Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on a full- year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. All of us in this Chamber understand that we need to support the Department because they are critical to defending the homeland. If we want to fight ISIL, then we can fight them here at home by passing the bill to fully fund DHS. We can keep Homeland Security on the job. We can keep breaking the ice to keep the economy moving on our lakes and our oceans. We can secure our borders. We can prevent attacks from terrorists. Our enemies are watching. Now it is time to defend America. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this full funding bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I will be speaking on the bill before us. Madam President, we are just days away from an unthinkable government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. A government shutdown of the Department whose mission is to protect the citizens of this country is reckless and dangerous while we are under threat of attack by terrorist groups. What kind of message does it send to ISIS, to cyber criminals, and to criminal drug gangs if Congress can't keep the Department of Homeland Security open? This weekend we learned that a terror group from Somalia, al-Shabaab, released an online video calling for attacks on the Mall of America in Minnesota, as well as malls in Canada and England. Just yesterday we learned that three Brooklyn, NY, men were arrested for plotting to travel to Syria to join ISIS. If they weren't successful in getting to Syria, they allegedly planned to commit an act of terrorism in the United States, and one even offered to kill President Obama if ordered to do so. The role of the Department of Homeland Security in protecting our country from these threats and from so many others cannot be overstated. It is DHS that is working with State and local officials in Minnesota to coordinate a response to the Mall of America threat, and it is DHS and the Secret Service that help provide the counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering efforts that led to the arrests of the Brooklyn men who wanted to do harm in this country. Referencing yesterday's arrests in Brooklyn, New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said that this is not the time to engage in activities that would threaten our counterterrorism capabilities and effectively hold our counterterrorism agencies hostage to political machinations. This is not the time to be engaging in political rhetoric and political grandstanding. I think Commissioner Bratton is right. Our Nation is already on high alert for terror threats after attacks in Sydney, Australia, and Ottawa, Canada, and in Paris. The Mall of America threat and the Brooklyn arrests reinforce the fact that we need our law enforcement community operating on all cylinders. Sadly, these aren't isolated threats. A few weeks ago I spoke with the deputy commissioner of the New York City Police Department. He told me about the many terror attacks that have been thwarted in New York City since 9/11. He credited DHS, the funding, and programs that are coordinated through DHS and the personnel there for helping New York to prevent attacks from happening. I have heard the same thing at home in New Hampshire from our law enforcement and first responders. I was in the town of Hampton, which is a coastal community, on Monday of this week. They talked about the importance of DHS support in developing a unified command for all of law enforcement in New Hampshire. They talked about the importance of the fusion center that is funded through the Department of Homeland Security because of the intelligence-gathering they do there and how they share that information with law enforcement agencies all across New Hampshire. Then they took me in and showed me a diagram of a human trafficking case that they are working on with the help of the Department of Homeland Security. So this is not just about the big cities in the United States, it is about our rural communities, and it is about States across this country that rely on the Department of Homeland Security to help with their internal security. Yet here we are, less than 2 days away from shutting down the Department of Homeland Security because of unrelated ideological disagreements. I am, however, very encouraged by recent developments here in the Senate, with yesterday's 98-to-2 vote to allow the Senate at some point in the future--hopefully sometime today--to pass a clean, full-year funding bill for DHS. I again applaud Senators McConnell and Reid for their efforts to get us to this point. I think we need leaders who are willing to work together, who are willing to encourage us here in the Senate. We saw that in the last few days with Senators McConnell and Reid. Once the Senate acts, however, we will need the House of Representatives to join us in putting aside our ideological and political differences and passing a bill without controversial riders, a bill that will fund the Department of Homeland Security. As we have discussed in this Chamber, there are disagreements about immigration and about the President's Executive action. I am certainly happy to have debate about that. I know there are others who are happy to have a debate. But first we need to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We need to put safety and security ahead of our ideological differences. We are just 2 days away from a devastating shutdown of DHS. We do not have time to waste. I certainly hope that we will act quickly here and that the House will also act quickly. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Are we in morning business?

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I just want to applaud the vote we just had. A 98-to-2 vote shows very clearly that our colleagues in the Senate want to see funding for Homeland Security. Everybody understands that the risks to this country are too great for us not to provide the resources the Department needs so they can continue to do their jobs. We just heard that the Department of Homeland Security was involved with the FBI in the case of three people in Brooklyn who were threatening this country because they wanted to go to the Middle East and join ISIS. We need to make sure DHS has the funding they need. This is real progress. I applaud Senators McConnell and Reid for their efforts to get to this point. I hope we can continue down this road to get funding for the Department, and that when we send the bill over to the House, the House will also work together in a bipartisan way to get a clean funding bill before the resources run out, before the money runs out for the Department of Homeland Security this Friday. We have a little bit of time. We need to get this done. The Senate took a giant step forward today to do that. I applaud my colleagues. I hope we can keep this going and that we can get this done very soon. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield to the Senator.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

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

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is fine. Thank you.