John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I am here to discuss the Keystone Pipeline approval legislation and the President's recent veto as well as our efforts today to override that veto. I will be joined in the colloquy with my distinguished colleague from South Dakota. Also our colleague on the other side of the aisle from West Virginia will be joining us shortly, as well as the chairman of the energy committee, our colleague from Alaska. I want to make a couple points upfront and then turn to my colleague from South Dakota. What I have here and have shown before on the Senate floor is the route the Keystone XL Pipeline would take from the oil sands in Hardisty, Alberta, coming down through Montana where we pick up domestic crude. Often people think of it as moving Canadian crude, but it also picks up domestic crude in the Bakken region. Our country likes sweet Bakken crude oil from Montana, and then it takes it on to refineries throughout the country. So that is the project we are talking about. This chart shows the project itself, and it shows what is going to happen if we don't approve it. You have to understand, this has been going on now for over 6 years. The President has delayed this project for more than 6 years, but if we don't build the pipeline to move our domestic crude in the United States, then Canada will build pipelines to the west coast and that oil will go to China by tanker ship and be refined in China. Again, we go through all these different discussions, but the reality is the oil will be produced. The question is, Do we want to have that oil here in our country or would we rather see it go to China? Of course, if it goes to China, then not only does that affect our ability to use the oil in our country because we don't have the infrastructure to move it around safely and cost-effectively, but we also then continue to import oil from the Middle East. I will run through a couple more of these charts and bring us up-to- date. It is not like we don't have pipelines. When the President takes more than 6 years to make a decision--having such a hard time with this pipeline--it is not that we don't have a few pipelines in the country. We have millions of miles of pipeline. Of course, this is going to be the latest, greatest state of the art with all the safety features-- something like 53 different safety features that are required as part of the approval process that, as we say, has been going on for more than 6 years. The other point I want to make before we go into the latest status is this is the finding of not one, not two, not three, not four, not five reports by the administration, but in fact the Obama administration's State Department has done five environmental impact statements, three draft statements, two final statements--three draft statements and two final environmental impact statements. Here is what President Obama's report states after studying the environmental impact: ``No significant environmental impact'' according to the U.S. State Department environmental impact statements as a result of the Keystone XL Pipeline. So here we are today, after more than 6 years in the ``approval process'' by the administration. We passed this legislation with 62 votes in the Senate. It passed through the House with about 270 votes in the House, a big bipartisan vote for this legislation. Last Tuesday--last Tuesday we sent it to the President. We sent it to him in the morning and he vetoed it the same day and had it back to us that afternoon. So that was pretty efficient. We send it to him in the morning and--bang--he has it back here in the afternoon. His rationale for vetoing the project is he said it cut short his review process. That is right out of his veto message. It cut short his review process. So for somebody who figured out how to veto it in one day who has been studying it for over 6 years--over 6 years--and he vetoed it because we cut his review process short after more than 6 years. Subsequent to that, the President was asked by the press: Mr. President, if Congress is somehow cutting your process short, when are you going to make a decision? His response to the press--I believe it was last week or earlier this week--he said he is going to make a decision either in a couple weeks or maybe in a couple months but certainly by the end of his term. My question is this, How can there be any process there? Where is the process? What process are you talking about? If he delays it for more than 6 years--a situation where TransCanada, a company that has met every single requirement of the law and regulations--they have met all the requirements for more than 6 years. The six States on the route have all approved the project. All six States on the route have approved the project. It wasn't tough; they had 6 years to do it. The American people overwhelmingly support this project in poll after poll, from 65 to 70 percent. What process is he talking about that was cut short? There is no process there. If you go on for 6 years, where a company has spent millions of dollars, taking 6 years to try to build an $8 billion project that would help us create energy security in this country, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, what process is he talking about? When asked: When are you going to make a decision as to your process, he said: I don't know, maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months, by the end of my term, anyway. That is 8 years. Isn't this a country of laws? How would you or anyone else feel--any company, large or small, anybody who feels if they comply with the law and they do everything they are supposed to do and they do it over and over again and somebody who is elected to office says, yes, you know, I just don't feel like it. When did we cease to become a country of laws? When did we cease to have a situation where we can rely on the laws and the regulations of this State, whether it is an individual, a family, a community, a company or anything else? So when we look at a project such as this one, that is a question we have to ask ourselves, because if it can happen in this situation, can't it happen in any situation? When do we as a Congress step up and say: We pass the laws. We pass the laws and those laws have to be respected and enforced. Isn't that our job? Isn't that our obligation? Isn't that why the people of this country sent us? I believe it is. It is one thing to say: Well, it is that TransCanada company. They do business in Canada. They do business here. What if it was you? What if it was your company? What if it was 6-plus years of your life? What if it was millions of your dollars? How would you feel about it? Remember, America is the place people throughout history have come to do business. This is where they come to do business because they can count on our laws and they can count on our regulations and they can count on the fact that if they made the investment, they would be able to do business on a certain, dependable basis. What happened to that? When we lose that, what happens to our economy? With that, I would like to turn to my good friend from South Dakota. This pipeline will run through his State, creating jobs and millions of tax dollars for his State.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from South Dakota, and turn to my colleague from West Virginia who has been a champion on this project and other energy projects. As a Governor, he has worked on energy. He understands job creation, and he understands that we can make this country much stronger if we produce energy here at home versus getting it abroad. I turn to my colleague from the State of West Virginia and thank him for his leadership on this legislation.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here this morning to engage in a colloquy with the good Senator from South Carolina. We will be joined by the Senators from New Hampshire and Kentucky and perhaps the Senator from Arizona. The purpose of the colloquy is to welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning--who will be speaking in front of Congress--and to talk about why it is so important he is joining us today. In a few moments we will hear remarks from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the House Chamber and welcome him to Congress to affirm the friendship between the people of the United States and the people of Israel and to assess the threats facing our two democracies. Actually, today's speech is not unusual. This is the 115th time that a foreign leader has addressed a joint session of Congress. This is the seventh time an Israeli Prime Minister will address a joint session of Congress. It is Prime Minister Netanyahu's third address to Congress. It is not surprising we are hearing from the leader of our ally, Israel. Israel is a democracy in a neighborhood of authoritarian governments. Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks the language of freedom with us today. There can be no doubt of his passion on behalf of the people he represents and that makes us take his message very seriously. So this joint session is not unusual nor surprising, but that does not mean that it is unimportant. In fact, today's speech is profoundly important. The partnership between the United States and Israel is critical for the security of the Middle East and the world. We need a strong U.S.-Israeli partnership to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We need a strong U.S.-Israeli partnership to stand against the extremism that is ripping apart nations across the Middle East. We need a strong U.S.-Israeli partnership to demonstrate the value of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for societies that are no longer satisfied with dictatorships. For all of these reasons it is good to have Prime Minister Netanyahu here today. It is good to reaffirm the bond between Israelis and Americans, and it is good to join hands again with an ally to stand against tyranny and extremism. I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister because views directly from Israel are extremely important. Since its birth in 1948, Israel has faced one security threat after another. Israel's strength and vitality in the face of these threats are a testament to the ability of its people and its leaders to head off threats to security before they become impossible to overcome. There is no substitute for the Israeli view of security in the Middle East and the Iranian threat in particular. So today represents an important moment to learn how Israel sees its own security and understand the next steps for the U.S.-Israeli partnership. I now turn to my colleague from South Carolina and ask for his comments about this important speech from the Prime Minister of Israel today.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from New Hampshire and I would like to return to the Senator from South Carolina and pose a question. I have been a supporter of the strong sanctions the Senator put in place with the Kirk-Menendez legislation the Senator from South Carolina was very involved with. During these negotiations those sanctions have been relaxed by the administration, which I think is of great concern. I think the biggest deterrent to Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon is the sanctions we put in place with our allies. So now as the administration negotiates this agreement, my colleague from South Carolina and others on a bipartisan basis have put forward legislation requiring that that agreement would come to this body for an up-or-down vote. I would like him to describe that effort and why it is so important and why the speech today with the Prime Minister goes to the heart of that very important matter.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to wrap up.

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank my colleagues from South Carolina and New Hampshire. This is a bipartisan effort to join with the administration, and on a matter of this importance I believe Congress must be involved. So, again, we appeal to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us on this effort. I will conclude by saying we look forward very much to having the Prime Minister speak to us this morning. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will vote on whether to go to conference on H.R. 240. For Senators who want to return to regular order, this is their chance. Regular order is the opportunity to offer, to have debate on, and to vote on amendments. We have already established on earlier legislation that the majority party is willing to return to regular order and to offer an open amendment process. So part of establishing that regular order process is, as I say, the opportunity to offer amendments, to have a debate, and to vote. It is that process which should and has historically produced the best legislation not only here in the Senate but in the House--in this Congress--on behalf of the American people. Another part of regular order, though, is conference committees. When the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill and there are differences in the bill, how do we resolve the differences in the bill? We go to a conference committee. So that is what is before us right now. This vote is simply to send H.R. 240 to a conference committee so the House and the Senate can work on the legislation. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered H.R. 240. Only when amendments were limited to one amendment did they allow us to proceed to the bill. That is unfortunate, but clearly it was done to protect the President's Executive order on immigration. The irony is that the President's overreach should not be a partisan issue. Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances in our Constitution to protect the rights of our citizens. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches all have a role to play in this system of checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its authority, the others have an obligation to check that overreach, an obligation to protect the rights of our citizens. That is exactly what has happened in this situation. The President's Executive order on immigration exceeds his authority as the leader of the executive branch. Now a Federal district court in Texas has issued an injunction to stay the President's action, and that stay is in place while the lawsuit against the President's action which has been filed by 26 States is adjudicated. That is our role too. Just like the States stepping up when the President has overreached his authority, just like the Federal court stepping up when the President has exceeded his authority, that is our role too--to protect the legislative power, which is solely the power of the legislative branch, solely the power of Congress. So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send H.R. 240 to conference to see if we can find common ground. That is, after all, regular order for the Congress. I again remind our colleagues that this bill provides full funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Let me once again summarize some of that funding. The bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, including record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, and technology in air and maritime assets. It provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds. The bill strongly supports the vital missions of the Secret Service and provides for cyber security efforts. It provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard for its many missions, including search and rescue. Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill continues critical funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement. The bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation security screening operations, the Federal law enforcement training centers, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers. But in addition to that funding, we also need to check the Executive action of the President on immigration. That is what our system of checks and balances under our Constitution is all about. That is the opportunity we have--to send this bill to conference with the House to find a solution. Let's do that. Let's find a solution. Let's return to regular order in the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. The Senator from Texas.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. This bill does not fund the President's Executive actions--and rightly so. Since we haven't had regular order in this Chamber in years, it seems there may be some reluctance to allow the Senate to work as it is designed to do: to proceed to legislation so that we, as a legislative body, can engage in a healthy debate. It is time the Senate proceed to the DHS appropriations bill without further delay. I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed to H.R. 240, the DHS appropriations bill. With that, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my esteemed colleagues from the State of Florida and the State of New Hampshire in discussing the legislation before this body. I worked with the Senator from New Hampshire on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, and we are working to fund Homeland Security. That is what this bill does. The bill we are trying to proceed to fully funds Homeland Security. My question is, How do we finish a bill if we can't start? All we are asking for is to proceed to a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. So I have been listening to my colleagues talk about the need to fund Homeland Security and that is exactly what this bill does--fully funds the bill. Now I understand they want to make changes to the bill, but again I ask the question how do they make changes to a bill if they are not willing to proceed to the bill, get on the bill, debate the bill, and offer their amendments? So that is where we find ourselves and that is why it is so important that we proceed to this DHS funding bill. This is a bill that has passed the House. At the end of the day, both Houses of Congress have to pass the bill. We can't just pass it in the Senate and they can't just pass it in the House. The House has passed this bill. Now we need to take it up. We need to have the debate, we need to offer amendments, have votes on those amendments, and pass the bill-- pass the bill that fully funds DHS. Again, I emphasize, this bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. We are ready to legislate. We are willing to go back and forth on amendments, one Democratic amendment for every Republican amendment, but when that was offered last week on this floor by the majority leader, it was rejected by the other side of the aisle. This leads me to believe that what my Democratic colleagues are asking for is that the only DHS funding legislation the Senate consider is legislation endorsed by the President. Moreover, they don't seem to be interested in amendments, in allowing the Senators and those Americans--whom we represent--to have a voice in this process. My colleagues know that is not how the Senate works. When our Founders sought to build a government of checks and balances, with a strong legislative branch and mechanisms to prevent the Executive, the President, from imposing his or her will on the rest of government, I doubt this is what they had in mind; that we simply rubberstamp what the President wants. Today's cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DHS appropriations bill offers all Senators a choice. We have a choice today. Senators can choose to legislate a solution to this DHS funding impasse to prevent a DHS shutdown or they can choose to defend the President's Executive action. That is exactly what is going on. As Senators we must be willing to engage with one another to pass a bill. We must be willing to engage, to debate, and to vote on amendments. Often there are many sides to an issue. In fact, sometimes it feels as though there are 100 different perspectives, and of course there are. But the ability to merge our diverse viewpoints into legislation, that is the strength of the Senate. That is the only way, short of one party possessing 60 votes, the Senate can function. Many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are asking this body to rubberstamp the President's approach, but the Senate was not intended to be a rubberstamp. We must be willing to take that first step toward funding DHS together, and that first step is proceeding to a bill. In order to consider amendments and develop consensus, we simply must be able to move to the legislation and consider it on the floor today. Let me remind my colleagues why this funding is so vital. The Department is responsible for so many essential security programs. I think it is important that we take a few minutes to talk about the funding that is in this bill, full funding for the Department of Homeland Security. This bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, including record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, technology, and air and marine assets. It provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds. This bill strongly supports the vital missions of the Secret Service and provides for our cyber security efforts. The bill provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard for its many missions, including search and rescue. Since Homeland Security is a national effort, the bill continues critical funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement. The bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation security screening operations, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to complete my remarks.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to speak on the subject of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone XL approval bill which we passed in the Senate will be voted on this afternoon in the House. I believe the House will pass the bill with a strong bipartisan majority, just as we did in the Senate. This bill is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, and it is about national security through energy security. I have been on the floor in the Senate talking about all these issues as we worked on this bill. The Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill was the first bill we took up in the Senate in this Congress, S. 1. I think there were on the order of 250 amendments filed on the bill and we voted on more than 40 amendments with rollcall votes. We debated, Senators brought forward their amendments, and we voted on the bill and the bill passed, as I say, with a strong bipartisan majority. Now the House will vote, as I say, this afternoon on the bill as well. I think it is remarkable that today is the day we will pass the bill completely through the Congress. I think it is remarkable because it is on the very same day the President has sent to the Congress an AUMF, authorization for use of military force, to deal with ISIS. It is on the very same day the President has sent us an AUMF, authorization for use of military force, to actually send our soldiers, our men and women, our combat resources to the conflict in the Middle East, the very same day we are passing legislation that will help our Nation with the production of more energy, not only in the United States but also working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. This pipeline is about the infrastructure we need to help us move to energy security, meaning that we produce more energy than we consume. Today in the United States we consume about 18 million barrels of oil a day. Of that total, we produce about 11 million barrels a day, and we import from Canada about 3 million barrels a day. So if we do the math, that means there are about 4 million barrels a day we need to import from other countries. We get about half of that from OPEC, roughly 2 million barrels a day. The Keystone XL Pipeline will move 830,000 barrels a day. Some of that will be produced in Canada, some of it will be produced in the United States, but it will move 830,000 barrels a day to our refineries. That is almost 1 million barrels a day we don't have to import from somewhere else. So go back to the math. I just said we were importing from countries other than Canada 4 million barrels a day, half of that from OPEC-- about 2 million barrels a day. This project is almost half of what we are importing from OPEC right now. That is why I say it is remarkable on the very same day that we are working to build energy security for this country, where we are working to develop the infrastructure we need to move oil from where it is produced to where it is refined and consumed in this country, we are also dealing with the conflict in the Middle East. OPEC--we are getting oil from the Middle East and we are dealing with conflict in the Middle East. Let's break that cycle, right? At the point that we produce more energy than we consume, we are more energy secure. It is not only about growing the economy and creating jobs, but that means we don't have to get oil from OPEC anymore. That is one more reason we may not have to be involved in a conflict in the Middle East in the future. So here we are in a bipartisan way in the Congress doing the work the people sent us to do in the Senate and in the House on a project that has overwhelming bipartisan support, on a project where all six States on the route of this pipeline--Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas--all of the States have approved it. They didn't have to particularly hustle because they had 6 years to do it. The administration has held up this project for 6 years. Here we are with something that Congress overwhelmingly supports on a bipartisan basis. All six States that have this pipeline have approved it, and the American people overwhelmingly support it. In poll after poll, 65 to 70 percent of the American public said, yes, build this infrastructure, create an energy future where we produce the oil and gas we need in America and we work with Canada. We the American people don't want to rely on OPEC or the Middle East anymore for our energy. We don't want to have to import oil from the Middle East. That is what this legislation is all about. On the very day we are approving this bill through Congress, we are getting the President's request for the use of military force. He is sending that agreement to us and, I believe the President is saying to us, Congress, join with the Obama administration to work to deal with the terrible problem of ISIS, and we need to do that. We are going to give that AUMF, authorization for use of military force, careful consideration. I think the Congress will work its will. Then we will, together, as representatives of the American people--the Executive and the legislative branch--work to defeat ISIS. Just as the President is sending that document today, we are sending him a document. We will be sending him a law dutifully passed by both the Senate and the House in a bipartisan way and saying, Mr. President, we need you to work with us too. Just as you want Congress to work with you on an authorization for use of military force, we want you to work with us on behalf of the American people who have spoken loudly and consistently that they want energy security. Mr. President, we need you to work with us to build that vital infrastructure so we can produce our energy here at home and work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, and not be dependent on energy from the Middle East anymore. Don't be fooled--don't be fooled. We are in a battle right now for global market share to determine who is going to produce energy in the future. Is it going to be OPEC? Is it going to be Russia? Is it going to be the United States? Who is going to produce energy in the future? The reason the price at the pump has come down over $1 over the course of the past year is because we are producing so much oil and gas in the United States and because we are getting more from Canada. More supply pushes prices down. If that were a tax cut, it would equate to more than a $100 billion tax cut for the American consumer. So what is going on? On a global basis OPEC is pushing back, because they know if they push back, instead of our industry and our energy industry in this country continuing to grow, it starts to shrink again. Who is back in the driver's seat? OPEC is back in the driver's seat. What do you suppose is going to happen then? Prices will go right back up, and that benefit consumers get at the pump we will not have anymore. Also, that security issue I am talking about we will not have because we will have to continue to bring in oil from the Middle East. This is about a long- term strategy for national security. It is more than just sending our combat resources into a conflict. A long-term strategy for national security also includes energy security, and just as the President is sending us an AUMF today, we are sending him legislation today that will make our Nation more energy secure. I hope the President will join with us in that endeavor on behalf of the American people. Thank you, and with that I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would be willing to defer in the order too if my colleague from New Hampshire prefers to go, and I can follow; either way.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, both from Alabama and from Maine, for coming down to the floor and saying: Let's do the work of the Senate. Let's advance to this Department of Homeland Security bill, let's offer amendments, let's have the debate. Let's fund the Department. But let's make sure we do it in the right way, and where we protect the checks and balances built into this government by our forefathers. For the last few days I have come to the floor to call attention to the importance of voting ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015--H.R. 240. I wish that weren't the case. I had hoped that by now we would be much closer to passing a funding bill for the Department; that the Senate would have proceeded to the DHS appropriations bill, and that we could begin the process of debate, of considering amendments, and of developing consensus--of getting our work done. Yet here we are on the third day, just trying to proceed to funding the Department of Homeland Security--a Department that everyone agrees is vital. That is what this bill does: It funds the Department fully and completely, and it does it in the right way by enforcing the law. I don't have to tell my colleagues that the defining attributes of the Senate come from the Senators' ability to debate and to amend legislation. Debate and amendment.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from the great State of New Hampshire. Debate and amendment. Debate and amendment. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about going to this bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security and having the debate and offering amendments. That is what I am asking for. That is what we need in order to address the issues such as the one that my good friend and colleague from New Hampshire raised on Tuesday. She is the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee of the Department of Homeland Security. She made a request in terms of a parliamentary point of order--budget point of order--and she made the inquiry. It is a valid point of order, one that can and should be debated, and we should have the opportunity to vote on it. But we can't vote on it unless we proceed to the bill. So let's proceed to the bill. Let's have that debate. Bring up the point of order, and let's have a vote. And let's have amendments. That is how we do our work in the Senate. But despite the best efforts of Republicans to provide that opportunity for debate by proceeding to this bill to move forward, we are met with no's from the other side of the aisle. In essence, we are being filibustered--a tactic that was decried as obstructionist in the previous Congress. In case my friends on the other side of the aisle think this is going unnoticed, they should check the headlines. Look no further than an article from CNN on Tuesday: ``Democrats block funding for DHS to protect Obama immigration orders.'' Or the Washington Times: ``Democrats filibuster DHS spending bill, block GOP on amnesty debate.'' These headlines speak to a central flaw in the arguments of those who say we need a DHS bill, but then vote against this Senate proceeding to that very bill. On the one hand, they are saying we need a bill, but they won't go to the funding bill that is here before us. That is exactly what we are voting and trying to do, is to proceed to the DHS funding bill--with an amendment process, with open debate. Yesterday, one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle stated that if the Senate takes up H.R. 240, the homeland security appropriations bill, it would simply be a delaying tactic. Well, how can moving to the bill that directly addresses the DHS funding issue constitute delay? In order to pass the DHS funding bill, we have to be allowed to proceed to the bill. The truth, of course, is the delay is in fact coming from those who won't allow us to take up the bill, debate it, and consider amendments and pass it.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to respond to the question of my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security in the Senate, and I want to begin by acknowledging and stating again that I enjoy working with her. We have worked together on other committees and other issues, and I think there will be other issues we will work on together. I am pleased to have this discussion with her because this is exactly the kind of debate we are asking for. We are asking to proceed to this bill so we can debate and, in fact, offer amendments. So what we are saying is--whether it is our colleagues on the House side or whether it is Members of the Senate--let's follow regular order, have the discussion, have the debate, offer amendments, and see where we end up. Now, I believe the President's actions exceeded his authority in regard to his Executive order regarding immigration. Let's have that debate. Let's go to the bill so we can actually do the work we were sent here to do, where we discuss, debate, and offer amendments. If my esteemed colleague feels there is an amendment she should offer that would change this bill to bring it in line with the opinions of House Members or other Members of the Senate, then she will have the opportunity to do that, as will her colleagues, as will we. That is the point. So the answer to the question is: We don't know where we end up if we don't get started. So let's get started. That is what we are saying. Please join with us. Just as in our committee, we will have many committee meetings where we will debate issues and where we will take amendments from our fellow Senators who are on that committee. But we can't do that if we don't bring the bill to the committee and get started. That is what we are asking to do on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to respond to some of the points made by the Senator from New Hampshire. She indicated defunding provisions, but understand that this relates to Executive action undertaken by the President. The very same prioritization in terms of enforcement is funded in the underlying bill for enforcement of immigration law. Those prioritizations are there. The other point I wish to make is that the Senator speaks about funding the Department of Homeland Security and their desire to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. There really is consensus between the House and the Senate that it does it very well. That is what this bill does. It funds the Department of Homeland Security. So they are saying they want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That is what this bill does, and that is why we have to proceed to it in order to accomplish full-year funding for DHS. The third point I will make briefly is that the Senator referred to a bill that she is sponsoring with the Senator from Maryland to fund DHS--to fund the Department of Homeland Security--and she wants to proceed to that bill. Well, the way to do that is to vote with us to get on the bill before us--H.R. 240--and then they can offer that as an amendment, and we will debate it and we will have the vote. So if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to have the opportunity to debate her legislation and vote on her legislation, then let's vote to invoke cloture on this motion to proceed, let's proceed to the bill, and we will allow our colleagues to offer amendments which we can debate and vote on. We are offering the other side the opportunity to do exactly what they have asked to do. Most importantly, again, I wish to go back to the point I just made. This bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security for the full year, and we are being blocked from going to the bill, debating the bill, allowing amendments on the bill, and getting to the final product for the American people, while working with the House. Remember, we have to produce a product that passes the House, too, to fund the Department of Homeland Security for this country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the importance of voting yes to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015, H.R. 240. That motion was unsuccessful. Despite all the voices from the other side of the aisle expressing support for the Department of Homeland Security, they refused to actually proceed to debate the bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle have expressed concern that the bill is not 100 percent of what they want. In my experience, it is rare for anyone to get 100 percent of what they want when it comes to passing legislation, and that is certainly true when it comes to passing an appropriations bill. I am not talking about a vote on final passage or even a vote on amendments. I am talking about a vote to proceed to the debate on this bill. In addition to having the opportunity to offer amendments, an important part of the debate on a bill is the ability of any Senator to raise a budget point of order. My counterpart, the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, has pointed out that there are budget points of order against the bill. But the point I would make is that in order for her to raise the budget point of order, you have to actually proceed to the bill. I am certainly willing to acknowledge her budget points of order, which she brought up on the floor yesterday, but the point I am making is we have to proceed to the bill in order to debate those budget points of order and, in fact, vote on them. The minority refuses to move to the bill because they object to the amendments added by the House of Representatives. The House went through its process, and now it is time for the Senate to go through its process. That is how the system works. That is regular order. Last week, after the consideration of many amendments, we passed the Keystone XL Pipeline bill with a bipartisan vote of 62 Senators. There were rollcall votes on 41 amendments. Since I introduced the Keystone bill, I would have thought it would have been great if we could have just passed it with an up-or-down vote, but that is not how the Senate is designed to legislate. Instead, we vote to proceed to a bill so we can debate it, offer amendments, and work to develop consensus. I am aware that it has been a long time since we had regular order in the Senate. We are not used to bringing a bill to the floor and debating amendments. But instead of embracing regular order, something we were denied in the previous Congress, we can't even proceed to debate and offer amendments on this bill--an important bill that we need to take up and address. The contents of H.R. 240 represent the bipartisan prerogatives and priorities of Congress. Again, the House went through its process. What we are asking for now is for the Senate to do the same--to go through the process, go to the bill, and do the work we were sent here to do. I discussed the merits of the bill at length earlier, but I will go through some of the highlights again just to remind my colleagues what is in the bill and why we are here. This bill will support the economic prosperity, public safety, and security of the American people. This bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary appropriations, plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding. That includes $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, and that is an increase of $119 million over fiscal year 2014. It supports record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure technology, and air and marine assets. The bill provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. It maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds. The bill provides strong support for the Secret Service, an organization that requires congressional oversight, given some of the recent incidents, and is $81 million above fiscal year 2014 funding. The bill provides the funding necessary to construct the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF, in Manhattan, KS. It provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard, including the 8th National Security Cutter, and takes a serious step to address the near-term, heavy-ice breaker needs with $8 million for preserving the ship Polar Ice. The bill supports our cyber security efforts, both protecting government operations and working with the private sector to share threat information and protective measures. Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill provides continued funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement. The bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation security screening operations, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers. Finally, the bill provides a requested $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to assist with recovery costs for communities when they are hit by natural disasters. What the bill does not fund is the President's Executive actions. The House bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing the President's actions and articulating priorities for immigration enforcement. If that is concerning to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then allow us to proceed to the bill so we can debate these important issues. We have returned to regular order in this Chamber, and with that comes the responsibility to debate, offer amendments, and vote on legislation. That is what we are asking to do, and that is what we are calling on our colleagues to do. That is what the American people want us to do. That is what we are here to do. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of proceeding to H.R. 240 so we can do our work. With that, I yield the floor.