[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2896-2913]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2015

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 129 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 129

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 35) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2015, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a 
rule and the underlying bill that would provide for funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security for 3 weeks.
  This short, six-line resolution, House Joint Resolution 35, would 
provide certainty by taking a shutdown of the Department of Homeland 
Security off the table.
  So why are we here today? We are here because, last year, the 
President brought forward a plan to grant executive amnesty to over 4 
million illegal immigrants. I believe that the administration's actions 
violate the rule of law, circumvent the role of the American people, 
and undermine the Constitution.
  These actions have failed the American people. Over the last few 
years, the President's immigration policies have cost the Federal 
Government millions of dollars. They have cost our States, our 
communities, and our local schools and hospitals millions more.
  I disagree with executive amnesty because I believe it is unwise, 
unlawful, and unconstitutional. That is why, 6 weeks ago, the House of 
Representatives did its job. We passed a bill that provided for the 
funding of the Department of Homeland Security and blocked the 
President's executive amnesty actions.
  We had an expectation that the Senate would then do its work, stand 
up for the Constitution, while funding the Department of Homeland 
Security. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats, including numerous Senators 
who have argued repeatedly that no President can unilaterally change 
the law, have blocked that bill.
  That is why we are here today: because Senate Democrats refuse to 
stand up and fight on behalf of the Constitution against the 
President's executive amnesty plan. We would not be here with a short-
term solution if six--only six--Senate Democrats would stand up for the 
American people and stop the President's executive amnesty plan.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas and others, including my 
great home State of Georgia, stepped up to the plate and led a lawsuit 
with other States against the President and his unilateral actions. A 
judge in Texas ruled on that case 11 days ago and said that the 
President's November executive amnesty action was illegal.
  As long as his injunction remains in place, no Federal dollars can be 
used to fund the President's executive action on immigration. That 
means that, for the time being, the President's plan has been stopped 
dead in its tracks.
  In the meantime, I believe the House must do everything it can to 
fund the Department of Homeland Security at a critical time, which is 
why I stand in support of the rule that will fund the Department 
through March 19.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentleman, my friend, 
Mr. Collins, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in this House, we use a manual of rules that was written 
by Thomas Jefferson. In 1801, when he began writing his manual of 
parliamentary procedures, he surely imagined a

[[Page 2897]]

Chamber which followed the rules would be orderly, steadfast, and 
unwavering and that could govern our Nation in a respectable way; but 
under the current majority's rule, this House stands in deep contrast 
to that ideal.
  Yet again, we stand on the brink, on the edge, on the precipice of a 
shutdown.

                              {time}  0930

  After 4 years of this kind of leadership of self-inflicted wounds and 
manufactured crises, one would think that the House majority would have 
learned their lesson. It is clear today that they have not.
  First, Republicans promised when they took control of this Chamber 
that they would govern prudently and fairly and openly, with regular 
order. We haven't seen any of that.
  Then last November, when Republicans took control of the Senate, we 
were promised that two Chambers under Republican rule would be better 
than one and that the games would be over. We surely haven't seen any 
of that either.
  The House majority is not content to double down on their vendetta 
against the President; they want to undermine their own party in the 
process.
  To the best of my knowledge, every President since Eisenhower--
Republican and Democrat--has set some immigration enforcement and other 
priorities through executive order. But the majority's contempt for 
this President is so strong that they are engaging in an intraparty 
war, while Rome is burning around them, to see who can punish him the 
hardest.
  Mr. Speaker, as we stand here debating this, the Senate is poised to 
send us a clean, bipartisan bill to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security until the end of the fiscal year. The Republican Senate, with 
help from Democratic Senators, is ready to do what is right for the 
country. But the House is so blinded by their need to discredit and 
disparage the President that they risk the very security of our Nation 
for political games.
  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offered Speaker Boehner all 188 
Democratic votes on a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security. He would have only needed to come up with 30. But the Speaker 
refused to take them. And if this dangerous continuing resolution were 
to pass, it will not be because of Democratic support. It will be pure 
Republican.
  Democrats have been shut out of the process yet again. Today's closed 
rule brings the tally to 13 closed rules of the 18 rules passed in the 
114th Congress.
  The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, 
sent a letter to congressional leaders yesterday which laid out what is 
at stake if his Department's funding is disrupted, either through 
shutdown or short-term continuing resolution. From maintaining airport 
security, to helping us recover from one of the hardest winters in 
generations, to guarding against cyber threats, to keeping the U.S. 
Coast Guard running and monitoring possible lone-wolf attacks on our 
homeland by ISIS, the House majority is threatening the safety and 
security of our Nation.
  Secretary Johnson went on to say: ``As I have noted many times, mere 
extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative 
impacts.'' In other words, a short-term solution simply keeps us going 
on this cliffhanger. 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.''
  How in the world can we run the United States like this? What must 
the rest of the world think of us as we flounder around here trying to 
inflict all the pain we can on the President of the United States? And 
in any case, that is more important to too many Members of this House; 
the prime reason for being here is to tear down the government and the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the letter from Secretary Johnson 
to congressional leaders, dated 26 February 2015, for the Record.

                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 2015.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McConnell, Minority 
     Leader Reid, and Minority Leader Pelosi: Thank you for your 
     leadership and efforts to pass a clean, full-year 
     appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. 
     As you know, our funding expires tomorrow at midnight. I 
     write to explain to Members of Congress the real and 
     substantial consequences of a failure to pass a full-year 
     appropriations bill by that deadline.
       As an initial matter, it must be noted that a potential 
     shutdown of the Department comes at a particularly 
     challenging time for homeland security. It is stunning that 
     we must even contemplate a shutdown of the Department in the 
     current global context. The global terrorist threat has 
     become more decentralized and complex. Terrorist 
     organizations are now openly calling for attacks on Western 
     targets. Yesterday's arrests in New York City highlight the 
     threat of independent actors in the homeland who support 
     overseas terrorist organizations and radical ideology. We are 
     working hard to stay one step ahead of potential threats to 
     aviation security. Last year at this time, the spike in 
     migrant children began to appear at our border; we are 
     deployed to prevent this situation from recurring, and to 
     address it aggressively if it does. The Nation is in the 
     midst of a very cold, harsh winter, and the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency is working with states impacted by record 
     snowfalls.
       Here are just some of the consequences for homeland 
     security if the Departments funding lapses and we shut down:
       First, about 170,000 employees will be required to work, 
     but will not get paid for that work during the period of a 
     shutdown. This includes our Coast Guard, Border Patrol 
     agents, Secret Service agents, Transportation Security 
     Administration officers, and others on the front lines of our 
     homeland security. These working men and women depend on 
     biweekly paychecks to make ends meet for themselves and their 
     families. For them, personally, work without pay is 
     disruptive and demoralizing. Even worse for our people are 
     the public statements by some that make light of a shutdown, 
     which disregards DHS employees' personal sacrifices and 
     dedication to our Nation's security.
       Second, approximately 30,000 men and women of the 
     Department must be furloughed and sent home without pay. Our 
     financial management, human resources, procurement and 
     contracting, and information technology teams--the 
     institutional backbone of the Department--will be reduced by 
     90 percent, from over 2,000 to just 208 people. My own 
     immediate headquarters staff will be cut by about 87 percent. 
     Our Science and Technology team, which is intensely focused 
     on developing non-metallic explosive detection capabilities 
     as well as other technologies to counter threats to aviation, 
     will be cut 94 percent, from 448 to 26 people. Our Domestic 
     Nuclear Detection Office, which is our Nation's primary 
     research and development lead for development of advanced 
     nuclear detection technologies and technical forensic 
     capabilities, will also be cut 94 percent, from 121 to just 7 
     people.
       Third, contracting services across the Department, 
     including those for critical mission support activities, will 
     be disrupted and/or interrupted altogether. Depending upon 
     the length of a shutdown, contract awards and major 
     acquisitions could be impacted. In the event of a shutdown, 
     negotiations to construct the United States Coast Guard's 8th 
     National Security Cutter will be delayed, potentially leading 
     to an increase in costs.
       Fourth, our $2.5 billion-a-year grant-making to state, 
     local, tribal, and territorial governments, to assist them in 
     preventing, responding to or recovering from terrorist 
     attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, remains at a 
     standstill (it has already stopped because the Department is 
     currently funded by a Continuing Resolution). Of particular 
     note, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency 
     Management Performance Grants, which contribute 50 percent of 
     the salaries of state and local emergency management 
     personnel, cannot be funded.
       Fifth, public assistance disaster recovery payments to 
     communities affected by previous disasters will grind to a 
     halt. Though these payments are funded with prior-year money, 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency's staff that 
     processes them must be furloughed.
       Sixth, depending upon the length of a shutdown, DHS will no 
     longer be able to support state and local authorities with 
     planning, safety, and security resources for special security 
     events such as the Boston and Chicago Marathons.
       Seventh, depending upon the length of a shutdown, work to 
     complete construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense 
     Facility in Kansas, which will replace the aging 1950s-era 
     Plum Island facility in New York, could be disrupted.
       Eighth, new hires across the Department must be halted, 
     disrupting critical missions to secure the border, protect 
     millions of daily airline passengers, strengthen security at 
     the White House, and deploy new ICE investigators. Routine 
     attrition hiring would cease across the Department, seriously 
     undermining our homeland security frontline staffing needs. 
     Our plans to increase CBP staffing at our ports of entry by 
     2,000 officers, and to maintain the Transportation Security 
     Administration's workforce of airport

[[Page 2898]]

     screeners and air marshals will be undermined. Our plans to 
     hire additional Secret Service uniformed officers and special 
     agents will also be disrupted.
       Ninth, without funding, all training at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Centers will cease. Up to 2,000 local, 
     state, and federal law enforcement trainees from across the 
     country will be sent home.
       Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a 
     continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. 
     A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the 
     uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same 
     position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.
       I urge Congress, as soon as possible, to pass a clean, 
     full-year Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill for the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       The American people are counting on us.
           Sincerely.
                                              Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                        Secretary.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. These are the consequences of the actions of this 
Chamber's majority, real and dangerous consequences: no certainty, no 
safety, no end in sight.
  I say to my colleagues in the majority: The Senate is giving you a 
way out of this thorny, treacherous brush that you have built up around 
yourselves, and I urge you and I implore you to follow the path out of 
that brush. It is the right thing to do for the country, and it is 
certainly the right thing to do for this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This, frankly, is an understanding. This is not being brought forward 
out of contempt, as has been said, Mr. Speaker, about this President. 
This has to do with institutional integrity, that each branch has a 
role, that each body within the Congress has a role. Do your job. That 
is all we are saying. Make compromises where need be. Work to progress 
where need be. But when you simply say, I will not do anything--and 
especially with this executive amnesty action, which we believe should 
not be funded--that is a valid point of view. We have got to come to 
the table. But when the administration refuses to negotiate, the 
American people see truly that we are not functioning, not because of 
this House, but because of what is happening through, frankly, a 
frustrating policy from this administration which wants to bypass 
Congress.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say a 
negotiation took place, and that is why a bipartisan bill is passing 
the Senate at this very moment.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is simply kicking the can 
down the road for 3 weeks. The facts on the ground don't change in 3 
weeks. Guess what, President Obama is still President of the United 
States in 3 weeks. Guess what, Harry Reid is still the minority leader 
with enough votes to prevent something from reaching the 60-vote 
threshold in the Senate.
  All we are doing is giving the Republicans yet another chance 3 weeks 
from now to remind the American children of undocumented parents that 
they want to deport Mom and Dad and to remind DREAMers, aspiring 
Americans who grew up here and know no other country, that they should 
be deported to a country they don't even know, haven't been to, and 
might not even speak the language of. That is not the way to win 
friends and influence people.
  Look, when you are going to people in an election cycle, it doesn't 
matter how great your agenda is. It might be great for their economics 
and their pocketbook; it might be great for their values. But you know 
what, if you are trying to deport Mom and Dad, you are not going to get 
past the front door.
  Yet here we are, sending ourselves on a cycle where every 3 weeks, 
every 2 weeks, every 6 weeks, apparently, the Republicans want to 
remind American children that they want to deport Mom and Dad. 
Apparently the Republicans want to remind young people who grew up 
here, who know no other country, who might want to serve in our 
military, who might be a cheerleader or on the football team at high 
school with your kids, Mr. Speaker, that they, too, should be deported 
to a country that they don't know, where they speak a language that 
they might not even speak.
  That is just simply not a winning electoral strategy, and it is 
contrary to our values as Americans. It is against family values. It is 
against the values of our Nation, as a nation of immigrants and a 
nation of laws.
  Those two can be reconciled through sensible, comprehensive 
immigration reform that addresses our broken immigration system. And 
yes, it is broken; and yes, President Obama's first steps don't 
completely fix it; but together, we can make it work.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to 
yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good 
friend, who is a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I come today, of course, to speak on the rule and to 
encourage passage of the rule and encourage passage of the underlying 
bill, funding the Department of Homeland Security for the next 21 days.
  I would remind this body that the House, last month, funded the 
Department of Homeland Security until the end of the fiscal year, 
September 30. We have since awaited activity over in the Senate or over 
in the other body, and that activity, unfortunately, has not been 
forthcoming. So we are left, again, with a deadline situation; and the 
House leadership, responsibly, has stepped up to provide temporary 
funding for the next 21 days.
  The problem, of course, goes back to November when the House did not 
want to fund the President's illegal, unlawful amnesty. It turns out a 
Federal judge in Texas agreed with us here in the House that it was an 
illegal amnesty.
  But in reference to the comments just made here on the House floor, 
here is a pop quiz for everyone. What country is more welcoming than 
any other country on the face of the Earth? What country allows more 
people in legally than all other countries combined? Well, that country 
is the United States of America.
  Last year, over 1 million individuals were welcomed into this country 
legally, and it has been so every year that I have been in the Congress 
for the last 12 years. That is 12 million people, just using simple 
math. All we ask is that you simply follow existing law.
  For people who want to say our immigration system is broken, I would 
submit that what is broken is our enforcement system. You had only to 
look to the southern border last summer and see the flood of 
unaccompanied minors coming over--not sneaking across the border, 
simply walking across the border and turning themselves in--and this 
country was required to deal with that on an emergent basis. The State 
of Texas was required to deal with that on an emergent basis.
  There was a lot of discussion as to why that surge happened. I think 
there is a link back to the President saying: I am going to suspend 
enforcement of some of our immigration laws. It sent a message. It sent 
a message to people: Y'all come. Y'all come. The doors are open. If you 
get here in time, guess what. You won't have to worry about our laws.
  That was the wrong message because, as a consequence, States, like my 
State of Texas, were required to deal with the influx and were required 
to deal with the increase in social programs that were then called upon 
to provide those services that had never been budgeted before because 
they were, by definition, unexpected.
  I agree that we do have a problem, and the problem is the porosity of 
the southern border, particularly in the Lower Rio Grande Valley sector 
in the State of Texas.
  The former Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, met with the President in 
Dallas and invited him down to the border to come and see what we are 
dealing

[[Page 2899]]

with, and the President refused. Well, many of us have been to the 
border. Bipartisan trips have been conducted to the border, to the 
Lower Rio Grande Valley sector.
  Thank goodness for the men and women who show up there to work every 
day. Federal, State, and local sheriffs show up to work every day to 
keep our country safe. And right now, the lion's share of the 
enforcement on the border, of the protection on the border, is being 
done by the Texas Department of Safety, the highway patrol. The people 
who are supposed to be out catching speeders on the freeway are 
actually in boats on the Rio Grande to enforce our border security 
because it is national security.
  Lieutenant Governor Patrick, when he was running for election, said 
over and over again: The security of the southern border is a Federal 
responsibility, but it is our problem, as State leaders.
  So they have stepped up and they have spent money. They have 
committed money. They have committed people and equipment to that 
southern border, equipment that should have been pledged by the 
President of the United States and Department of Homeland Security.
  Former Governor Perry offered President Obama an opportunity to come 
to the border to see what the problem was. The President refused. I 
think that was a mistake. I think the President should have traveled to 
the southern border.
  The reality is that many of the Customs and Border Patrol individuals 
are not even on the border. They are one county in, dealing with the 
people who have now trekked across some of the most dangerous desert 
and difficult country around, who have been picked up by Customs and 
Border Patrol now 40, 50, 80 miles from the southern border.
  The problem is not solved by the President's executive order. The 
problem is exacerbated. The President is throwing gasoline on the fire 
on our southern border, and that needs to stop. Thank goodness a 
Federal judge recognized that, and at least the process temporarily has 
been halted.
  The answer, though, is to enforce existing law, protect and defend 
our border, as all of us were sworn to do when we took that oath of 
office. That is the type of reform that is needed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the ranking 
member, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come this morning with some good news that should make 
us all very comfortable. We have received an intelligence dispatch from 
ISIS and ISIL, and the good news is that they have decided to finance 
their terrorist attacks against the United States and the people of the 
United States based on a continuing resolution, based on short-term 
funding. They are going to finance the hijacking of airplanes, attacks 
on Americans, attacks on our Embassies on a 3-week spending resolution.
  Sound preposterous? So is what the House Republicans are doing to our 
Department of Homeland Security.

                              {time}  0945

  It is a disservice to the American people, and it undermines our 
homeland security. This is not a game, Mr. Speaker. Three terrorists in 
Brooklyn were arrested yesterday. They were planning to do three 
things: one, they were planning to hijack airplanes; two, they were 
planning to kill cops; and three, they were planning to assassinate the 
President. There is one department in the Federal agencies that 
protects us from hijacking airplanes, assassinating the President, and 
helps protect us from killing cops. It is the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Those terrorists were not planning these terrorist attacks based on 
kicking the can in their budgets. They were planning those terrorist 
attacks based on doing whatever it took at whatever the cost to inflict 
harm on this country.
  What are House Republicans doing in the face of that threat? They are 
kicking the can with 3-week spending resolutions because they disagree 
with the President on an executive order on immigration. They have the 
right to their disagreements, Mr. Speaker. If you don't like 
immigration, debate it. If you don't like an executive order, oppose 
it. But do not undermine the safety of the American people by weakening 
the Department of Homeland Security with short-term funding resolutions 
while our terrorist opponents and enemies are financing those attacks 
every single day for as long as it takes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I don't come to the well and speak on rules. I 
think the gentlewoman from New York will almost not recognize me on the 
House floor in this capacity. But I think this is an extremely 
important rule, and I think the last two minority Members made the 
point for me very well, and I would just like to maybe comment on it 
for just a moment.
  Mr. Polis is a dear friend of mine that I have cosponsored and I am 
cosponsoring legislation with. He and I agree on a great deal. He 
talked about the question of whether this was American to do what we 
are doing. Nothing could be more quintessentially American than to say 
when we have a real difference of opinion between two bodies--in this 
case the House and the Senate--that we want to provide an opportunity 
to reconcile those differences and to go to conference, to spend a week 
or two, as necessary, publicly, as the rules require, debating the 
differences between our visions.
  Democrats in the Senate have been able to keep us from having any 
kind of a comment on the President's acts, which have been ruled by a 
Federal judge as unlawful and unconstitutional.
  Now, I just got basically told ``shame on you'' by my other 
colleague, and I really can't understand that. He knows that there is a 
real difference of opinion in this body between what the President can 
do and what he is doing. He said, and I am paraphrasing: Please don't 
shut down the government because you disagree. Just disagree.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has made it very clear time and time again 
that the wrong place to argue with him is on a debt limit, the wrong 
place to argue is on a budget, and now the wrong place to argue is on 
our one constitutional absolute, which is the power of the purse.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more important place to reconcile these 
differences than when we are debating the power of the purse. The 
President has said he has the authority. Fine. A Federal judge will 
decide that. But the House can decide whether or not to fund him. It is 
our obligation to decide whether or not his spending of the American 
people's hard-earned money is, in fact, consistent with the best 
interests of the American people.
  Now, I want immigration reform. I want every aspect of it. I have 
hardworking farm families in my district who cannot live without an 
effective solution for an out-of-control farm labor base. Almost every 
farm laborer in California either is or was unlawfully in this country 
at one time. We have held up other immigration waiting to try to get an 
agreement with the Senate.
  If we do not begin today by creating space in our democracy for the 
healthy debate between the two bodies over the next 3 weeks, then we 
have shirked our duty. If we simply shut down and give up, we have 
shirked our duty. If we simply capitulate and fund whatever the 
President wants--just a blank check--we might as well just say, Spend 
such funds as you may need to, and go home. That is not what the 
American people want us to do. They want us to reasonably provide the 
advice and consent when it comes to appropriation.
  This bill was intended to do it. The 3-week extension gives the 
President a full 3 weeks to wage, if you will, his view with the 
American people, the Senate to do so, but I desperately want the 
healthy public debate between Members of the House, Members of the 
Senate, Democrats and Republicans, on

[[Page 2900]]

what we will do going forward. I would hope my colleagues on the Rules 
Committee would vote with me, if not on the rule, then certainly on the 
passage of 3 weeks to give democracy a chance, 3 weeks for our Republic 
to do what is enshrined in the Constitution, what has been the policy 
of these two bodies for over 230 years. Provide the 3 weeks, go to 
conference, publicly debate the differences between the House, the 
Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the President and, quite frankly, a 
Federal judge, in front of the American people.
  I have been here 14 years; we have been working on immigration 
problems. The President has been President for 6 years; we have been 
working on immigration problems. Three weeks of healthy debate, nothing 
could be more appropriate in our great Republic.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, anyone who says that we are going to let down 
the guard on national defense because we are having a healthy debate 
and we have continued full funding of the Department of Homeland 
Security simply is not being genuine in the discourse. The fact is, 3 
weeks of full funding is exactly the right thing to do. Our enemies 
will know that we take homeland security seriously, but we also take 
immigration seriously.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Burgess from Texas, said one thing 
that should be repeated in this body every single time we use the word 
``immigration'': America allows more people to come here through the 
front door not more than just any country in the world but more than 
all the countries of the world combined. Over 1.2 million people will 
immigrate to this country legally this year. We are generous beyond any 
other country in the world. So no one can say we are not pro-immigrant. 
We are. But there are 11 million people in this country who are 
unaccounted for, and getting it right and spending those dollars wisely 
is Mr. Burgess' requirement, and it is my requirement. To all my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote ``yes,'' make this happen, 
and we will have a healthy debate in our Republic.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have to note we just heard my friend, Mr. 
Issa, I think reveal what is really going on here. He said, and I think 
I am quoting him correctly, referencing the President, that we don't 
have to fund him. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is not 
about funding the President. This is about the decision of this body 
and the Senate, the Republicans in charge, to continue to kick the can 
down the road and not fund the most essential government function, and 
that is public safety and national security.
  So let's be clear about what is going on here. This is a 
manufactured, deliberate political crisis intended to deflect attention 
from the fact that for 7 weeks--7 weeks in session--we have not seen 
any of the democratic deliberation that my friends on the other side 
have referred to. They could have brought a funding bill in the first 
week, in the second week, in the third week, in the fourth week, in the 
fifth week, in the sixth week, or the seventh week that we have been 
here on the floor of the House. But have they? No.
  On the last day before the Department of Homeland Security shuts 
down, after 7 weeks in session, what do we get? Three weeks of funding. 
What changes in 3 weeks? What can you do in the next 3 weeks that you 
have been completely incapable of doing in the last 7 weeks? I don't 
see anything changing.
  While the American people are at home worrying about how they work 
harder every day and can't seem to get ahead, that they can't seem to 
put the money aside to put their kids through college, and they can't 
seem to put the money aside to make sure that when they retire they are 
going to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, those are the 
questions that the American people have.
  We have a Republican majority in the House and the Senate that can't 
even seem to act on the simplest question of providing for national 
security. If they are so concerned, Mr. Speaker, about immigration 
policy, bring an immigration bill to the floor of the House. Do your 
job. Legislate on the question of immigration and provide for national 
defense.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is something I will agree 
with the previous speaker on. I agree this is not about the President. 
It is about the process. It is about what we have all gone through and 
said, this is how a bill becomes the law. If we need a reminder, then 
let's talk about that.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that was just said is why we would 
bring, why, when we have been here for the last 6 weeks bringing 
spending bills and sending them over--let's talk about what we did do. 
January 14, the House approves a full-year funding bill for DHS. 
February 3, Senate Democrats vote to block consideration. February 4, 
Senate Democrats vote again to block consideration. Uh oh, February 5, 
around Groundhog Day, somewhere in that neighborhood, Senate Democrats 
vote a third time to block consideration. February 23, in case they 
forgot, Senate Democrats vote for a fourth time to block consideration. 
Democrats even prevented themselves from offering amendments to strip 
the language that they found offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, is there just not a problem being developed here? We 
find ourselves in a position today because Senate Democrats refuse to 
be part of the solution. Again, this goes back to basic civics. Let's 
work this out. Let's do what we need to do. This is about giving us 
time to let the process work. And as the gentleman had said earlier, 
what could be different? Maybe this will be different. Maybe the Senate 
Democrats will learn they are in the minority. The American people 
spoke in November, and it is time that we work together to find 
solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York. We are here today to do a single job, and that should be to 
fund fully the Department of Homeland Security. Anything else is an 
abdication of our responsibility. Anything else is an act of 
legislative malpractice simply because of the inability of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle to satisfy the thirst of the extreme 
rightwing anti-immigration base of the party. So we are playing 
political games at a time when the safety and the security of the 
American people are being threatened.
  I know that all too well, Mr. Speaker, because earlier this week the 
FBI uncovered a plot in Brooklyn in the communities that I represent 
where individuals sought to impart bombs to the Coney Island 
neighborhood that I represent. And yet we are here playing games, 
government by crisis. This, of course, is nothing new: fiscal cliff, 
sequestration, 16-day government shutdown in October of 2013, a 
flirtation with defaulting on our debt, and now we want to shut down 
the Department of Homeland Security because my friends on the other 
side of the aisle can't get their act together.
  We need all hands on deck right now, Mr. Speaker. That means the FBI, 
the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security working 
together. Why would we want to either shut the Department down or 
create a level of uncertainty where people within the Department of 
Homeland Security are distracted when we know that the terrorists only 
have to be right once and where we have to be correct 100 percent of 
the time in order to protect the American people?
  You claim to be strict constructionists as it relates to the 
Constitution. We have an article I legislative branch, an article II 
executive branch, and an article III judicial branch. The Founders said 
if there is a conflict, if you have got concerns, if you have got 
constitutional issues, then let the judicial branch work it out. That 
is what is going on right now.

                              {time}  1000

  We should be doing our job instead of taking the American people on 
another

[[Page 2901]]

reckless legislative joyride that is simply going to crash and burn, 
this time affecting the safety and security of the American people.
  They want us to focus on good-paying jobs. They want us to focus on 
retirement security, higher education affordability, better childcare, 
strengthening the middle class and all those who aspire to be part of 
it. They want us to further the American Dream. But we are here playing 
games with their safety and security. It is a shame.
  Let's get back to doing the business of the American people. Vote 
down this rule, and vote down the underlying 3-week reckless extension.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, I greatly respect my 
friends across the aisle, but we do have to understand exactly what we 
are bringing forward is not a bill we are bringing forward to shut down 
the government. We are bringing something forward to fund it for the 
next 3 weeks while we continue to work on a process of getting stuff 
done.
  Again, I agree with my colleagues. We are trying to fight. We had to 
work on the 529 plan that, frankly, the administration had some issues 
with. We fixed that here in the House this week. We are working on the 
problems that matter to kitchen tables around this country. Republicans 
are doing that, but they are also standing up for what we learned in 
civics lessons, is that this is the way the legislative process works.
  If I just need to repeat it one more time, let's go through it once 
more. January 14, the House did its job. It approved a full-year 
spending bill. February 3, Senate Democrats voted to block 
consideration. February 4, Senate Democrats vote again to block 
consideration. February 5, Senate Democrats vote a third time to block 
consideration again--as we will go along, as you know, February 23, 
same story, three times, fourth time removed.
  Democrats even prevented themselves from offering amendments to strip 
language they found offensive. I guess, after so many years of not 
being able to offer amendments, they forgot how. They are preventing 
their own selves from doing this in the Senate. It is time we act. This 
is the issue that we are dealing with today and will continue to do so.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York 
for the time; and my good friend, as well, on the Rules Committee, let 
me thank you for the time. We share time on the Judiciary Committee. He 
is a good friend.
  In this instance, I vigorously disagree and say that it is about the 
President. It is about the President on every term, from the Affordable 
Care Act to his reasoned, constitutionally premised response to the 
tragedy of undocumented individuals in this country over and over 
again. It is about the President. It is about the President when there 
is not one item that the President has put forward that you are 
agreeing to.
  Right now, let me change my story because I am here today--though I 
wanted to honor a dear person who is in my district today, and I am not 
able to be there, I was leaving last night--but because of this 
immediate crisis and the foolery that is going on, the ignoring of the 
words of the experts, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security, that 
says as an initial matter in a letter he sent to all of us, it must be 
noted that a potential shutdown of the Department comes at a 
particularly challenging time for Homeland Security.
  It is stunning that we must even contemplate a shutdown of the 
Department in the current global context. The global terrorist threat 
has become more decentralized and complex. The FBI Director said that 
there is an ISIS-ISIL cell in every State.
  Mr. Speaker, the tomfoolery of Republicans is absurd, that they are 
willing to play with the lives of Americans, that they are willing to 
throw under the bus the thousands upon thousands of important, 
essential, and crucial workers in the Department of Homeland Security. 
The FBI said, under this new fusion of work together, that the 
Department of Homeland Security is crucial.
  In my district, people are coming up to my staff and asking, What is 
going to happen in Houston--a place where, when we were in the midst of 
9/11, there were rumors about planes going to the energy sector.
  This is a foolish position that we are in. I demand that we vote for 
a clean DHS bill that is coming from the Senate. This is foolish. This 
is outrageous. I cannot understand what is going on with Republicans 
that they are, in essence, killing us here in this House. This is 
absurd.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I think it is sort of interesting--and I appreciate my colleague from 
Texas--but I think the well-reasoned response of the administration to 
the issue that is going on, I think there just happens to be a contrary 
opinion found in a Federal judge in Texas, so maybe so much for the 
well-reasoned opinion.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the House went through regular order to 
fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, but in keeping with our 
constitutional right, we elected to not fund the President's executive 
amnesty.
  We have a policy difference with the President, that is clear. He 
supports amnesty; we support the rule of law. Let's debate that. Harry 
Reid and the President want to play games and, in doing so, are 
jeopardizing America's security to win political points. It is sad.
  Republicans funded the Department of Homeland Security. We have not 
funded the President's illegal actions. Now, Democrats are playing 
politics with it. This is not the time or place. This is about funding 
the Department of Homeland Security, which we have done. Now, Senate 
Democrats are playing political gamesmanship to defend his executive 
amnesty.
  Democrats are the ones putting the Department of Homeland Security in 
peril to defend an illegal action taken by this President. We have 
passed a bill that funds every aspect of the Department of Homeland 
Security, except for the President's illegal actions. That is a 
reasonable stand to make.
  President Obama did what he said he couldn't do more than 20 times. 
He said he couldn't do what he did. He went outside the bounds of the 
Constitution to make law that was politically expedient, in his point 
of view. He didn't work with the legislative branch. He went outside of 
it. We disagree with that action. We have the power of the purse. It is 
our responsibility to appropriate money and to make law.
  The House has funded the Department of Homeland Security, and we have 
responsibility to go through regular order to do so. We did that. Harry 
Reid and the President are the ones throwing a temper tantrum right 
now.
  This rule for this bill is necessary. Let's pass this rule. Let's 
pass this bill. Let's fund the Department of Homeland Security. Let's 
stop playing political brinksmanship.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asks Members to refrain from 
making improper references to the President.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Department of Homeland Security will run out of money and shut 
down tonight. House Democrats, Senate Democrats, the White House, and 
Senate Republicans all agree on what to do to pass the bipartisan bill 
to fully fund the Department for the rest of the fiscal year.
  The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the only 
one standing in the way. Our next vote on ordering the previous 
question will be a vote on whether to continue down that dangerous path 
or to govern responsibly and to put our national security ahead of 
partisan politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member on Appropriations, to discuss 
how

[[Page 2902]]

essential it is that we pass a clean full-year appropriations bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to 
immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  By defeating the previous question on the pending rule, we can 
immediately make in order a clean Homeland Security bill and stop the 
theatrics over the President's use of executive orders. My colleague 
Ms. Roybal-Allard and I made several similar attempts, which were 
unfortunately defeated on party-line votes.
  It is my sincere hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are now prepared to end this standoff with only hours left before the 
Department of Homeland Security shuts down. Republicans are playing a 
dangerous game with our security.
  As the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, I was 
involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus 
spending bill that passed the House and Senate and was signed by the 
President last December.
  That package could have contained all 12 annual spending bills 
because all 12 were negotiated in conference--bipartisan, Democrats and 
Republicans--and every one of them was ready to go; but an unfortunate 
decision was made by the leadership of this body to omit the Homeland 
Security bill, not because there were outstanding issues or continued 
disputes.
  That bill was stripped from the omnibus because some in this body 
were upset by the President's executive order on immigration. They even 
admitted the President's actions had little to do with the Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill, yet that was the choice that was made on 
how to proceed.
  The Homeland Security Appropriations bill was forced to operate under 
a continuing resolution instead of having a full-year bill. Ironically, 
it meant that the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, two of the agencies tasked with defending our 
borders and enforcing our immigration laws, had to do without the 
nearly $1 billion increase they would have gotten under the full-year 
bill.
  Delaying the full-year bill limits the Department's ability to 
advance the Secretary's unity of effort initiative, designed to improve 
coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of the 
Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches 
Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and 
deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability to 
deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border 
stations; delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the 
White House and hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; and delays 
terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local public 
safety personnel.
  I do understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders 
on immigration policy; but do they have the courage of their 
convictions to look the first responders they represent in the eye and 
tell them that they are holding up critical assistance to firefighters, 
law enforcement, EMTs, and emergency managers because of an ideological 
fight over immigration?
  My friends, this is disgraceful. This is irresponsible. The Homeland 
Security bill should never have been held hostage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. LOWEY. With only hours left until the Republican shutdown, 
hasn't this gone on long enough? Isn't it time to abandon this failed 
strategy and pass a clean full-year bill?
  To that end, I urge this whole House to join me today in defeating 
the previous question so that my colleague, Ms. Slaughter, can offer an 
amendment to provide a clean full-year appropriations bill for the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I think the question that was just asked, Mr. Speaker, on the floor 
is: Do we have the courage to tell first responders and others that we 
will fund and put forward a bill to keep funding going for 3 years? The 
answer is a resounding ``yes.''
  The question would be to my friends across the aisle: Do you have the 
courage to tell them that, this afternoon, you are going to vote 
``no?'' That is the better question.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democrat whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, what we ought to have the courage to do is to 
tell all our Homeland Security personnel, We are going to fund you 
through the end of this year, as we have told every other employee in 
the Federal Government that is protecting us and serving us on a day-
to-day basis.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority party said to the American people in a 
pledge to America:

       We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 
     ``must-pass'' legislation.

  The funding of the Department of Homeland Security is a must-pass 
piece of legislation, legislation to circumvent the will of the 
American people.

       Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a 
     time.

  Mr. Speaker, they are breaking that pledge today.

                              {time}  1015

  Peter King, the former Republican chairman of the Committee on 
Homeland Security, said this: ``If a clean bill comes here, as we 
expect to happen in just a few hours, we have to accept and vote on 
it.'' He then said, in reference to this cul-de-sac strategy that the 
majority party is following of continuing to go into a dead end, he 
said this, Peter King: ``I think up to this point, we've engaged in an 
exercise of tactical malpractice. Self-delusion is self-destructive.''
  There is not a Republican in this House who believes this strategy 
will do anything but run them back into that cul-de-sac that they went 
into in December, at the expense of the confidence of Americans that 
their Department of Homeland Security, tasked to make them safe, tasked 
to provide for the security of this Nation, will, in fact, be operating 
on a full basis.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated yesterday 
from Secretary Jeh Johnson and read this key excerpt from it. Secretary 
Johnson said: ``Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of 
a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts''--
outlined in this letter. ``A short-term continuing resolution 
exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the 
same position, on the brink of a shutdown.''
  For those Republicans who believe that we ought to do the responsible 
thing, as Peter King has said, vote against the previous question. Vote 
for a rule that provides for the consideration of the Senate-passed 
bill, which they, 98-2, decided to put on the floor because they 
thought it was good policy.

       KEY EXCERPT: ``Finally, as I have noted many times, mere 
     extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same 
     negative impacts. A short-term continuing resolution 
     exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back 
     in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown just days 
     from now.''

                                                February 26, 2015.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McConnell, Minority 
     Leader Reid, and Minority Leader Pelosi:
       Thank you for your leadership and efforts to pass a clean, 
     full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland 
     Security. As you know, our funding expires tomorrow at 
     midnight. I write to explain to Members of Congress the real 
     and substantial consequences of a failure to pass a full-year 
     appropriations bill by that deadline.
       As an initial matter, it must be noted that a potential 
     shutdown of the Department comes at a particularly 
     challenging time for homeland security. It is stunning that 
     we must even contemplate a shutdown of the Department in the 
     current global context. The global terrorist threat has 
     become more decentralized and complex. Terrorist 
     organizations are now openly calling for attacks on

[[Page 2903]]

     Western targets. Yesterday's arrests in New York City 
     highlight the threat of independent actors in the homeland 
     who support overseas terrorist organizations and radical 
     ideology. We are working hard to stay one step ahead of 
     potential threats to aviation security. Last year at this 
     time, the spike in migrant children began to appear at our 
     border; we are deployed to prevent this situation from 
     recurring, and to address it aggressively if it does. The 
     Nation is in the midst of a very cold, harsh winter, and the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency is working with states 
     impacted by record snowfalls.
       Here are just some of the consequences for homeland 
     security if the Department's funding lapses and we shut down:
       First, about 170,000 employees will be required to work, 
     but will not get paid for that work during the period of a 
     shutdown. This includes our Coast Guard, Border Patrol 
     agents, Secret Service agents, Transportation Security 
     Administration officers, and others on the front lines of our 
     homeland security. These working men and women depend on 
     biweekly paychecks to make ends meet for themselves and their 
     families. For them, personally, work without pay is 
     disruptive and demoralizing. Even worse for our people are 
     the public statements by some that make light of a shutdown, 
     which disregards DHS employees' personal sacrifices and 
     dedication to our Nation's security.
       Second, approximately 30,000 men and women of the 
     Department must be furloughed and sent home without pay. Our 
     financial management, human resources, procurement and 
     contracting, and information technology teams--the 
     institutional backbone of the Department--will be reduced by 
     90 percent, from over 2,000 to just 208 people. My own 
     immediate headquarters staff will be cut by about 87 percent. 
     Our Science and Technology team, which is intensely focused 
     on developing non-metallic explosive detection capabilities 
     as well as other technologies to counter threats to aviation, 
     will be cut 94 percent, from 448 to 26 people. Our Domestic 
     Nuclear Detection Office, which is our Nation's primary 
     research and development lead for development of advanced 
     nuclear detection technologies and technical forensic 
     capabilities, will also be cut 94 percent, from 121 to just 7 
     people.
       Third, contracting services across the Department, 
     including those for critical mission support activities, will 
     be disrupted and/or interrupted altogether. Depending upon 
     the length of a shutdown, contract awards and major 
     acquisitions could be impacted. In the event of a shutdown, 
     negotiations to construct the United States Coast Guard's 8th 
     National Security Cutter will be delayed, potentially leading 
     to an increase in costs.
       Fourth, our $2.5 billion-a-year grant-making to state, 
     local, tribal, and territorial governments, to assist them in 
     preventing, responding to or recovering from terrorist 
     attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, remains at a 
     standstill (it has already stopped because the Department is 
     currently funded by a Continuing Resolution). Of particular 
     note, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency 
     Management Performance Grants, which contribute 50 percent of 
     the salaries of state and local emergency management 
     personnel, cannot be funded.
       Fifth, public assistance disaster recovery payments to 
     communities affected by previous disasters will grind to a 
     halt. Though these payments are funded with prior-year money, 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency's staff that 
     processes them must be furloughed.
       Sixth, depending upon the length of a shutdown, DHS will no 
     longer be able to support state and local authorities with 
     planning, safety, and security resources for special security 
     events such as the Boston and Chicago Marathons.
       Seventh, depending upon the length of a shutdown, work to 
     complete construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense 
     Facility in Kansas, which will replace the aging 1950s-era 
     Plum Island facility in New York, could be disrupted.
       Eighth, new hires across the Department must be halted, 
     disrupting critical missions to secure the border, protect 
     millions of daily airline passengers, strengthen security at 
     the White House, and deploy new ICE investigators. Routine 
     attrition hiring would cease across the Department, seriously 
     undermining our homeland security frontline staffing needs. 
     Our plans to increase CBP staffing at our ports of entry by 
     2,000 officers, and to maintain the Transportation Security 
     Administration's workforce of airport screeners and air 
     marshals will be undermined. Our plans to hire additional 
     Secret Service uniformed officers and special agents will 
     also be disrupted.
       Ninth, without funding, all training at the Federal Law 
     ``Enforcement Training Centers'' will cease. Up to 2,000 
     local, state, and federal law enforcement trainees from 
     across the country will be sent home.
       Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a 
     continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. 
     A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the 
     uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same 
     position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.
       I urge Congress, as soon as possible, to pass a clean, 
     full-year Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill for the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       The American people are counting on us.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from 
Georgia has any further speakers? I am ready to close if he does not.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. We have no more speakers at this time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman. Then I shall close, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this intraparty dysfunction, governing from crisis to 
crisis and self-inflicted wounds, must come to an end. Our Nation's 
very security is at stake, and the American people are crying out for 
stability, for certainty, and for responsible government. Let's give 
them that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to 
defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying rule and 
the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  It has been really an interesting morning discussing what we could 
do, what we not do, and what we have done, and, actually, the fact and 
the process of the House doing its job again and the Senate Democrats 
not doing theirs. It is just very frustrating.
  You talk about the American people. I tell you, from a Republican 
standpoint, this is about administration. This is about a time in which 
we are confronting, in which there is honest debate on both sides, but 
when it comes down to the bottom line, it has been very true over the 
course of these first 7, 8 weeks here that one party is putting forward 
an agenda that says that moms and dads and kids matter, that the rule 
of law matters, that things are to operate in a certain way, and they 
are operating in the way that we grew up knowing civics from our 
Founders that had a Constitution that laid out the path.
  What is interesting right now is that really, right now, the House 
Republicans, for the second time, are providing a path to keep the 
Department of Homeland Security open for business while the judge, 
Federal judge, has said the administration cannot go forward on their 
executive amnesty memo, which means it is not happening right now. So 
the question really becomes--and I don't think this can be stated 
enough, because when people are out there looking to Washington, they 
are wanting to know: Are you thinking about me? Are you thinking about 
what is going on? Are you thinking about what we need to fund in the 
days that people get up and they know that their country is fighting 
for them?
  So I just want to make it very clear. We said, ``for the second 
time.'' This is the second time because the first time happened on 
January 14. The House approved a full-year funding package for DHS, and 
yes, said this is what we do not like and will not fund, but this is a 
part of the process.
  Then, February 3, Senate Democrats vote to block consideration.
  February 4, Senate Democrats again vote to block consideration.
  February 5, guess what. Senate Democrats vote for a third time to 
block consideration.
  February 23, let's at least make it a home run. We will touch all the 
bases. Senate Democrats refuse, for the fourth time, to block 
consideration.
  But then, the most amazing part, Democrats even prevented themselves 
from offering amendments to strip language they found offensive. We are 
here today because the Senate Democrats refused to be part of the 
solution.
  So as I go forward and as I look at this, there has to be an 
understanding of this today--and it was said earlier and I made the 
point, but I am going to make it one more time today--a solution is 
being put forward. There is no

[[Page 2904]]

one putting forward a bill to shut anything down. The bill that is 
being put forward is to fund for 3 more weeks.
  So I will encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle, any 
Democrat who wants to vote ``no'' on this funding bill, you are voting 
to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Is that what you want 
to tell the American people?
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An amendment to H. Res. 129 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     861) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and 
     for other purposes. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 861.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 183, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 100]

                               YEAS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio

[[Page 2905]]


     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
      Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Farr
     Garamendi
     Graves (MO)
     Hinojosa
     Lee
     Long
     Roe (TN)
     Speier
     Turner

                              {time}  1049

  Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``yea'' to nay.''
  Messrs. MICA, LAMBORN, and Mrs. HARTZLER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 183, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 101]

                               YEAS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Garamendi
     Graves (MO)
     Hinojosa
     Lee
     Long
     Roe (TN)
     Speier
     Turner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1056

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 
101, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday and 
this morning because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been 
present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 95--``nay,'' rollcall No. 
96--``nay,'' rollcall No. 97--``nay,'' rollcall No. 98--``nay,'' 
rollcall No. 99--``nay,'' rollcall No. 100--``yea,'' rollcall No. 101--
``yea.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 27, I missed 
a series of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on No. 100 and No. 101.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
129, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 35) making further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 2906]]

  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 129, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 35

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 (Public Law 113-
     164) is further amended by striking the date specified in 
     section 106(3) and inserting ``March 19, 2015''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 35.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present H.J. Res. 35, a short-term 
continuing resolution to keep the Department of Homeland Security open 
and operating until March 19, 2015.
  This type of bandaid, stopgap funding fix is not the way we should be 
running things around here. It is the constitutional duty of this body 
to provide funding for the Federal Government, all of the Federal 
Government, and this should be done through regular order, without the 
threat of shutdowns or the lurching uncertainty of continuing 
resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, we face an immediate deadline that makes this continuing 
resolution a necessity. Without it, the Department of Homeland Security 
will shutter its doors at the stroke of midnight tonight.
  This would put thousands of Federal employees on furlough, waste 
taxpayer dollars, and create instability at the Department tasked with 
one of the most important functions of government, potentially risking 
our national security.
  The House must pass this bill in short order to keep the lights on at 
the Department of Homeland Security in the near term. Hopefully, this 
will buy us the additional time necessary.
  I would prefer and I hope that we pass the full-year, regular DHS 
funding bill that we negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis last 
fall. Until both Chambers of Congress agree on how to do that, we must 
continue to fund the essential daily operations of our homeland 
security.
  At the same time, Congress must continue to fight the President's 
executive actions on immigration, a massive overreach of his 
constitutional authority and a substantial shift in our immigration 
policy that I do not support and the American people do not support.
  I believe we can and should continue the fight on the President's 
intrusion into our Constitution, but we must also maintain the 
functions of government that protect the rights and safety given to us 
by this hallowed document.
  We have no time to waste, Mr. Speaker. I ask that my colleagues in 
the House today keep in mind that, as elected Members of the House of 
Representatives, it is our constitutional duty to fund the government, 
to protect the people who elected us, and to defend this great Nation.
  I urge an ``aye'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  We learned late last night that the House Republican leadership has 
stepped in to thwart the agreement reached in the Senate to fund the 
Homeland Security Department. As we all know, funding for these 
critical activities runs out tonight at midnight.
  We learned that, instead of taking the clean bill that would fund the 
Department for the remainder of this fiscal year, the House has come up 
with a new plan, a plan to string this mess out even further--the new 
plan, to pass yet another continuing resolution, 150 days into this 
fiscal year. This is really discouraging.
  Additionally, we learned that the House leadership has decided now 
would be a good time to formally request a conference committee be 
convened on the controversial immigration riders passed by the House 
bill and the Senate's clean bill.
  As hard as it is to believe, they really think requesting a 
conference with the Senate, on the very day funding expires, is 
reasonable. I could not disagree more.
  I understand that many of my colleagues disagree vehemently with the 
President's executive actions on immigration policy. I understand that 
many of those same Members believe strongly that they should fight the 
President through the power of the purse, the appropriations process.
  What I don't understand is how a decision could be made to wreak 
havoc on one of the most important agencies in the Federal Government, 
the agency tasked with protecting our Nation's homeland, over policies 
related to an agency that isn't even directly funded in this 
appropriations bill.
  Under a continuing resolution, the agencies that are funded through 
the Department of Homeland Security are hamstrung, forced to live at 
last year's levels and under last year's terms.
  Ironically, this means that Customs and Border Protection and 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agencies tasked with defending 
our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, have to do without the 
nearly $1 billion increase they would get under the full-year bill.
  Instead of pursuing the bipartisan path--and I want to remind my 
friends that this Homeland Security bill was negotiated right here 
between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan bill; but, right now, 
instead of pursuing the bipartisan path the Senate has chosen, the 
House leadership has chosen yet another punt.
  By not passing the clean, full-year bill, the House plan would delay 
terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local public 
safety personnel, potentially leaving FEMA with insufficient time to 
get those grants out before funding expires.
  It would limit the Department's ability to advance the Secretary's 
unity of effort initiative, designed to improve coordination in our 
security missions; limit the ability of the Secretary to move ahead 
with the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign; create uncertainty 
regarding ICE's capability to detain and deport dangerous criminals; 
complicate the Department's ability to deal with another influx of 
unaccompanied children at our border; and delay implementation of new 
security upgrades at the White House and necessary hiring at the U.S. 
Secret Service.
  My colleagues, I am simply at a loss. I am mystified. I can't 
understand the wisdom of this strategy.
  I know some of my colleagues are upset with the President. I 
understand how much easier it is to take out your frustrations on the 
appropriations process, instead of through debate on an immigration 
policy bill, and we know we must have a serious debate on immigration 
policy.
  I support comprehensive immigration reform; but why should we would 
do this in such an inappropriate way through the appropriations 
process? Don't take out your frustrations on the appropriations process 
instead of a thorough debate on the immigration policy bill.
  I think the majority of my colleagues agree with me that this has 
gone on long enough. It is not rational to punish firefighters, EMTs, 
police officers, emergency managers you represent because of 
immigration policy. It is not rational to hamstring U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement because you 
are mad at the President.
  We are adults. I left my eight grandchildren home. We are adults, I 
hope, in this body. It is not rational to fund

[[Page 2907]]

an important government department week by week.
  I really hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House gets serious by 
immediately taking up and passing the clean bipartisan bill, as the 
Senate has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from New York is a good friend, and I 
respect her so much. She asks some important questions that the House 
has to answer. She has been here a good while. I have been here a good 
while.
  Why would we be proceeding in this fashion? First of all, the House, 
we are trying to get to regular order. The Congress has not passed a 
budget, hasn't passed most appropriations. We live from CR to CR. There 
has been such instability in this institution.
  Here, for the first time, we have the opportunity, and I believe it 
is within the hour that the other body may act--or have they acted? 
They have had this question before them for a long time; but, here, we 
have the possibility of going to a conference.
  This is an important issue. This is an issue in which the President 
himself has said, I think, 22 times, that he doesn't have the authority 
to do what he did. The courts have upheld the position that we have or 
at least put a stay on the President's action. This is a very important 
issue because it affects the entire Nation.
  If we could get to regular order, we want to keep the government 
open. We want national security and homeland security to move forward. 
We are offering that and also the opportunity for a little bit of time 
to go to regular order to make the process work.
  Why shouldn't the House of Representatives have the opportunity to 
sit down with the Senate and work out the differences and honor the law 
that we passed and the President is abusing?
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think we need to do this in regular 
order, and there is good reason to act in the fashion that Republicans 
are advocating.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to refrain 
from inappropriate references to the President.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, because my friend 
asked some fair questions, but maybe the gentleman is not aware that 
the appropriations process concluded 12 bills in a bipartisan way. 
Democrats and Republicans worked together.
  However, back in December, on probably one of the key bills at this 
time, when we are threatened, when terrorists worry my constituents--
they worry about whether they should go to the mall; they worry about 
their daily activities. So when my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida, just spoke about regular order, check the appropriations 
process.
  We passed the Homeland Security bill through the subcommittee, but it 
was held up. The gentleman will have to ask his colleagues on his side 
of the aisle why the Homeland Security bill was not part of the entire 
omnibus, why we had to invent this CR/Omnibus so we could leave out 
Homeland Security.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the 
ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, in December of 2014, as leverage 
against the President's immigration executive action, the Republican 
leadership irresponsibly decided to hold hostage the 2015 funding for 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Now, 150 days into fiscal year 2015, this House is no closer to 
addressing the Homeland Security funding needs of this country than it 
was last December. Instead, the Republican leadership is proposing to, 
once again, kick the can down the road, this time for another 3 weeks.
  The serious consequences of the Republican majority's inability to 
responsibly lead on behalf of the American people will, once again, 
leave the Department without the 2015 funding levels it needs to 
effectively fulfill its mission of protecting our homeland.
  I ask my colleagues: What is gained by continuing to delay resolving 
this crisis, a crisis of the House Republicans' own making? Does anyone 
really think circumstances will be any different 3 weeks from now? The 
judicial review of the President's executive actions will not be 
resolved in 3 weeks. The only circumstances that will be different in 3 
weeks is that much will be lost. Republicans cannot continue to block 
the Department of Homeland Security funding for 2015 without 
undermining the national security of this country.
  We should not fool ourselves into believing that the Department of 
Homeland Security has been doing just fine under the continuing 
resolution or that there would be no further consequences if we forced 
the Department to keep living with the uncertainty of a continuing 
resolution for even another day, much less 3 more weeks.
  Secretary Johnson and agency heads have warned that passing another 
CR will not address the uncertainty of being able to meet our long-term 
national security needs.
  Yesterday, Secretary Johnson sent a letter to the bipartisan 
leadership of the House and Senate, warning of the dangers of either a 
funding lapse or another short-term continuing resolution. To quote the 
Secretary, a ``mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of 
the same negative impacts'' 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.''
  The American people are, indeed, counting on us; and so far, the 
Republican majority in the House has let them down.
  The Constitution provides a path for the Congress to work its will on 
policy issues without resorting to funding lapses or continuing 
resolutions, which represent the complete and utter abdication of 
Congress' obligation to effectively govern.
  The Senate will soon send back to us a bill that was agreed upon by 
both Democrats and Republicans, and that will enable the Department to 
move forward on the critical planning that is needed to protect our 
country now and in the future. Let us do the responsible thing and 
bring that bill to a vote so that our country can truly be protected, 
by funding the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let's review something. Let's just review briefly 
where we are and why we are here.
  The House passed a funding bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security maybe 3 weeks ago in order to give the Senate enough time to 
consider it and take appropriate action. So the House acted 3 weeks ago 
and sent the bill to the Senate.
  The Democrats in the Senate have refused to allow that bill to be 
brought before the Senate four different times over 3 weeks. Now who is 
to blame for not funding the Department of Homeland Security? The House 
has tried. The Senate refused to act, until finally this morning, the 
Senate took up a clean funding bill for Homeland and passed it.
  So here is where we are. The House has passed a bill. The Senate now 
has passed a bill, finally. So what do you normally do? What is the 
procedure of the Congress when both bodies pass a bill that is 
different from each other? You go to conference. We have done that from 
time immemorial. That is the recommended way. That is what is in the 
Constitution.
  The conference is necessary, but that is going to take some time. So 
we need some time to allow the conference to go to work and conclude 
this problem and work out the differences. Thus, we need this temporary 
funding bill for

[[Page 2908]]

the Department, to keep the security of the Nation intact through the 
Department of Homeland Security while we work out the permanent funding 
for the Department for the balance of the year.
  That is where we are. It is fairly simple. I don't know any other way 
to do it. Perhaps our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a 
better idea about how to reconcile the differences between the House 
and Senate, other than a regular conference committee.
  A lot of Members of this body are so new to the process that they 
have never seen or know what a conference with the Senate is. And I 
think there is some confusion in that regard because people in this 
body, new to the process over the last 4 or 5 years, have never seen 
one, and that is sad.
  So I hope Members will quickly pass this temporary funding bill for 
the Department and allow the conference committee to go to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my good friend, the former 
chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee who was a key person in 
negotiating the bipartisan Homeland Security bill, which could have 
been part of the omnibus in December, and we wouldn't have been 
involved in these kinds of dangerous games.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank our ranking 
member for yielding.
  As the gentlewoman from New York suggests, the account of the history 
of this bill that Chairman Rogers has just given needs to go back a bit 
further. The original failure in this case was in December. Today we 
are voting on a 3-week continuing resolution. I rise in opposition to 
that.
  But this is only the latest manifestation of the majority's failure 
to govern this institution and to get the funding in place for the 
Homeland Security Department for the full fiscal year. The initial 
failure was in December. That is what we need to look back to and 
understand that it was a profound mistake to leave Homeland Security 
out of the omnibus appropriations bill.
  This Department, and this Department alone, was put on a 3-month 
continuing resolution, rather than including the bicameral, bipartisan, 
negotiated Homeland Security bill that is the equivalent of a 
conference report.
  People are talking about the need for a conference report. We already 
have our conference report. It is an agreed upon bill that the majority 
deliberately left out of the omnibus bill in December.
  And why did they do that? They did it for political purposes, because 
they didn't like what the President was doing on immigration. They 
wanted to poke him in the eye. They wanted to add these riders enacting 
a radical anti-immigration policy, and they were willing to sacrifice 
regular funding for the Homeland Security Department in order to pursue 
their political objective.
  Ironically, in passing a CR rather than the regular negotiated bill, 
they sacrificed increased funding for things they profess to care 
about. They are supposedly all about border security. They are all 
about immigration enforcement. And those very things were reduced by 
virtue of their failure to accept the negotiated bill, going down the 
road with a continuing resolution.
  Now the clock has run out. The 3-month clock has run out, and here we 
are again. And today, we are about to compound December's failure by 
passing a 3-week CR, which doesn't solve the Department's basic 
problems but, in fact, just postpones the day of reckoning by a few 
weeks.
  The Republican-controlled Senate has shown the way here. They have 
resisted the Tea Party siren, this desire to make the Homeland Security 
bill a vehicle for radical anti-immigration policy. The Senate will 
soon be passing the negotiated Homeland Security bill, the same 
bicameral, bipartisan, negotiated bill which we should have approved in 
December.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security has made very, very clear that a 
continuing resolution is not an acceptable way to run this Department. 
State and local terrorism prevention and response grants will be held 
up, for example. For my State of North Carolina, that means $9 million 
in emergency management preparedness grants. It means $5.5 million in 
state grants. That is true of every State in this Union. The security 
upgrades at the White House are also on hold. The acquisition of the 
Coast Guard's eighth National Security Cutter is on hold. Construction 
of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility out in Kansas is on hold.
  A continuing resolution is just what it says: It is a continued 
resolution which does not permit us to make the upgrades, to undertake 
the innovations, or to make the grants that our homeland security 
requires.
  The House majority is still unwilling to follow the lead of the 
Senate and put that negotiated, bipartisan Homeland Security bill on 
the floor. So here we are, stuck with an inferior proposal, a 3-week 
continuing resolution which doesn't do the job. We should reject this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Where do we go from here? Where does 
this end? Some kind of conference? We already have a conference report. 
It is the bipartisan Homeland Security bill.

                              {time}  1130

  That can pass today. We can put that on the floor, and it would pass 
in a heartbeat. That is what the majority needs to do, not this 3-week 
holding action. We need to pass that negotiated bill and keep the 
Homeland Security Department functioning at full strength.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the 
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, history is something we ought to 
try to get right. So we have heard some versions of history here. But 
let's talk about exactly why we are here today. We are here today 
because, yes, the Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan effort put 
together a whole series of bills to fund this government, one of which 
is the Homeland Security bill. It is a good bill. I agree with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is a good bill. I am 
proud to have had a part in that.
  But there is a piece of history that is missing in this discussion. 
Right after the last election, the President--well, we don't want to 
talk about the President--the administration stepped forward and said, 
well, the legislature hasn't changed the immigration laws, so the 
administration is going to change the immigration laws.
  Without any action of the legislature, they are going to ignore laws 
that are on the books and in some cases have been on the books for 
generations, and they are going to do what they want to do for 
immigration reform, which includes the proposal that somewhere between 
4 and 6 million people who are in this country illegally would be 
allowed to be in this country, with other benefits added to those. So 
that intervening cause is why all of a sudden the people of the United 
States said: Wait a minute, this is not following the Constitution. 
This is not the way our government is supposed to run.
  Madam Speaker, we fought a war with a guy named King George to not 
have a king in this country who would just do it without legislative 
process. We fought a war to make sure that we follow the legislative 
process. The people who are in charge of enforcing the law, the 
executive branch, should be enforcing the law.
  Madam Speaker, there became quite a tidal wave of people who were 
very concerned about the action. So in an effort to try to engage that 
fight, we came up with what has been referenced here as the CR/Omnibus, 
and we withheld the Homeland Security bill as the instrument to go 
fight forward on.
  Now, once again, I say it is a great bill. But the decision was made, 
and here we are. Now, we passed this bill

[[Page 2909]]

with amendments that take on the actions of the executive and sent it 
to the Senate 3 weeks ago. Someone said once that is the greatest 
deliberative body on Earth. Well, it may be, but this spring here, this 
early spring, they haven't deliberated. In fact, they haven't taken 
action at all, because each time the Republican leadership in the 
Senate said, let's go have a discussion, let's go on the floor and have 
a debate, and we will accept amendments, let's go have a debate, the 
Democrat minority said, no, we won't have a debate. Four times they 
said no; under their rule, we won't have a debate.
  Madam Speaker, the Republicans didn't do what the Democrats did when 
they ran the Senate and just waive the rules that Thomas Jefferson 
wrote a couple hundred years ago. No, they followed the rules. So there 
was no discussion in the greatest deliberative body on Earth of this 
particular problem.
  Now, are we funded now in our Department? Yes, we are. We have heard 
cries from the other side, you are leaving this country in jeopardy 
because you are not--if we close the Department--which I do not want to 
do--if we close down the Department, you put us at risk from 
terrorists.
  Well, here we are. We are saying, you are right. Let's don't close 
down the Department. Three weeks ago we sent it to them. We are getting 
in a few minutes the results of their work product over there. Quite 
honestly, we have a dispute with them.
  What is the process? Now, I know there are many in this body who have 
never even seen a conference committee because since 2006, this has not 
been something we have done very regularly in this body. But, quite 
honestly, the way we do this, to resolve differences, is go to a 
conference committee.
  So what we are saying here, Madam Speaker, is help us keep the 
government open for 3 weeks--kind of the same 3 weeks they had to hang 
around and never go to work in the Senate--let us have 3 weeks and go 
to conference like we are supposed to and see if we cannot work out the 
differences we have between the two bodies. Now, how unreasonable is 
this?
  By the way, Madam Speaker, if you are worried about those terrorists 
attacks which are looming over the horizon, which very, very may well 
be, then you had better vote to continue this government today or 
otherwise a ``no'' vote on this particular resolution keeping the 
government open will shut the government, and when the government 
closes, all those terrible things are going to happen. So you don't 
want to have the responsibility of voting ``no'' to keep the government 
open and let the government close and then face the fact that the 
terrorists may be looming in the wings.
  Let's pass the CR. Do it like we are supposed to, go to conference, 
work it out in the 3 weeks that the Senate had, and see if we can't 
resolve this issue--an issue that was started by the executive branch 
in their November surprise.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am so privileged to serve on the 
Appropriations Committee with the gentleman from Texas, who did an 
excellent job working in a bipartisan way completing a Homeland 
Security bill that we thought would be part of the omnibus bill so the 
Homeland Security Department would be funded for a year.
  This event was a manufactured event today, and I do hope we can get 
past it and pass a Homeland Security bill for the next year immediately 
so that we don't have even a small potential of shutting down the 
government.
  Madam Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I join her in thanking Mr. Carter and Mr. Rogers for 
bringing to the floor in December a Homeland Security bill that was 
appropriate and that funded at the levels that were agreed upon by both 
parties. All we are asking is that we pass Mr. Carter's and Mr. Rogers' 
bill.
  The Republicans pledged to not mingle controversial issues and allow 
each issue to stand on its own merits or demerits. That was their 
pledge to America in 2010. This action is inconsistent with that 
pledge.
  The Senate has just voted, Madam Speaker, 68-31 to pass the Rogers-
Lowey-Mikulski-Shelby bill. This is not a partisan bill that we are 
arguing about. This is the bill that we have agreed upon, Republicans 
and Democrats--and we can't even pass that--with the knowledge that if 
we do not, the future funding of America's homeland security will still 
be in question.
  Yes, we can do it for 3 weeks. I call it our cul-de-sac strategy, 
going into a cul-de-sac over and over and over again and feeling 
somehow a pathway is going to open. The Senate is now voting on the 
Collins amendment. Now, as I understand the strategy of the Republican 
Party in the House, Madam Speaker, it is to add the bill that has been 
rejected four times on the floor of the United States Senate. They went 
in the cul-de-sac once, it didn't open up. They went in the cul-de-sac 
twice, it didn't open up. They went in the cul-de-sac a third, fourth 
time, it didn't open up. And now the proposal is to go into that cul-
de-sac a fifth time while we focus on whether or not we are going to 
fund Homeland Security, not on the objectives of homeland security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I urge Republicans and Democrats who have 
all said not funding the Homeland Security Department now for the 
balance of the year is--Mr. Rogers didn't quote this, he was talking 
about sequester--is ill-conceived and wrong. I therefore, Madam 
Speaker, urge my colleagues to vote against this short-term CR and to 
vote for the Senate bill that will be sent to us in just a short period 
of time, today, which passed the United States Senate with over a two-
thirds vote. Democrats only have 46 Members, so almost a majority of 
the Republicans are voting for it as well.
  Madam Speaker, that is the responsible thing to do. That is the right 
thing to do. That is the regular order to do. Let's do it. Let's put 
aside our partisan differences and our partisan strategies and vote as 
Americans to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the balance 
of the year.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a distinguished member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding, Madam Ranking Member.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to give apologies to all of the employees 
of the Homeland Security Department. In watching this, I hope that they 
understand what is really going on. This is not a battle about the 
process, the gamesmanship that we need time to work out at conference. 
We don't go to conference on a brink of a disaster. We have had a year 
to deal with this. In fact, we passed this bill.
  What this is about is a bigger game going on in town. It is about 
whack-a-mole with the President. They sue him; they say they don't want 
to support any of his proposals; they cut, squeeze, and trim his 
appropriations; and they hold up his government appointments. But now 
the real story shifts when we see that the Republicans in this House 
even more than disliking the President dislike the Senate.
  The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill which we could 
have passed. There were enough votes if we had brought that to the 
floor to pass it. If we had passed that comprehensive immigration bill, 
we wouldn't even be here today. This wouldn't even be a discussion.
  The irony for all you Homeland Security employees is that the House 
is taking care of itself. The leadership, with their details and all of 
the wonderful Capitol Police we have around here, they are all taken 
care of because we don't pay for them out of our Homeland Security 
bill; we pay for them out

[[Page 2910]]

of our own legislative branch bill, and that was passed. So our 
security is fine. But the security of the rest of the Nation is in 
jeopardy.
  What does it take? The Senate has just passed a bill, we bring that 
to the floor, it takes the votes, 218. We have got at least all but 30 
on this side, 30 Republicans. Mr. Speaker, let your Republicans go. Let 
them come to the floor and vote on a clean bill. We could pass it 
before this afternoon. That bill would be in the White House tonight, 
and we could go home and sleep knowing that this Nation's security is 
in good hands. Stop playing games.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, it is really important that the American people 
understand what is happening here. It is pretty clear here. The 
Republican majority in the House and perhaps in the Senate disagree 
with the President on immigration policy. So they have two really clear 
choices. One would be to do what they somehow have been unable to do 
despite promises of a prolific period of legislation in the first 
couple of months here in Congress. Despite that, 7 weeks later we 
haven't seen anything that looks like an immigration bill.
  So rather than using this magnificent process of democracy that the 
Framers designed for us to determine policy, the Republicans in 
Congress--really the Republicans in the House--have decided to threaten 
the shutdown of an essential government function--national security and 
public safety--in order to extract concessions on policy that they are 
unwilling to submit to the legislative process.

                              {time}  1145

  Why not bring an immigration bill that determines for this country 
what our immigration policy ought to be and, in the meantime, fund the 
essential functions of government? To not do so, there are 
consequences. This is not an academic exercise. There are consequences.
  Three weeks of funding? Seriously, 3 weeks? After 7 weeks of coming 
to the floor of the House in session, why couldn't we come up with this 
compromise with the Senate, with whom you share partisan majority? Why 
can't we have a real debate on immigration policy on the floor of the 
House of Representatives without having to threaten to close down the 
essential function of government?
  My friends on the other side have said, That is not what we are 
doing--except that that is what you are doing. Words are cheap, Madam 
Speaker.
  You won't pass a clean bill to fund this Department, like your 
colleagues in the Senate have done, and you continue to hold out.
  Madam Speaker, I just think it is time for us to get back to the 
serious business of the American people and pass a clean bill to fund 
this essential function.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  There it is. That is the bill the Senate finally passed. It has been 
6 weeks--I said 3 weeks, earlier. I am corrected.
  It is 6 weeks that the House passed a funding bill for the Homeland 
Security Department, 6 weeks ago, sent it to the Senate, purposefully 
early, to give them plenty of time to consider and bring forward a 
funding bill of their own.
  I have to say the majority over there tried. The Democrats in the 
Senate stopped consideration of that spending bill four different times 
over 6 weeks. In the meantime, the House had to sit here waiting for 
the Senate, and we have been waiting 6 weeks, until just now.
  Finally, this morning, the Senate has passed a bill funding the 
Department for the balance of the year, which differs from the House-
passed version of that bill, so we have got to go to conference.
  That is the way the framers set things up. When the House does 
something and the Senate does something different on the same subject, 
you have got to bring them together into a conference to work out the 
differences and come up with a bill for the President to sign. That is 
where we are.
  Finally, now, we can go to conference. We could not have earlier 
because the Senate had not passed the bill. Now, we can go to 
conference, and we will be asking the Speaker for that designation 
today.
  In the meantime, we can't let the Department stop working. 
Consequently, we are putting before you a bill to temporarily finance 
them while we go to conference on the main year-end financing of the 
Department. That is what this is all about.
  Now, I am glad that the Senate brought the Senate bill and laid it on 
our desk. Now, it is finally up to us to give the Department a chance 
to survive and for us to stop the President's amnesty program.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, there is not one penny in the bill before 
us, the temporary bill, the CR, there is not a penny in there to fund 
Obama's amnesty program. We are opposed to it, and there is no money in 
this bill for that purpose.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to state for the record, as my good friend from Kentucky 
is aware, on December 12, the Senate and the House conference 
committees agreed on a bipartisan, bicameral Homeland Security bill--in 
December. It could have been implemented with all the other 11 bills.
  I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much, 
and I thank her for her commonsense explanation.
  Might I say, as a member of the authorizing Committee on Homeland 
Security, I believe, as we have just heard, that the Senate has passed 
a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill that came out of 
these appropriators who did excellent work.
  In the name of the security of this Nation, I ask the Speaker to 
bring this bill to the floor of the House right now. I do so with 
headlines like: ``Three Denver girls played hooky from school and tried 
to join ISIS.''
  I do it in the name of the headlines of three arrested in Brooklyn 
who had intentions to do the Commander in Chief harm and many others 
harm. I do it also in recognition as one of the Members who was there, 
if you will, in the aftermath of 9/11, who watched the forging of the 
Department of Homeland Security that put forward Border Patrol agents 
and TSO agents and ICE agents working with the FBI. All of those 
individuals will not be funded.
  Let me say to the hardworking men and women of the Department of 
Homeland Security: We will not leave you abandoned, but we will vote 
for a full funding of the Department of Homeland Security.
  We ask the Republicans why they refuse to address the national 
security of this Nation, putting political security over national 
security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security authorizing committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from New York for the time.
  It is quite clear that a short-term CR is not in the best interest of 
the country. It is quite clear that the politics of Homeland Security 
puts us at risk as a Nation.
  All of the things that have gone on over the last few weeks say that 
we have to have a fully funded Department--our men and women in the 
Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and Transportation Security 
Administration, all those entities on the front line keeping us safe. A 
3-week CR that kicks the can down the road

[[Page 2911]]

does not keep us safe. It only says that it is ``politics as usual.''
  What I am saying, in the interest of the over 200,000 men and women 
who work every day and do a wonderful job, they should not be played as 
pawns in this game of Homeland Security chess.
  Let's fully fund the Department, like we funded every other 
Department, and get on with the business of securing America.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
congratulate her on her exceptional leadership as the ranking member of 
the Appropriations Committee.
  I also commend our colleague, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, as ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for her great 
leadership to protect the American people, to keep American security 
strong and certain.
  I also thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rogers, for the 
important work that was done leading up to December to have bipartisan 
legislation, to have an omnibus bill that funded all of the departments 
of government except, unfortunately, Homeland Security for the full 
time, and that is really a disappointment because the first thing we do 
as Members of Congress is to take the oath of office to protect and 
defend the American people.
  That we would have this be the last bill that we would fund fully is 
really shameful. The fact is that the Senate has acted in a strong 
bipartisan way.
  I always like to talk about time. It is about time, it is about the 
time that has been lost from December until March 19, in terms of what 
the intentions are of our Republican colleagues here. It is about the 
time lost, the uncertainty placed on our security. It is so sad.
  At the same time, this morning, the Senate, in a very strong 
bipartisan way, passed a clean Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill. The papers are here. We could take it up immediately, send the 
bill to the President, and the crisis would be over--long overdue, mind 
you, but, nonetheless, bipartisan and with great certainty.
  Instead of that certainty, while the Senate Republicans have joined 
the Senate Democrats for sending this bill over here, House Republicans 
instead have continued to manufacture a crisis that does not exist but 
exacerbates the insecurity of our country by their inaction.
  The fact is this bill that the Senate has sent over has the support 
of every Democrat in the House. The Roybal-Allard-Lowey legislation is 
cosponsored by every Democrat in the House: full funding for the full 
term for the Department of Homeland Security.
  All of our Members--Democratic and Republican--will have a chance to 
vote on that in terms of the previous question, in terms of a motion to 
recommit, and in terms of motions to instruct conferees.
  What we are missing is the ability of the Speaker to give us a vote 
on the Senate bill. Give us a vote, Madam Speaker, give us a vote--
instead, drip, drip, drip, drip. The Republican leadership is putting 
forth legislation drip, drip, drip for the resources.
  Now, I want to read the words of the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, who has been a great leader in the position he 
holds. In his remarks, he goes through all the reasons why a shutdown 
would be harmful. To those who want a shutdown, read his letter, 
please.
  He does go on to say:

       As I have so noted many times, mere extension of a 
     continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. 
     A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the 
     uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same 
     position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.

  Can our Republican colleagues say that we won't be on the brink of 
another shutdown in the next few weeks in terms of the legislation they 
are putting forth? What is the purpose of it?
  If the purpose is to oppose the President's immigration policy, the 
court has given you a face-saving way out. If the purpose is to have a 
better idea about immigration, bring up a bill, but if the purpose is 
to inject uncertainty into the security of the American people, shame, 
shame, shame, because it undermines our ability to the American people, 
it undermines the oath that we all take, and it is really a very sad 
day.
  I would urge my colleagues, as they weigh the equities, we all want 
to make sure that the workforce of DHS is fully engaged, employed, and 
paid.
  I would just like to ask my colleagues who have been advocating for a 
shutdown or take us to the brink of a shutdown over and over again if 
they would like to live without being paid as Members of Congress.
  Most of our workforce makes much less than Members of Congress. They 
live paycheck to paycheck. Why are we saying to them, Come to work, 
160,000 some of you, don't get paid, but get paid later?
  They don't have trust funds. That may come as a surprise to you--
perhaps you do, and maybe that is why you don't think not getting a 
paycheck is a big deal.
  Then to the other, say, 30,000: Stay home, don't come anywhere near 
here and not get paid.
  Some say: Oh, they will get paid later.
  Well, that is not the way it works. They have mortgages, rent, car 
payments, and all the rest.
  What could you possibly be thinking? What equity could you weigh 
against security, respect for our workforce, and morale of the people 
who are on the front lines to protect our homeland security?

                              {time}  1200

  There was quite a lively debate a number of years ago, and I was part 
of it as a member of the leadership to establish the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Committee on Homeland Security in the House, 
and hence the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Committee on 
Appropriations. The words were chosen very carefully, ``Homeland 
Security''--home--``Homeland Security.''
  The American people should know what this means to their home 
security. The list is a long one, but I will just do a few things to 
say that without a full funding bill, without the full-year funding 
bill, DHS cannot award $2.5 billion in grant funding. That means that 
if you are in an Urban Area Security Initiative area, a place that 
would be targeted, maybe 40 of the urban areas in our country, $600 
million in grants would be withheld.
  FEMA, $350 million in emergency management preparedness grants. $350 
million in SAFER. SAFER is Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 
Responses. That is an acronym, SAFER. That means a lot in your 
neighborhood. $340 million in firefighter assistance grants, $120 
million for emergency food and shelter grants, and $100 million in 
flood-related grants. All of this hit home, and they hit Homeland 
Security.
  So these numbers have an impact, ramifications in the lives of the 
American people beyond the workers; beyond the workers, but the people 
that they work for.
  So I would urge my colleagues to think another time about this. We 
have the paper. The bill is here. It has passed in a strong bipartisan 
way in the Senate. Every House Democrat has endorsed the bill. We will 
vote for it with the parliamentary options that are available to us. 
How much better if we all came together, as the Senate Republicans and 
Democrats did, come together to support certainty in our security? 
Otherwise, the question is: Why not? Why are you not taking advantage 
of this great opportunity? The courts saved you face. What happened in 
Paris added to the urgency. The examples of people being picked up in 
our own country make matters worse.
  Stop the drip, drip, drip of funds week to week. Let's get the job 
done for the American people by doing it right, following the lead of 
the Senate

[[Page 2912]]

Republicans and the Senate Democrats. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this legislation. I appreciate the concerns we all have about 
a shutdown of government. We can't let that happen, but this is not the 
way to go.
  With that, again, I commend Congresswoman Lowey, Congresswoman 
Roybal-Allard, Congressman Bennie Thompson, the authorizing committee 
for their great leadership on our side. The chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Rogers, knows I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I feel 
sad for him that he is in this situation. I hope that we can get out of 
it soon.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. Does 
the gentlelady have further speakers?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I will be brief. There is no money in this bill to fund the 
President's amnesty program. There is money in this bill to keep the 
Department of Homeland Security's doors open and in protection of the 
American people. This will give us time for the bill the Senate just 
has sent over to us funding the Department; this will give us time to 
reconcile the differences between the House version and the Senate 
version, and we will be prepared then to send a bill to that conference 
committee and, hopefully, then a bill to the President to sign.
  Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, congressional dysfunction is now 
impacting our nation's security.
  The Senate has acted rationally by passing a clean Department of 
Homeland Security funding bill.
  The House should do the same. The House majority should take up the 
Senate bill and rise above political security and make national 
security the priority.
  As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and 
one who was present in this body on September 11, 2001, it is sobering 
to think that so many of this body's members now think terrorism is a 
political football.
  Over 3,000 Americans died that day--and if not for the bravery of 
those who gave their lives in a field in Pennsylvania many more would 
have died.
  Those who were killed or risked their lives to save others included 
undocumented persons.
  The 9/11 Commission Report stated that had United Flight 93 not 
crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, located 125 miles from 
Washington, DC, that flight would have reached Washington, DC, between 
10:13 and 10:23 on September 11, 2001.
  I went to ground zero in New York while it still was burning and 
workers were trying to recover the remains of victims.
  This sobering experience has seared into my mind--never again.
  I am forever grateful to those who risk their lives every day to 
protect this nation--they should be valued and honored.
  The fact that the leadership of the House chose to bring to the floor 
a rule for another Continuing Resolution that would extend funding to 
the Department of Homeland Security for three weeks is without a doubt 
one of the worst ideas in our nation's history.
  Our enemies have not stood-down; nor have they given up--they are 
adapting, evolving and improving their ability to inflict harm upon 
America and Americans.
  Meanwhile the House is sending a message to terrorists that we are 
disorganized and ineffective in our resolve to protect our nation and 
its people.
  In his letter to Members of Congress, DHS Secretary Johnson states in 
clear terms what is at stake.

       The global terrorist threat has become more decentralized 
     and complex. Terrorist organizations are now openly calling 
     on attacks on Western targets.

  A new video, reportedly from Al Shabaab, shows the terror group 
calling for an attack on Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota.
  Al Shabaab is the same terrorist group that attacked the Westgate 
Mall in Nairobi, Kenya resulting in 60 deaths.
  The arrest this week in New York City highlight the threats posed by 
independent actors in the homeland who support overseas terrorist 
organizations and radical ideology.
  Last October--three teenage girls who lived in a Denver suburb 
attempted to depart the country for Syria to join violent extremists, 
but thanks to the work of our domestic and international security 
professionals they were intercepted and returned home to the custody of 
their parents.
  Keeping American families safe is the first responsibility of the 
Congress--but Republicans have decided that appeasing anti-immigrant 
Tea Party extremists is more important than the protecting our 
homeland.
  The Department of Homeland Security needs support for important 
federal cybersecurity initiatives, disaster relief and recovery 
programs, and essential law enforcement activities that are critical 
for ensuring that DHS can help keep our nation safe from harm.
  The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and by Boko Haram in Nigeria 
give heightened urgency to the words of Appropriations Committee 
Chairman Rogers that we need to get a clean Homeland Security spending 
bill ``to the president's desk so we can get a signature funding 
Homeland Security at a very tedious time in the world.''
  If the day ends without Congress taking action, the men and women 
charged with protecting the homeland will be sent a message that the 
House does not value 170,000 employees who will be required to work 
without pay.
  These employees include members of the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, 
Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration and others on 
the front lines of Homeland Security.
  An additional 30,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security 
will be furloughed and sent home without pay.
  Contracting services across the Department, including those for 
critical mission support activities, will be disrupted or interrupted.
  A shutdown will prevent DHS from awarding $2.5 billion in grants to 
state, local, and tribal governments for response capabilities to 
recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies.
  A DHS shutdown would hit Texas especially hard.
  The local and state negative impact of House inaction is the forgoing 
of fiscal year 2015 grants that go to first responders.
  In 2014, DHS grants awarded to the city of Houston included 
$24,000,000 from Urban Area Security Initiative grants and $299,995 
from the nonprofit program.
  In 2014, port security grants included: $1,810,826 for Harris County; 
$845,250 for the City of Houston.
  Programs intended to aid our fire fighters such as the one at the 
University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, which received a 
$1,493,340 DHS research grant last year are being hurt by House 
inaction on fiscal year 2015 funding for the agency.
  The majority must stop putting political security before national 
security and take up a clean bill to fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to register my disbelief 
that Republicans are continuing to use funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security as a political football. Every single member of the 
Democratic Caucus is a cosponsor of a clean, full-year funding bill, a 
bill that would be sure to pass if House leaders were to allow it to 
come to the floor. Across the Capitol, the Senate has already passed a 
clean bill. And yet House Republicans continue to insist that their 
political priorities take precedence over the operations of an agency 
vital to our national security.
  I am a member of the Committee on Homeland Security. Over the past 
few weeks, I have heard testimony highlighting the threat that we face 
from violent extremists, particularly those radicalized in the U.S. I 
have heard testimony about the pervasiveness of the cyber threat to our 
nation, particularly to our critical infrastructure. And I have heard 
how DHS plays a vital role in ensuring we can protect against and 
respond to these threats.
  Trying to implement strategies to protect our homeland security on a 
three-week time frame is simply absurd. Republicans created this 
funding crisis by refusing to approve a bipartisan agreement in 
December, and Republican action today is prolonging it. I hope that the 
majority will cease their political gamesmanship well before their new 
deadline and join with Democrats in passing a clean bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 129, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 35 is postponed.

[[Page 2913]]



                          ____________________