[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2575-2576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Jolly) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the 
House this evening, and I appreciate the opportunity to continue the 
conversation that was started by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle tonight.
  Listen, there is a future in this body that, hopefully, is going to 
look a lot different than what it has looked like in past decades. I 
would fully concur that government should work and that we should keep 
the government open, but we must also defend the Constitution, and that 
is the paradox that we are faced with this week. I rise with some 
frustration from my side of the aisle and from what I have seen from my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle in recent days.
  I have seen speeches upon speeches upon speeches about a partial 
shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. I have seen big signs 
in the well of this House, scaring the American people about a 
potential partial shutdown. I have seen press conferences across the 
country, including in my hometown of the Tampa Bay area, scaring the 
American people about something that has not yet happened. Recognize 
that all of these speeches, all of these signs are coming not from 
members of our community, not from the people who elected us; these 
speeches, these signs--the ``sky is falling'' mentality--are coming 
from our elected leaders, from Members of this body.
  Why does that matter? Why do I rise tonight to continue the 
conversation started by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle?
  It is this: all we are hearing are speeches, and all we are seeing 
are signs. We are not hearing solutions.
  To this entire body--to both sides of the aisle--our constitutional 
authority was infringed upon when the President

[[Page 2576]]

signed his executive order. That is not a partisan issue. We have a 
responsibility to confront that constitutional overreach. Yes, one 
mechanism we used to do that was the power of the purse. That is a 
fundamental power of this body, the power of the purse, and it was 
appropriate that we responded to the President's unconstitutional 
overreach by exercising our constitutional privilege, that of the 
appropriations process.
  Here is what I would point out to the American people tonight about 
the speeches that they hear from my friends and colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. Recognize something very important: what is being 
presented in the midst of this debate over the constitutional overreach 
of the President is merely an ``all or nothing'' approach. It is either 
we pass a clean bill--and as the leader on the other side said, he will 
deliver 188 votes if we pass a clean bill--or it is nothing. Friends, 
colleagues, that is not legislating. That is using the bully pulpit. 
That is politics. That is not legislating.
  So what I would ask tonight is: Where are the solutions? Where is the 
conviction on the other side of the aisle? Where are the efforts to 
pass a bill that accommodates all Members of this body, Members on the 
other side, and, yes, something the President can sign?
  You see, I am actually a Member of Congress who thinks that the first 
priority of this body is to fund the government and to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security. I am looking to work with colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to say: How do we do that? We have a 
responsibility to do that.
  I have three Coast Guard installations in my district. They are men 
and women--it is absolutely true what is talked about--who will have to 
go to work on Saturday morning with only the promise to be paid later. 
That is wrong. That is a failure of this Congress if we let that 
happen.
  We do have until Friday evening to solve this, and I believe we will, 
but I am asking, actually, for accommodation and cooperation from the 
other side of the aisle. What will it take? What will it take?
  Think about this: Rather than putting signs on the floor, rather than 
condemning our side of the aisle for trying to respond to the 
constitutional overreach of the President, what if we talk about 
provisions that will actually build consensus and get a majority of 
this body, regardless of Republican, Democrat, Independent--whoever you 
are--to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to also respond to 
the constitutional overreach of the President? I think we can get 
there.
  Do you know what I have never heard from the other side of the aisle? 
I have never heard: What if we remove the funding prohibition in the 
original House bill that prohibited the implementation, the further 
exercise, of DACA? They criticized it. If we remove it, does that get 
us the votes to pass a bill?
  I understand there is disagreement over the President's executive 
order from last September. I think it was wrong. Members on the other 
side don't. A Federal judge has said it is unconstitutional. The 
President of the United States said over 20 times he didn't have the 
authority to do it. Yet he did it. What if we allowed 6 months to let 
the courts work their will? It is perfectly reasonable.
  If you are a Member of this Congress who stood up on opening day and 
took the oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United 
States, to defend and protect the obligation of your office, why don't 
we agree upon a 6-month delay in the implementation of the President's 
executive order, an executive order a Federal judge has already put a 
hold on? Does that get us there? Does that get us the votes necessary?
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight said is 
absolutely true: Congress should work, Congress should govern. The 
American people should expect that of all of us.
  It doesn't matter our partisan affiliations, but it does matter 
whether or not we truly exercise the convictions about which we 
pontificate on the floor here tonight. It is not about signs. It is not 
about the bully pulpit. It is not about press conferences.
  Any Member who stands up here tonight, Republican or Democrat, and 
says that we will be worse off as a nation on Friday night if we have 
not funded the Department of Homeland Security is absolutely right. We 
must fund the government. But where is the effort on the other side of 
the aisle to actually reach a compromise? It is not there.
  I promise you that I have watched my colleagues from the time I got 
here this week--every speech. The leader on the other side of the aisle 
made an impassioned speech about the importance of funding Homeland 
Security, and he is right.
  My question is this: When will you abandon your ``all or nothing'' 
approach? Because exactly what you criticize this side of the aisle for 
is exactly the type of behavior that my colleagues on the other side 
are engaging in as well. We have failed the American people if we let 
that lack of cooperation overtake this body and lead us off a cliff on 
Friday night.
  The question to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is: Who 
is willing to step forward with a proposal that gets us there as a 
body?
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time this evening. I look forward to 
ensuring that our Department of Homeland Security is fully funded come 
Friday night.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________