[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 34 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1485-H1492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 240, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Roybal-Allard moves that the managers on the part of
the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the bill H.R. 240 be instructed to recede from
disagreement with the Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
{time} 1500
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my motion would instruct the conferees to recede to
the Senate position, which is the responsible position of providing a
full-year funding for the Homeland Security Department.
Secretary Johnson has warned over and over again that the Republican
leadership's refusal to allow a vote on a clean bipartisan funding
bill, such as the one sent to this House by the Republican-led Senate,
is threatening the national security of our country. Without a full-
year bill, the Secretary tells us that he is unable to move forward on
key Homeland Security priorities, including new investments in border
security technology, more aggressive ICE investigations related to
transnational criminal organizations that engage in drug and human
smuggling and human trafficking, enhanced preparedness for responding
to surges in illegal migration such as the one experienced last summer,
acquisition of the Coast Guard's eighth National Security Cutter, and
the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in
Manhattan, Kansas, both of which could potentially be delayed and lead
to associated higher costs.
Also at risk are the badly needed security upgrades at the White
House complex and the issuing of State and local terrorism prevention
and response grants so critical to supporting our local first
responders. These are just a few of the negative consequences of not
fully funding our Department of Homeland Security.
Madam Speaker, nothing can be gained by another stopgap funding
measure, but much can be lost. We should not allow ourselves or the
American people to be fooled into thinking that the House can continue
to delay resolving this issue without undermining the national security
of our Nation, or that the Department of Homeland Security has been
doing just fine under the continuing resolution and can operate
effectively under the uncertainty of a continuing resolution for even
another day, much less 3 more weeks.
The dire consequences of not funding the Department of Homeland
Security are not the made-up warnings of Democrats. They are the
warnings of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of his
agencies.
Let me again read a portion of a letter sent by Secretary Johnson to
the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate regarding the dangers
of either a funding lapse or another short-term continuing resolution:
A mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the
same negative impacts
[[Page H1486]]
of a shutdown. It exacerbates the uncertainty for my
workforce and puts us back in the same position on the brink
of a shutdown just days from now.
The Secretary ends his letter by saying: ``The American people are
counting on us.'' Again, Madam Speaker, the American people are indeed
counting on us, and so far, the House Republican leadership has let
them down.
This stopgap funding measure does not fully address our national
security needs. It simply represents the complete and utter abdication
of our responsibility as Members of Congress to protect the American
people and our country. The Senate has acted in the best interests of
our Nation and sent this House a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on
funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Madam Speaker, our enemies aren't waiting around while the Republican
leadership continues to delay a full-year funding for the Department of
Homeland Security or for Congress to go to conference in the hope that
some time in the future we may have an agreement.
Let the House, like the Senate, do the right thing and send this bill
to the President. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to
instruct conferees to bring back a clean, full-year, bipartisan funding
bill for this Nation's homeland security.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct
conferees. As the House and Senate come together to find a path forward
on funding the Department of Homeland Security, we must reconcile our
profound differences over how to handle the President's executive
actions. But the minority should keep this in mind as we go to
conference: the majority of American citizens oppose the President's
actions on immigration, and they have asked us to fight those actions.
The House has acted decisively to fulfill that mandate. Six weeks
ago, when the House approved a bill funding the Department of Homeland
Security until the end of the fiscal year, the House also by large
margins approved six amendments to stop the President's far-reaching
actions.
The President himself has said--no fewer than 22 times--that he does
not have the authority to change our immigration laws unilaterally. Now
the courts have weighed in, saying that no law has given the President
the power to make these sweeping changes to our immigration policies.
The evidence is overwhelming on this side of the debate. Now, we can
vote again, but the outcome will be the same. The American people have
spoken. We must stand up against the administration's overreach on
immigration.
While it is clear the President will not fulfill or act within the
bounds of the law, we in Congress are here to defend our Constitution,
to provide those checks and balances that our Founding Fathers put into
place to ensure the President does not act like a king.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 25
minutes remaining.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member on the full
Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to
instruct conferees to agree to a clean funding bill for the Department
of Homeland Security.
Democratic and Republican negotiators reached a deal on 2015 Homeland
Security funding levels and related policy issues in December. The
Republican leadership made the political calculation to hold this
funding hostage to ideological policy riders reversing the President's
executive actions on immigration.
Having failed to extort these policy concessions, the Senate has done
the right thing and moved forward to pass a clean Homeland Security
funding bill that does not include poison pill immigration riders. Yet
House leadership continues to dither, keeping alive the threat of a
shutdown affecting the agencies that protect our ports, borders,
aviation systems, communities, and more.
This motion to instruct would make clear the will of the House is for
a clean full-year Homeland Security funding bill. This motion rejects
spending another 3 weeks failing to give our critical agency the budget
certainty it needs to hire employees, invest in new equipment and
technologies, and provide preparedness grants on which our communities
rely.
A $40 billion Cabinet-level department must be able to plan more than
3 weeks in advance and must not be forced to rely on outdated funding
levels or policies for 1 day longer than they already have.
Madam Speaker, enough is enough. We know that the Senate cannot and
will not pass a bill that irresponsibly ties Homeland Security funding
to immigration policy. We know that the President would never sign such
a bill into law.
This charade is wreaking havoc on some of the most important agencies
in our Federal Government. It is time, my colleagues, it is time, my
friends, to move on, and the way to do that is through a clean, full-
year 2015 bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill that we negotiated,
Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. Let's do it.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly), my friend.
Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. I
fully understand and respect the significant place that this committee
sits in, Republicans and Democrats, to keep the government funded. I
know that. I think the first responsibility of Congress is to keep the
government open. But I take great reservation to my colleague's
suggestion that somehow this is an abdication of our constitutional
responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Madam Speaker, I want to make something clear to the American people
today. All week I have seen signs on the House floor saying that
Republicans are shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, and
I have seen press conferences saying Republicans are shutting down the
Department of Homeland Security, scaring the American people about
something that has not happened.
Here is what we have not heard: Where are the solutions and where is
the compromise? Because I will tell the American people this today:
what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said is: It is
all or nothing.
I understand the interest in a clean DHS bill. I am very sympathetic
to that. But to take that position when we know that there are Members
of this body who take grave, grave reservation to the constitutional
overreach of the President, that is an abdication of the constitutional
responsibility of this body.
All or nothing is not legislating. Signs are not legislating. Press
conferences are not legislating. Legislating is reaching a compromise
between two sides of the aisle with very different views of this. I
will tell you, this process has not gone how I would have wished it to
go. But I know this: the Nation is better and the Congress is better
when we have regular order and when we legislate the way the
Constitution has ordained.
Madam Speaker, we cannot abdicate our constitutional authority to
recognize that we have a bicameral, bipartisan Congress with a
disagreement, and what we owe to the United States Constitution is the
opportunity for us to find a compromise.
So I will ask you this: What if DACA provisions were removed from the
DHS bill? Does that get us votes? What if we delayed the President's
executive order until final disposition by the courts? Does that get us
votes? What gets us the votes we need as a body of 300 Members? Not 218
Members, but 300 Members. Where is the compromise? All or nothing is
not legislating.
I will tell you it was a remarkable comment by the majority leader on
the other side of this building this morning to suggest that going to
conference is a waste of time. That is an abdication of the
constitutional responsibility of this body.
[[Page H1487]]
All I am asking for, Madam Speaker, is that we recognize the
difference and we ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle:
Where is the compromise? Because all or nothing is not legislating.
Signs are not legislating, scare tactics are not legislating, and press
conferences are not legislating.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out that
we have a solution, and it is the bipartisan, bicameral compromise bill
that was sent by the Senate for us to vote on, and that is what we are
asking for.
{time} 1515
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren), the ranking minority member of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, a lot of discussion has been that,
somehow, the President has acted unconstitutionally or unlawfully.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is ample legal authority for what the President has done.
Prosecutorial discretion is a long-established practice in every area
of the law, both civil and criminal. When a law enforcement agency has
only enough resources to go after a fraction of the individuals who it
suspects of violating the relevant law, it has to make choices. There
is no alternative.
In the case of immigration, not only do we recognize this, Congress
has specifically directed the head of the Department to set priorities,
enforcement priorities, for removal.
Now, in addition to that, the Supreme Court has recognized in many
cases the need--and really the authority of the executive--to make
these decisions. In the Arizona case, it said Federal officials, as an
initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at
all.
Our own Congressional Research Service has found that no court
appears to have invalidated a policy of nonenforcement founded upon
prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that the policy violated the
take care clause.
Deferred action is nothing more than a tentative revocable signal to
a noncitizen that the government does not intend to initiate removal
proceedings at this time. Not only is that tentative, but the statute
at U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) authorizes the period of stay by the
Department in such cases.
Congress has expressly recognized deferred action by name repeatedly.
In addition to the statute, the formal regulations of the Justice
Department and Homeland Security have also expressly recognized
deferred action.
In the Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination case, Justice Scalia
said, ``At each stage, the Executive has discretion to abandon the
endeavor''--referring to the removal process--``and at the time IIRIA
was enacted, the INS had been engaging in a regular practice (which has
come to be known as 'deferred action') of exercising that discretion
for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience.''
The arguments that somehow this is unlawful are so far wrong because
nothing in the recent executive actions conflicts with either the
letter or the spirit of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any
other Federal statute.
I would note that the court in Texas did not find the President's
action unconstitutional. It suggested--and I think wrongly--that the
Administrative Procedure Act applies to these actions. There is nothing
in the history of the Administrative Procedure Act that suggests that
is the case.
I would just suggest that the Republicans fund Homeland Security and
let the process work through the courts.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member on the
Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, let me just be clear--I am from
Florida--the number one responsibility of any Member of Congress is to
defend the American people, and we don't do that by punting our
responsibility to fund Homeland Security, period.
You all need to stop playing games with the safety of the American
people.
Mr. JOLLY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. You are the one that got on this floor and said
it is a political football. If it is a political football, you are done
playing.
Mr. JOLLY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. My time has expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members must direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas not just for
the time, but for the work he is doing to try to fund the
responsibilities of the government.
I have been in this institution for 4 years, Madam Speaker, and I
have grown to love this institution. I have grown to love the people
who serve in this institution, and it is disappointing to me to see
some of the tempers that boil over here and have that on display for
the American people.
The truth is those tempers boil over, Madam Speaker, because folks
here care. They don't care a little; they care a lot.
What I have been grappling with as we have been going through this
process--and the Appropriations Committee has been working so hard--is
how do we bring our passion to the President's desk in a way that can
make a difference for our people back home.
I look at the chairman of the Appropriations Committee here and the
ranking member. For Pete's sake, they passed a bill out of committee on
this issue last summer.
To watch this debate, you would think that the Congress is so
derelict that we put everything off until the eleventh hour. Not true,
Madam Speaker. Last summer, the House passed this out of committee.
Now, of course, the process broke down last summer. We passed seven
bills across this floor. The Senate had yet to pass one. I am tired of
figuring out who to blame here. I am in the business of trying to
figure out how to solve problems.
The Senate is making some progress. Golly, they have considered more
amendments in the Senate so far in 2015 than they considered all of
last year combined. They are making progress. We are starting to get
this train back on track.
What is happening here today, though it seems so controversial, is we
have got a motion to instruct, Madam Speaker, conferees. Now, I
disagree with the motion to instruct. The motion says: Let's just do
what the Senate said we should do.
I don't actually think that fulfills my constitutional obligation,
but the fact that we are even in a place today to instruct conferees,
it takes us back. I would argue if we took a poll outside, Madam
Speaker, we could find folks all up and down Constitution Avenue, all
up and down Independence Avenue, who saw that skit on ``Saturday Night
Live'' with the bill tumbling down the stairs as folks tried to
remember how a bill becomes a law.
If we can pass this 3-week continuing resolution today, we are going
to be able to demonstrate how a bill becomes a law when the House has a
position and the Senate has a position and they come together to work
out those differences before it goes to the President's desk.
Madam Speaker, I have been here 4 years. I can count on one hand how
many times I have seen that process work. These issues are too
important to say: The other body took care of it, I will just defer to
them.
The Members of this body are too talented, they are too committed,
they love this country too much. For the 435 of us to come together and
say, We have nothing to add, let's just do what the Senate said--I
can't count the number of colleagues I have, Madam Speaker, on the
Democratic side of the aisle who love this country, care about this
country on one hand. I can't count them on two hands. I can't count
them on all of my fingers and toes because it is every single Member.
The same thing is true on my side of the aisle. I would just ask my
friends, my committed patriot friends, it is 3
[[Page H1488]]
weeks to have an opportunity to have our collective voice heard. The
American people deserve it; the Nation needs it. Our leaders on the
Appropriations Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, have given us
an opportunity to do it.
Let's take ``yes'' for an answer. Let's reject this motion to
instruct, but let's do go to conference. Let's pass this continuing
resolution, and let's restore some pride in a process that has served
this country so well for so long.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to point out to the gentlemen that the ranking members
and chairs of the Appropriations Subcommittees of the House and the
Senate worked together on the bill that we are trying to bring for a
vote, that this was a negotiated bill by both Houses.
This is not something that we are just trying to bring from the
Senate without the House having any input. This was the negotiated,
compromised bill of both Houses.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison),
a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, just for people who are watching this debate, I would
like to take us back to December of 2014 when we passed this thing
called the CR/Omnibus, all these spending bills together that we spent
money for the American people over the course of a year to fund our
government, except for the Department of Homeland Security bill, which
would be funded right through midnight tonight.
Why did we single this one bill out for this short term? For one
reason and one reason only: The Republican majority wanted to pick a
fight with the President over the President's execution of his lawful
authority to try to solve problems in the area of immigration.
Now, a Federal district court judge, who has a long history of
Republican partisanship, decided that he would issue an order stopping
the execution of this executive order action; so, now, why don't we let
the district court handle it, pass a year-long bill, and look after the
public safety of the American people?
This thing is where it should be. It is with the courts. People on
the Republican side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, who say that this is
unconstitutional--which it is not--now have the ball in the court they
say they want it in, which is in the court's hands, so let us get about
the business of protecting the homeland.
Madam Speaker, I am from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and I am proud of
that, but I have got a terrorist group in Somalia talking about what
they want to do to my mall. That is a fact of my district right now,
and I feel very bitter and resentful that we are holding up Homeland
Security money.
I ask this body to not kick the ball for 3 weeks, but to get to
business now, so that we can plan and protect our homeland.
This is serious business, not a political football to acquire power.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from the great State of Alabama (Mr.
Aderholt), my friend.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for letting me
speak on this motion.
As a past chairman of this Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I know
firsthand how important it is for the funding for Homeland Security to
go forward. The bottom line is the House has done its job.
Back in December, the House voted to fund the Federal Government for
the fiscal year. We kept the funding for the Department of Homeland
Security on a continuing resolution so that it would not lapse.
By doing so, we were making a promise to the American people, a
promise that once the Republicans had full control of the Senate, we
would work together as a Congress to ensure that the President's
unconstitutional and dangerous actions would not go unchecked.
Every President takes an oath under the Constitution that the laws of
this land will be upheld; however, the concern that we have now is the
President is directing Federal employees to take unlawful actions.
The House position on this bill provides proper funding. It defends
the President's unlawful actions. The House has voted, the Senate has
voted, and--as my colleague from Florida had said earlier--once that
happens when you don't agree, you go to conference, and that is how you
legislate.
I urge my fellow House Members to support the actions laid out by the
Speaker so that we can move forward with this so that we can go to
conference and act like true legislators in how the Founding Fathers in
their wisdom meant for this to move forward.
{time} 1530
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), a member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I realize that I
haven't been serving in this body very long--only 8 weeks--but today is
exactly the kind of day that drives most people nuts about Congress.
Even though we all agree--Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, in a
more than 2-1 vote; House Democrats and House Republicans--that we need
to fund the Department of Homeland Security, yet here we are a few
hours before the deadline once again playing around with the security
of the United States.
Madam Speaker, we have a way to end this. We have the Senate bill in
front of us. Let us adopt the bipartisan bill, get the Department of
Homeland Security funded, and then we can move on and have this
legitimate debate about immigration.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Committee on the Budget
and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat some things that I have heard
over the last couple of weeks about this particular situation:
``I fully believe we should not be playing politics with a national
security agency like the Department of Homeland Security, particularly
given the high threat environment that we are in right now.''
``The political impasse on DHS funding must end. Responsible members
of both parties must work together to find some way to fund DHS without
further delay.''
``The worst thing we can do is let our enemies think we are backing
off, that we are cutting off funding. This involves human lives, and
this is too risky a game to be playing here. This is no way to run a
government.''
Madam Speaker, those aren't my words. Those are words from Republican
Members of this body discussing the reckless game that their party is
playing with the funding of the Department of Homeland Security.
Every rationale I have heard for not voting for a clean funding bill
right now involves some kind of an ideological orientation. We have got
a lot of constitutional lawyers, apparently, in this body because
people are arguing whether it is constitutional or not. Meanwhile, we
face threats day in and day out, both here and abroad, that we are not
being able to cope with.
There is a great or legendary conservative thinker and writer,
William F. Buckley, Jr. He once said: ``Idealism is fine, but as it
approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.'' Right now, the
costs to our defense, the security of our Nation are becoming
prohibitive. Let's stop this argument. Let's do what we both agree on
and fund our Nation's security apparatus.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion, and I would
like to address the House with the reasons why.
I have been here for a year and 2 months, and I believe in my time
here, this is the first time that we have actually been in the position
to get a bill
[[Page H1489]]
back from the Senate on which they disagreed with us and that we have
even the opportunity to go to a conference.
Now, when I took high school civics, it was my understanding that
that is the way the process works. The bill starts in one House, goes
to another House; the other House disagrees, and it comes back to the
other House. If the other House wants to go and discuss it, we go to
conference and discuss it.
This House took a very important position back in January to fund the
Department of Homeland Security, and we added some riders. Now we need
to go to conference so that our position, the House's position, can be
fully discussed by the conferees for both Houses. During that
discussion, we don't know what the outcome will be, but that discussion
could lead to something that could get us a solution. That is what the
people of America want us to try to do is to get to a solution. So far
what we have tried hasn't worked.
Now, I wish the Senate had acted earlier. I wish we could have gotten
this back in time enough for us not to have to go through some of the
gyrations we are doing now, but we are where we are. To go to
conference and to give whoever is appointed as the House conferees the
opportunity to work with whoever is appointed from the Senate as their
conferees to try to arrive at something like a consensus that we can
all vote for--even if we don't feel 100 percent good about it--seems to
be what I thought we learned in high school civics class is the way the
process is supposed to work.
So I hope that we will go forward. I hope this motion is defeated for
that purpose, so that we can do things in regular order, which perhaps
this Congress has forgotten to do, it has been so many years since we
have done it. Now that the Senate has acted--and many of us, including
me, have said we wanted the Senate to act--let's take their action, go
to a conference committee with them, and work on trying to get this
thing worked out.
Now, some people say that this isn't going to work, that nothing is
going to come of it. I tell you this: if we don't try it, absolutely it
is not going to work; but if we give it a chance, then we could get
something out of it that is a win not for us in this House or the
Senate, but a win for the people of the United States of America, the
people we are here to represent.
So I hope that the people in both Houses and both parties can come
together at least long enough for us to talk with one another, not at
one another, not from an ideology, not from a partisan standpoint, but
from the standpoint of what is best for the people of the United States
and for what is appropriate under the Constitution of the United
States, because we are also here, as our oath requires, to uphold the
Constitution of our country.
I believe our conferees should have an opportunity to go in there and
do the right thing to protect the people of America through the funding
of the Department of Homeland Security and to do the right thing to
defend the Constitution of our country. By defeating this motion and
going forward with the conference, we give the process a chance to
work, and to work well, in both of those regards.
So I respect the people on the other side who think we should just
give in; but I don't think we should just give in, because I don't
think the American people want us to just give in. I think the American
people want us to do our work, to make sure we protect our country by
appropriately funding the Department of Homeland Security, but that we
also protect our country by defending the Constitution of the United
States.
I believe the actions taken by the President are unconstitutional. A
judge has stayed those actions because he has got some legal issues
with them. I don't know what is going to happen in that court
proceeding. I am not going to try to predict that here on the floor of
the House, because a lot of times you try to predict a court
proceeding, you will find out you are wrong.
In the meantime, we still have an obligation to do our job, and I
think going forward with this conference committee is doing our job in
the most important of senses. I appreciate the opportunity to stand
here today and address this House and to urge my colleagues to defeat
this motion so that we can do something we haven't done in a number of
years, and that is to fulfill the obligations given to us by our
forebears, do our job, get this thing done, get it done right, and make
sure that we have done right by the people of the United States.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. How much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 14
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes
remaining.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlelady for her excellent work
on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on
Appropriations and the gentleman, Mr. Carter.
To the statements that have been made on the floor, might I just
chronicle a more correct, if I might say, articulation of really what
happened.
First, it is an applause and appreciation for the work done by the
gentlelady from California and the gentleman from Texas, along with the
ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
because they had 12 appropriations bills ready to go forward.
What my good friends have missed on the other side of the aisle is
they debunked the full funding of the Department of Homeland Security
because of their ire against the President's authorized constitutional
executive action. That is why we are here today, for no other reason
than, rather than allowing the debate on a clean funding on the omnibus
bills, the 12 that have come from the House, they took out the
Department of Homeland Security and left it to the side.
They took it out in the light of young women, as I indicated. Three
Denver girls played hooky from school and tried to join ISIS. They took
it out in the light of the FBI Director saying there is an ISIS cell in
every State. They took it out in the light of the tragedies that
happened in Paris, in Denmark, and have happened around the world in
Australia. Boko Haram, they took it out. They took out that full
funding of the Department of Homeland Security and skewed it by adding
their contempt for the executive action.
But then, lo and behold, what happened is a judge didn't rule it
unconstitutional in Texas. That was not the order of the court. It was
that there were questions that should be decided--it was actually a
stay--and that it should have gone through an administrative procedure,
the APA. It did not rule it unconstitutional, but it was an action that
caused, at least for the moment, a stay in the actions of the
President.
What does that say, Madam Speaker? It says that today we can come and
give a full funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady.
Madam Speaker, that order answers their concern about the executive
action. In the meantime, we have every opportunity tonight, today to
vote on a clean full funding of the Department of Homeland Security
until September, because that is what the Senate did. They did their
work.
But now we are playing games, in spite of the letter from the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and we are telling the Customs and
Border Protection, we are telling the TSOs, the FAA, the ICE officers,
all of them, we put a stop sign and said we no longer want to secure
America.
I ask for support of this motion to instruct, and I ask for full
funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Let's do our job.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
Mr. PITTENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I am here today absolutely in amazement that we are in
this discussion about the Constitution of the United States. This is an
issue of
[[Page H1490]]
the balance of powers. This is an issue of our liberties. As important
as the Homeland Security bill is, we recognize today that the Congress
has made its statement, the President of the United States has made his
statement 22 times that he did not have the right to declare amnesty,
the courts have made their statement, and yet today we are in this
dialogue.
I hope the American people are watching today and seeing the
miscommunication of truth. The truth is we are committed to the
Constitution, and we are going to stand by the Constitution. We are not
going to allow the edict of one person to commit this country to a
direction unchallenged. We are here committed to that principle. We
believe that the rights of the American people are founded in this
Constitution, and we will submit ourselves to that.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, as I listened to this debate and watched as some of
the people talked about what our duty was and was not as Members of
Congress, I thought I might come down and read the oath that we as
Members of Congress take. It is simple.
``I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.''
{time} 1545
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not about immigration. This is about
whether or not the President has the ability to unilaterally run this
country by creating fees and spending those fees as he sees fit. I
would submit to you that he doesn't. If the President can do this and
is allowed to get away with this, then, when we get a pro-life
President, that pro-life President can create a fee on abortion
providers and use it to fund adoption.
It seems to me that the Democratic Party, which prefers free cell
phones to taking care of the men and women who protect our country in
uniform, likes the rules when they are working for them but doesn't
want to abide by the rules all the time.
What the President has done violates, I believe, the separation of
powers. I would suggest to you that this is a very dangerous precedent,
and this is well worth fighting for in maintaining our oath as Members
of the United States Congress to defend the Constitution.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, let's not lose focus here. We are talking
about our country's security. We heard what would happen if the
homeland function were to be eliminated immediately over a shutdown
even with the emergency provisions that are existing.
I want to address an important issue, and that is the issue of our
security being jeopardized because of these stopgap budgets. Now, what
does that mean? That means we continue to work within the constraints
of last year's priorities, that we can't move beyond the funding that
is there for those functions that we said were important for our
security last year. The trouble with that is the terrorist threats are
changing every single day. The landscape is changing under our feet,
yet we are in a straightjacket in dealing with it. We cannot continue
going forward. It has already jeopardized our ability to look at
nuclear detection in this country because of these stopgap budgets.
My State suffered a terrible tragedy with the Boston Marathon
bombing, but I think all of us agree and all of us saw the way they
organized, the way they coordinated all the functions--the State, the
local, and the Federal Government, the medical functions, the emergency
service. We all concluded--rightfully so--that countless lives were
saved because of that. Do you know why? Because there was training and
preparation for what could come.
We cannot deal successfully in this country with the threats that are
confronting us here today and tomorrow--terrorist attacks--with last
year's priorities and without being able to shift and meet those
priorities. Let's stop the stopgap budgeting. It is hurting our
country. It is hurting our security. Let's do what we are supposed to
do under the Constitution--make these decisions to fund it.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I also
rise to lament the fact that we had an opportunity just a few hours
ago, or an hour ago, to do what the Senate rationally did. After four
opportunities of trying to adopt the House position, the Senate failed
to do so.
Now, I heard my young friend from Texas talk about the Constitution.
I have heard a lot of people say we ought to read the Constitution. I
agree with that. The Constitution has provided for the resolution of
the injury of which you speak so passionately, and that is Article III
of the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison said that the Supreme Court had the authority,
whether it was the President or the Congress, to say that that is not
constitutional. Frankly, by our passing a law and saying this is
constitutional, as has been attempted and done in the past by my
Republican friends, to say, ``we say, by legislative fiat, this is
constitutional,'' unfortunately, today, we gave up the opportunity to
act responsibly. My friend Mr. Rogers, for whom I have great respect,
and Mrs. Lowey know we are going to be back here some 20 days from
today with this same debate because the Senate has already said they
are not going to conference. When I say ``the Senate,'' the Democrats
are not going to give 60 votes as the Republicans would not give 60
votes to go to conference on other bills in past years.
What we did was we reversed the order of the legislation we are
considering. Had we done the original order, we would have done this
motion to go to conference and the motion to instruct first. As a
result, we would have still had the Senate bill in the House of
Representatives so as to act responsibly, but there apparently was a
fear that we might do that, so that bill was sent back to the Senate
before we considered the CR for 21 days.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Vote
``yes'' to, at some point in time, do what is the responsible and
doable alternative. It is not a question of whether you like it or I
like it. It is the alternative that we in the Congress can do, and that
is why 68 Members of the United States Senate--Republicans and
Democrats--voted to say we have tried for 6 weeks to do what we all
need to do, and that is to fund the Department of Homeland Security to
keep America safe. We are going to delay that; but, at a minimum, we
ought to say to the conferees--and few of us on this floor believe
there will be any conference. Again, the Senate will not vote to go to
conference. Let us vote at least for this responsible motion made by
the gentlewoman from California.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
I have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I
certainly hope that Mr. Hoyer, when he referred to his young friend
from Texas, was talking about me. That makes me feel really good. I
appreciate that.
At this time, I yield 3 minutes to my young friend from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciated so much my friend Mr. Scott
for bringing up that oath. It does mean a lot--in my case, taking that
oath to serve in the Army for 4 years, taking, basically, the same oath
to be a prosecutor in Texas, to be a judge in Texas, to be a chief
justice in Texas, and now to be in Congress. It
[[Page H1491]]
means something. Protecting the Constitution means that, if we don't
preserve the balance of power, then this little experiment in
democracy--or ``a Republic, madam,'' as Benjamin Franklin referred to--
will be lost.
I appreciated what my friend from Maryland said, and I wrote it down
because it was profound: ``we gave up the opportunity to act
responsibly.''
I would humbly submit, Madam Speaker, that that has been going on for
the last 6 years. Now, some of it went on during the Bush
administration as the President used executive orders and took powers
that probably shouldn't have been his. In talking to people who have
been in Congress over the last 35 years or so, they have told me that,
whether it was Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon when Goldwater went down
Pennsylvania Avenue, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush,
Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush, there was a willingness on both sides
of the aisle to get in a car together and go down Pennsylvania Avenue
and say, ``Mr. President, you have usurped far too much power. We can't
let you destroy the Constitution any further. We are taking a stand.''
We have missed that opportunity to act responsibly, but, fortunately,
it is not yet too late.
If you do not know what ``irresponsibility'' is, then look at Judge
Hanen's opinion. He spells it out. This President didn't even have the
gumption to write an executive order and sign it. He spoke his new
amnesty law into being, and then Jeh Johnson did a memo. That took the
power of Congress away from us. So the question on acting responsibly
is: Do we make that message clear that we are not having laws spoken
into being in this country and having some bureaucrat--unelected--come
around with a memo that undoes laws by different Congresses all these
years that have been signed by different Presidents? With a memo? Come
on.
It is time to act responsibly. Now is the time. Please. I know party
divisions run deep, but stand with us for the Constitution.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her
and Congresswoman Lowey for their very important motion to instruct
conferees to accept the Senate language.
Madam Speaker, I want to address some of what a previous speaker had
mentioned, but I am going to go to the most recent previous speaker.
If you feel so strongly--because I don't know if this is about
thinking or feeling--about the immigration issue and the executive
actions taken by the President, I respect that; but why are you
jeopardizing the homeland security of the United States of America by
attaching your emotions to this bill?
That is what this is about. If you have an argument about
immigration, have an immigration bill come to the floor, and let's have
that debate. You did say that we have given up the opportunity to act
responsibly. That is exactly what you are doing today. Policy
differences about immigration or the rest are a legitimate debate in
this great marketplace of ideas that is called the House of
Representatives; but it is not for you to hold hostage the homeland
security of our country, to jeopardize the opportunity to prepare, to
have what is current and necessary for the realities of the threats
that we are facing now instead of--3 months since December until, it
would be, March 19--3-month-old funding carried over from last year. A
lot has happened since then in Paris, in the Middle East, with threats
in our own country.
{time} 1600
Get a grip on our responsibility. Get a grip, Madam Speaker. Give us
a chance to vote on a bill that passed by more than two-thirds in the
United States Senate with strong bipartisan support.
As far as your criticisms of President Obama, nobody said ``boo''
over there when President Reagan used--justifiably so, rightfully so--
his executive orders on protecting immigrants in our country. George
Herbert Walker Bush, the same. President Clinton. George W. Bush, who
was one of the best Presidents on immigration in our country, wasn't
able to convince his Republican colleagues to respect immigration as
the invigoration of our country. But, nonetheless, he led on that
subject.
So you have made a mess. We have so many bills, counter bills, CRs,
all the rest of it coming back, forward, and all the rest, and every
time I ask all of you what is happening, everybody says: I don't know.
It is only 8 hours until the government will shut down. That can't
possibly happen. And I want to address that point. Someone has said to
me, Well, the President said he won't let the government shut down--
that he would sign this 3-week option. That is a bad choice that we
have given the President--to shut the government down or extend it for
3 weeks--when that 3-week extension is as undermining to our national
security as a shutdown in government. That is just not right. It is not
responsible on our part.
So I say to our colleagues, if they want to go down that path of poor
choices, let the Republicans do that. If they have got multiagendas
here, anti-Obama agendas here about immigration and the rest, let them
go down that path. Let them put their 218 votes on the board without
our associating ourselves with it.
And just because the President's person says of the two bad choices
he would choose the 3 weeks if it came to his desk, don't let that
deter you from voting ``no'' on that and ``yes'' on what Congresswoman
Roybal-Allard and Congresswoman Lowey are putting forth as well.
Yes, we do take that oath, as the gentleman said, whether you are a
judge, whether you are in the military, whether you are in Congress, or
the President of the United States, to protect and support the
Constitution of the United States. We are not protecting anything with
what you are doing here. We are not protecting anything. We are
dragging it out.
We are sending a message that, for some historic reason, we are now
taking it out on Barack Obama because we are angry about what the
gentleman on the Republican side said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and
Bush have done. Bring it up under another circumstance. Keep it off the
protection of our country.
Your chairman, Mr. Rogers, working with our ranking member,
Congresswoman Lowey, was able to put together 12 bills which were a
compromise--bills that everyone was prepared to support--until you
decided you were going to use immigration to hold hostage the national
homeland security of our country.
And so kick the can to here. Now you have kicked the can to here, and
now you are going to kick the can to March 19. What do you think is
going to happen on March 19? We have already had two recesses today in
this very day of congressional deliberation. What do you think you are
going to accomplish later if you are not willing to grow up, bite the
bullet? You made your point.
Your colleagues, the Republican Senators, do not agree to drag this
out. They have given you a face-saving path. The judge in Texas gave
you a face-saving path. ``I am Charlie''--``Je suis Charlie''--gave you
a face-saving path.
The urgency is very, very clear--well, clear to everyone except if
you happen to exist in this Chamber--when your negative attitudes
toward President Obama have so overwhelmed you that you are willing to
jeopardize the homeland security of our country. So whether it is
firefighters, the SAFER Act, FEMA, or anything where the Federal
Government comes in contact with people, you are standing in the way
and using immigration as the excuse. For some of you, it may be a
reason. Maybe it is for some of you, but for some of you it is an
excuse. And for all of you it is a shame. It is a shame.
One gentleman said: If we accept the Senate language, we are not
living up to our responsibility to have a bill in the House. And then
you expect them to accept your language. Doesn't it hold true both
ways? If you don't want to accept their language, why do you expect
them to accept your 3-week language?
Do you not understand the legislative process? This Constitution,
which we value, has the legislative branch. The first article of
government is the legislature, preeminent. The President can't sign
what we don't send him, in terms of making the law. He can take
executive action, but the law is stronger.
[[Page H1492]]
Let us honor our responsibilities and stop standing in the way of
protecting the American people. It is about the security of the
American people versus the philosophy that you have going over there,
which is perfectly to be respected in another piece of legislation.
Let's have that debate separate from protecting.
It is about time for us to come together to get the job done. The
Senate did it. We can. Please support Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's and
Congresswoman Lowey's motion to instruct the conferees to accept the
Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to please direct
their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Does the gentlewoman have other speakers?
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. No. I am prepared to close.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I have had a lot of schoolteachers shake their fingers
at me and tell me things. And most of the times, I have deserved it. I
have been looked right at and told I was wrong before. Many of those
times, I deserved it.
But I want to make something really clear. This is not a debate on
immigration. This is not a debate on whether or not we are going to
fund the Department. We are funding the Department for the next 3
weeks, using the same manner that we funded this Department for years
at a time when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in
charge of this House.
The CR was one of the most popular vehicles that they used in funding
our country during the period of time they ran this place. So we are
not using anything that we don't all use. It funds the Department. It
keeps the Border Patrol okay and keeps them paid.
But it also allows us to do something that--by the way, the gentleman
is absolutely right. In what we would call recent history, going to
conference was so rare--my mother used to say ``rare as hen's teeth''--
when they ran this place.
So we are at least doing something that was designed to be done, and
we are going to conference. When you go to conference and you have two
sides of the story, you are supposed to go in there and discuss the two
sides of the story. What they are asking to instruct here is to just
take what the Senate sent us.
Well, to some extent, I guess we should reward the Senate. This is
about the first thing they have sent us in recent history where we have
actually had a bipartisan vote. In fact, last year we just didn't have
any votes at all. In fact, you wondered if they even knew how.
And so here we are. We are going to conference and doing it the way
it is supposed to be done. All parties will be able to participate, and
maybe we will resolve our differences and maybe we won't, but the
American people also ask us to try to work in a bipartisan manner. And
here is our opportunity.
The Homeland Security Department will be funded. They will have a
paycheck. We will address this issue in conference, and hopefully we
will come to a resolution the way we are designed to with bipartisan
participation.
This is not about immigration. And after having spent 4 years with
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some of the
colleagues over here working on immigration, I am not anti-immigration
policy. This is anti-stepping on the feet of the Framers of the
Constitution and walking all over that piece of paper.
And that is why we are here to fight today. We are fighting for the
rights of this legislative body as we address the Executive. And we are
fighting to fund the Department.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, let me just say that regardless of
what the other side of the aisle will have us believe, the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the men and women who put their lives on the
front line every day for us and to protect this country tell us that a
continuing resolution jeopardizes their ability to fully and
effectively protect this country.
And so I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing and to vote
for this motion to instruct conferees to bring back a clean, full-year,
bipartisan funding bill that will enable the Department of Homeland
Security to fully and effectively protect our Nation and the American
people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________