, but they added politically divisive language that rolls back protections for immigrant children, among other anti- immigrant measures. It also would roll back some of the efforts for surveillance and efforts to address illegal immigrants who are committing crimes when they come into this country.

Because of these controversial immigration riders, President Obama immediately announced that he would veto the House-passed bill. Last week, the entire Democratic caucus of the Senate signed a letter to Majority Leader McConnell urging him to put the security of our Nation first, to put politics aside, and to work with us to pass a clean Homeland Security funding bill

without controversial immigration riders attached--to pass a bill the President can sign.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the Senate Democratic caucus printed in the Record.

Cloture was not invoked on the House bill. We saw that yesterday in our vote. It is a bill that cannot become law. There are only 24 days left before funding for the Homeland Security Department expires.

The House bill cannot move forward. So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to pass a clean full-year budget, without controversial riders, to fund Homeland Security.

As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I am ready to work with my colleague Senator Hoeven, who chairs the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran and Senator Mikulski, and the entire committee to pass a bill to keep our Nation safe and to avoid disrupting the work of the Department of Homeland Security and to keep this critical agency operating at full strength. In fact, Senator Mikulski and I introduced a bill last week, S. 272, which would do exactly that.

We live in dangerous times. Every day new threats emerge that threaten our citizens at home and our allies abroad. The Department of Homeland Security's role in protecting our country from these threats cannot be overstated, and its funding should not be controversial.

Right now the U.S. law enforcement community is on high alert for terror threats after attacks in Sydney, Australia, and Ottawa, Canada, and, of course, the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.

Just 2 weeks ago, an Ohio man was arrested when authorities discovered he was plotting to blow up the U.S. Capitol in an ISIS- inspired plan. ISIS has thousands of foreign fighters, including Americans among their ranks, who can return to their home countries to do harm and who say they intend to do that.

We were all horrified yesterday by the news of the courageous Jordanian pilot who was killed in such a barbaric and disgusting way by the Islamic State.

We have recently learned that ISIS plans to take advantage of the Syrian refugee crisis and to move their fighters into Turkey and Europe. These are real threats. They are a clear and present danger to this country, and because they are so real, we need our counterterrorism intelligence community operating at full strength. An essential part of our Nation's counterterrorism and intelligence infrastructure is within the Department of Homeland Security.

As Michael Chertoff, George W. Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security said, ``intelligence is not only about spies and satellites.''

Intelligence is also about the disciplined daily tasks of collecting and analyzing thousands of reports and investigations that are ongoing all across our country--from our local and State police, our Border Patrol agents, our port security personnel, and our Coast Guard patrolling our shores.

The Department of Homeland Security takes these thousands of bits of information, sifts out the critical details, coordinates with our foreign intelligence agencies, and gets critical information to our first responders on the ground as quickly as possible. This work is critical to keeping our Nation safe from terrorism.

One of the chief criticisms of the 9/11 report was that we need to improve intelligence information sharing between the intelligence community and our first responders on the ground.

I was Governor on September 11. I know some of the challenges that we had in New Hampshire with that information sharing. Well, that is one of the missions the Department of Homeland Security was created to carry out.

If you talk to Governors and mayors, police chiefs and sheriffs, and the folks on the ground who are responsible for keeping our citizens safe every day, ask them about their fusion centers. Ask them whether they want their law enforcement to go back to the days when all of our intelligence was bottled up in Washington, DC, and our towns and cities were on their own. Of course they don't want to go back to being kept in the dark. There is too much at stake, but that is what could happen if the Department of Homeland Security is not fully functioning.

I wish to point out that we received a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. It is signed by Tom Cochran, CEO and executive director. He sent it to Senators Cochran, Mikulski, Hoeven, and Shaheen. I will not read the whole letter, but they point out a number of issues which I believe are important in laying out the challenge and why we need to pass a clean funding bill.

Mr. Cochran says:

I write on behalf of the nation's mayors to urge you to

expeditiously report out a ``clean'' bill to fund the

Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the

current fiscal year. A fully functioning Department of

Homeland Security is critical to the security of our nation,

our cities, and our citizens. A Department operating on a

short-term continuing resolution, despite its best efforts,

faces uncertainty and delays and simply cannot be fully

functioning.

He goes on to elaborate a number of the important programs and important work that the Department of Homeland Security does, and I will not read all of that.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will also point out a letter we received, which again, was addressed to Senator Cochran and Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 more minutes.

This is from emergency managers, and it says:

The nation's local emergency managers urge you to include

full-year funding for programs at the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) that support state and local emergency

management programs. These programs are critical to preparing

our nation for all hazards including terrorist attacks.

Again, they go on at length, and I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

There are any number of reasons why we need to pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. We should be working to do that now. We should stop the ideological debate and focus on the risk to this country if we fail to act, the potential risk we would face by passing a continuing resolution, and the risk to this country if we shut down the Department of Homeland Security. None of those options are acceptable.

We need to work together and get this done. I urge my colleagues to do that.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Madam President.

I was very pleased to hear the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, who has done such great work on the committee 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 which, as the Senator pointed out, funded the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security to keep people safe, to address emergencies, to try to protect us from cyber security threats--a whole range of efforts at the Department.

I want Senator Mikulski to hear a comment that I understand was made by the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman John Carter, who is a Republican from Texas. When he was asked about what the outcome of this debate would be on funding the Department of Homeland Security, his comment was, ``Ultimately, there may be a clean bill.''

Well, I say to Senator Mikulski, if the House Republicans and the chair of the subcommittee in 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 as soon as possible so there is certainty for the Department of Homeland Security so they can continue the planning efforts and 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 of this country because somebody has an ideological concern about this bill?

Madam President, I certainly agree with the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I will just point out that in the last 2 days, we have heard from the Conference of Mayors, which has urged us to pass a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have heard from the emergency managers across this country who are concerned about the risks of assistance for disaster relief and for FEMA, and today we 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.

As the Senator said, we should not put these communities at risk, 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 have that debate separately. We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security now to ensure that there are no risks to our citizens.

I thank Senator Mikulski and the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will my colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, yield for a question?

I appreciate the work my colleague has done on this funding bill, and I think we certainly agree on the funding that is in the bill. That is not what the debate we are having is about.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he has heard the comments of Chairman John Carter of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, a Republican from Texas, who said: ``Ultimately, there may be a clean bill.''

If the House is acknowledging that ultimately we may have a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it make sense that we would move forward to get this funding done, and we would make sure there is certainty to address the risks facing this country?

We can debate immigration. I don't think there is anybody on the Democratic side who doesn't want to have an immigration debate. We are happy to have it. But we should have that as a separate debate. As the Republican majority knows, they control the debate in the Senate. So they can decide to bring up an immigration bill as soon as we pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security. So I hope, as the House suggests, ultimately there is going to be a clean bill and that we would pass it as soon as possible to provide certainty and then move on to debate the other issues facing this country.

I ask my colleague from North Dakota if he has spoken to the chairman of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and does he share his view that ultimately there may be a clean bill?

Mr. President, I point out to my colleague that Senator Mikulski and I have introduced a clean bill that addresses funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

The fact is we find ourselves in this situation on the appropriations bill because of the riders that were attached by the House of Representatives. Those riders defund immigration directives that were issued by the President last year.

Yesterday, the senior Senator from Texas suggested that Senate Democrats don't want to debate immigration. In fact, we are happy to debate immigration. In fact, this body, in 2013, passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with a very strong bipartisan vote.

The debate we are having today is about whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The bill that is before us raises concerns about what is in the original clean bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security.

As the Senator from North Dakota and I were just discussing, Senate Republicans control the Senate. If they want to vote on immigration measures, they can bring a bill that would do that to the floor by the end of this week because they control what we consider in the Senate. But the issue that is before us today is whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. This is an issue that is critical because right now our Nation faces serious national security and terrorism threats.

This bill is not about the President's Executive action; it is about whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Since we have heard from so many of our Republican colleagues that they want to discuss immigration and border security, I spent some time yesterday speaking about all of the important investments that a clean, full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security would make in our border security. If we don't pass a clean funding bill, we will fail to make significant upgrades to technology on the border. We will fail to fund expanded enforcement activities for immigration officers. If we are serious about border security, we should support a clean full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 more minutes.

I thank the Chair.

I also think it is instructive at this time to note for the Record that included in the Executive actions that Republicans are trying to defund are provisions that increase border security, prioritize enforcement resources, and ensure accountability in our immigration system. The House bill that is before us today defunds--takes away the money--for the new policy of prioritizing criminals and national security threats for removal from the United States. So one of the orders that have been issued by DHS that Republicans want to defund directs law enforcement officers to place top priority on removing national security threats, convicted felons, gang members, and illegal entrants apprehended at the border.

The House bill also defunds increased and strategic border security.

Another one of the memos issued by DHS is on the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign, which establishes three joint task forces to reduce the terrorism risks to the Nation, combat transnational criminal organizations, and prevent the illegal flow of people and goods along our border. So that is another part of this legislation our colleagues want to defund.

It doesn't make sense, if we are concerned about border security, that we would want to pass a bill that includes measures to defund these efforts.

I understand my time has expired. I certainly hope everybody understands what the bill before us, which includes those five House riders, would actually do.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.