[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2393-2394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman has just said 
about those challenges and threats, along with the undermining of our 
national security, but it is further at risk this week by our own hand; 
that is, the Congress of the United States.
  The Department of Homeland Security will not be funded. There are 
230,000 people who work at that Department, and 30,000 of them, mostly 
administrative personnel, will be laid off. The others, known as 
critically important--essential employees who are on the front line--
will work, but they won't get paid.
  We can lament what others have done to undermine our national 
security and share--I think in a bipartisan way--the conclusion that we 
ought not to further those enterprises, but as I said, Mr. Speaker, by 
our own hand we are about to shut down the Department of Homeland 
Security. We have but 4 days to pass a bill continuing its funding.
  I will say with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, shutting down the government is a strategy 
they have employed on a number of occasions. In 1995, we shut it down 
twice, for almost a month, maybe a little longer.

                              {time}  1215

  Just a few months ago, we shut it down again as a strategy--not as a 
happenstance, but as a strategy.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, there are those who are saying in this House: 
Well, it won't matter if we shut down the Department of Homeland 
Security. Some of the folks are funded on fees, others will be required 
to work anyway, so let's just keep playing this Russian roulette with 
America's security and the safety of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the eleventh hour, and the House has 
not yet been given the opportunity to vote on a bill that, essentially, 
was agreed to by the Republican Appropriations Committee and reported 
to this floor, and we essentially passed it, but we passed it for a 
short period of time.
  There was no debate on funding levels, Mr. Speaker. There was no 
debate on whether this provision and that provision should or should 
not be in the bill. We passed it.
  Then the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, to accomplish another objective, 
have done what they said in the pledge to America they would not do, 
and that is put two different issues in the same bill. Well, they have 
put a poison pill in this bill.
  If we fail to act and send the President a bill he can and will sign, 
a bill free from partisan policy riders, then thousands of our Homeland 
Security agents will be furloughed, and almost--as I said--200,000 
others will be forced to work without pay.
  Is that what America has come to? Surely not--the impact on our 
border security, law enforcement, and homeland security will be serious 
and make our country more vulnerable to threats.
  I came to the rostrum after a gentleman on the other side of the 
aisle correctly expressed concerns about the threats that confront us. 
I would hope he would join me in advocating and urging the Republican 
leadership to bring to the floor a clean--and by clean, I simply mean a 
bill on which both parties have essentially agreed.
  Chairman Mike McCaul, the Republican who leads the House Committee on 
Homeland Security said yesterday--Mr. Speaker, this is the Republican 
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee: ``I fully believe we 
should not be playing politics with the national security agency like 
the Department of Homeland Security, particularly given the high threat 
environment that we're in right now.''
  What American would say it makes sense to play politics with Homeland 
Security in light of what the gentleman has just referenced and which 
all of us know to be the case?
  We have people who want to harm us as a people and as a nation. Mr. 
Speaker, this body has a responsibility to the American people to do 
everything we can to make them as secure as we can and to make our 
country as secure as we can.
  Senator Lindsey Graham, with whom I served in this body who now 
represents South Carolina and is a Republican Member of the Senate and 
an expert on national security, he told his Republican colleagues 
this--and, again, I quote: ``The worst possible outcome for this Nation 
is to defund the Department of Homeland Security, given the multiple 
threats we face to our homeland, and I will not be part of it.''
  None of us ought to be part of it. 435 of us ought to vote to fund 
the Homeland Security Department starting on

[[Page 2394]]

Friday. I urge the Republican majority to heed this advice of Mr. 
McCaul, of Mr. Graham, and, frankly, countless other Republicans in the 
Senate and some in the House to do the responsible thing and let this 
House work its will on the single subject of our national security.
  If a clean Homeland Security appropriation bill were to come to the 
floor, I am confident--and I tell my friend and the majority leader, 
Mr. Speaker, every Democrat will vote for it. We are 188 strong.
  Surely, there are 30 responsible Republicans who care more about our 
national security than their politics who would join us in voting for 
that bill--I am confident of that--many more, I think, than 30, but at 
least 30 would be needed, with 188, to get to the 218, and we would 
fund the Department of Homeland Security, and we could do it tomorrow.
  We could probably do it today by unanimous consent--well, no, I don't 
think we could do it by unanimous consent because there are some who 
continue to play politics with our national security.
  If the majority is dissatisfied with our immigration policy which 
they articulate and legitimately can have an alternative view to 
express and to try to enact, that is the democratic process.
  Offer a bill to change that which they do not like, not hold hostage 
the Department of Homeland Security until hopefully, from their 
standpoint, the President is bludgeoned into signing a bill that he 
does not agree with and he does not believe is good for our country and 
believes is bad for our economy.
  If the majority is dissatisfied, bring a bill to the floor. Former 
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, also a Republican with whom I 
have served when he was a Representative from Pennsylvania, 
subsequently the Governor of Pennsylvania and then our first Secretary 
of Homeland Security, I want to quote him as well as I have quoted the 
other two Republicans that I have quoted.
  ``Political folly'' and ``bad policy,'' that is Tom Ridge, former 
Republican Governor and mentioned for President. He went on to say: ``I 
think the political repercussions could be severe. And, on top of that, 
the men and women of Homeland Security deserve better.''
  Who wants to work for an employer that simply takes them hostage 
every few months and says to them: You may or may not get paid, you may 
or may not be able to come to work, you may or may not be able to do 
your job. It depends upon whether or not our political ends are served.
  I urge Republican leaders to keep the pledge they made to the 
American people to consider issues one at a time. Bring a comprehensive 
immigration reform bill. If you don't like what the President has done, 
bring a bill that changes that. We have the power to do that. Do it.
  We can work in a bipartisan way to change our immigration policies 
through legislation and fix what everybody in this body believes is a 
broken system.
  Bring a clean appropriation bill to the floor to fund the Department 
of Homeland Security, and then, as well, bring a bill to the floor on 
comprehensive immigration reform or the bill that our Republican 
friends think is the appropriate bill to fix a broken system, and we 
will vote and debate on that.
  But let the Department of Homeland Security do its job for America, 
for Americans. Let's exercise responsible, adult legislating this time.

                          ____________________