Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman (Mr. Polis), my friend from Colorado, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman (Mr. Polis), my friend from Colorado, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of failed liberal policies of the President of the United States. Through his unilateral executive actions taken in November and through policies pursued throughout his administration for a number of years, the President's policies have harmed the American taxpayer.
Specifically, that is why we are here today as part of this funding bill, to make sure that we address those problems that we see. Today, the House of Representatives will fight the President's failed liberal Democratic dogma and provide for a Homeland Security bill that actually protects the homeland and the American taxpayer.
This past summer, the American people saw what happens when the executive branch pursues policies that are not in the best interests of the American people. Over 70,000 unaccompanied minors from South and Central America entered our country illegally. They did this because they believed that this administration would allow them entry into the United States--and, by the way, it looks like it worked.
This influx was a costly mistake for the taxpayer and for communities all across this country. Federal taxpayers paid $553 million. We put local schools at risk and stretched the resources of communities all across this country to a tipping point.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here engaged in this fight. This bill represents conservative Republican solutions on how to protect the homeland and the rule of law. Within this rule is a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as well as five amendments that represent a united fight against the President's executive amnesty plan.
Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that the President's actions on executive amnesty are unwise and unconstitutional, and they must be stopped. This package provides this body with the opportunity to effectively block and reverse the President's unilateral amnesty, reassert the rule of law, and uphold our Constitution.
America became the laughing stock of the world by the way we dealt with this issue, and it lands directly at the feet of the President of the United States. That is why we are here today and are issuing this bill to the United States Senate, to have them take the appropriate action that is necessary, so that we may work together so that America is safe and that we do not have actions that America should not undertake.
We have a number of Republicans who wish to speak on this rule today. I look forward to hearing their thoughts, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of failed liberal policies of the President of the United States. Through his unilateral executive actions taken in November and through policies pursued throughout his administration for a number of years, the President's policies have harmed the American taxpayer.
Specifically, that is why we are here today as part of this funding bill, to make sure that we address those problems that we see. Today, the House of Representatives will fight the President's failed liberal Democratic dogma and provide for a Homeland Security bill that actually protects the homeland and the American taxpayer.
This past summer, the American people saw what happens when the executive branch pursues policies that are not in the best interests of the American people. Over 70,000 unaccompanied minors from South and Central America entered our country illegally. They did this because they believed that this administration would allow them entry into the United States--and, by the way, it looks like it worked.
This influx was a costly mistake for the taxpayer and for communities all across this country. Federal taxpayers paid $553 million. We put local schools at risk and stretched the resources of communities all across this country to a tipping point.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here engaged in this fight. This bill represents conservative Republican solutions on how to protect the homeland and the rule of law. Within this rule is a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as well as five amendments that represent a united fight against the President's executive amnesty plan.
Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that the President's actions on executive amnesty are unwise and unconstitutional, and they must be stopped. This package provides this body with the opportunity to effectively block and reverse the President's unilateral amnesty, reassert the rule of law, and uphold our Constitution.
America became the laughing stock of the world by the way we dealt with this issue, and it lands directly at the feet of the President of the United States. That is why we are here today and are issuing this bill to the United States Senate, to have them take the appropriate action that is necessary, so that we may work together so that America is safe and that we do not have actions that America should not undertake.
We have a number of Republicans who wish to speak on this rule today. I look forward to hearing their thoughts, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
First of all, when we have spending bills that make it here to the floor of the House, we traditionally have had an open amendment process for those appropriations bills. That allows Members on both sides of the aisle to offer cuts to move things around.
At the time of bloated budget deficits, why aren't the Republicans allowing any cuts to be made from this bill? They are not allowing Democrats or Republicans under a closed rule to offer savings to the Federal Government from bloated budgets.
They are limiting amendments on two other bills, a completely unrelated anti-regulatory bill and also a bill with regard to Financial Services that I offered an amendment along with Mr. Issa to improve are not allowed under this rule as well.
It is a very bad precedent for congressional procedure here in our second week to shut down ideas from both sides of the aisle to make either of these bills better beyond a select few ideas that have apparently been blessed by the Republican majority.
I heard in the Rules Committee last night--and my friend, the chair, did as well--a number of very good amendments that were offered, some that I didn't agree with, but I still thought we ought to be able to discuss and debate--I offered a few myself--but hardly any of these are actually allowed to be debated or voted on by the Members of this body.
Instead, what the Republicans have done is effectively hijack the discussion of homeland security and safety to instead have a discussion about our broken immigration system. Well, I was ready to go for that.
I offered an amendment that would have allowed us to vote on an immigration reform bill as part of the rule, one that passed the Senate with more than two-thirds support last session, one that I believe would still carry the support of more than 60 Senators--I think it would likely pass the House if it had been made in order--but I was shut down.
Instead of allowing a discussion about a solution to our broken immigration crisis, the Republicans seek to keep it alive, conflict for the sake of conflict, and to somehow lump families and children in with criminals for the same enforcement priority, which makes no sense to any law enforcement professional or any of our communities, which is why we have a broad coalition of the business community, the faith-based community, the law enforcement community, all outraged over the most recent Republican
actions, which seem to cater to the far rightwing of their party, rather than seek pragmatic practical solutions to replace our broken immigration system with one that works.
With regard to the Financial Services bill, I offered a bipartisan amendment along with my colleagues, Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, to improve transparency, to modernize our financial reporting standards, to ensure that digital data was available and searchable by investors everywhere, to increase transparency with regard to public companies. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to be debated or voted on here on the floor of the House to improve this bill.
This is truly an obstructive and undemocratic approach to governing. Instead of the Members of this body--Democrat and Republican--being able to work together and propose ideas to improve bills, we are presented with bills that are ``our way or the highway,'' bills that will never become law, bills that have the threat of veto from [Page: H239]
the President of the United States, and are presumably only being done to appease the rightwing Republican base.
Well, we should have started off this Congress with a fresh sensibility. We could have brought forward a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill, allowed Members to improve it, to make cuts, to balance our budget deficit, to move things from programs that didn't work to programs that did. We could have brought forth a real jobs bill addressing the needs of working families.
Instead, what the Republicans have chosen to do is to play politics and jeopardize the safety of our country and our homeland security over a debate that they want to have with regard to immigration without offering any solutions.
One of the things that I took away from the meeting in the Rules Committee last night, in the testimony from Members on both sides of the aisle, is that nobody thought--Democrats or Republicans--that this Republican bill that defunded DACA and undid the executive action would actually solve our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats acknowledged it wouldn't.
So rather than playing politics with our defense of our homeland, why don't we roll up our sleeves and get to work to actually fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works?
Now, look, the bill provides for consideration of the Homeland Security bill, but everybody knows it is not a serious attempt at funding the Department of Homeland Security. There is a manufactured crisis, the first step in a sure-to-fail legislative process that the President himself has said he would veto.
Why is anybody in this body--reasonable lawmakers, all of them--placing the funding of Homeland Security at a time of increased national threat--we saw the events in France this last week--putting our defense of our homeland at risk?
Yes, our President took action. Some agree with it; some disagree with it. He used the authority that he has been given by this body to establish enforcement priorities with regard to the 10, 11, 12 million people who are here illegally.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker, if we don't solve our broken immigration system, there is only going to be more people here illegally; instead of 10 or 11 million, there could be 12 million, 14 million, 15 million, until we get serious about border security, about enforcement, about restoring the rule of law.
This bill doesn't do it. This bill says let's support children rather than criminals; let's prevent people that have registered, gotten right by the law, paid a fee, had a background check, had their fingerprints taken, let's prevent them from legally working or going to school; let's hang the threat of tearing them apart from their American kids over their heads.
Both sides acknowledge that is not the answer to fixing our broken immigration system. So let's move past this discussion, let's secure our homeland, and let's get to the discussion of how to fix our broken immigration system, which both sides agree this debate is not about.
This bill also provides for consideration of the Regulatory Accountability Act, another recycled bill from the last Congress. It is not an immigration reform bill; it is not a jobs bill. It is actually a bill that makes government function even less efficiently than it currently does.
It adds 84 new bureaucratic hurdles to make sure our food is toxin-free and safe to eat. It would bury agency rulemaking under a bureaucratic blizzard of hurdles and documentation requirements. This is a paperwork creation bill, this is a government inefficiency bill, the opposite of the direction we should be moving with regard to making government streamlined and more efficient.
Finally, this rule provides for consideration of the Financial Services bills, which this body considered last week, but again, when something doesn't pass under suspension, a procedure that requires two-thirds, the rule should hopefully enable Members on both sides of the aisle to improve upon the bill. I offered just such an improvement, as did some of my colleagues.
If the goal was to get to two-thirds rather than just pass this bill with a Republican majority, why don't we begin the difficult work of making this bill better, of improving on it, of taking ideas from Democrats and Republicans, to get this bill to the point where two-thirds of this body support it? Unfortunately, that did not occur, and this bill is being brought under a very restrictive rule.
We can do better. We can do better than closing down the traditional open process we have around amending appropriations bills. We can restore regular order and allow bills to actually be considered through the committee process here in this Congress, instead of appearing with 48 hours to read for Members of Congress, without even giving the opportunity to amend them. Unfortunately, in the second week here, the Republican majority is already making good governance a farce.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to show that Congress can and will do better if you give the Democrats and Republicans who serve in this body the ability to legislate, to offer their ideas, to work with Members on their side of the aisle and the opposite side of the aisle, and to get to a point where we can present a bill that the President of the United States will sign and will become the law of the land.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. Here we are, just 2 weeks into the brandnew Congress, and the Republican leadership has decided to combine three major controversial bills into one rule. They aren't content to exclude amendments. Now they also want to stifle debate. It is ridiculous, it is shameful, it is undemocratic, and it needs to stop.
And why are they doing all of this? To what end? So they can attach poison pill amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
We had a perfectly fine bipartisan bill ready to go last year, but no, the Republicans would rather play Russian roulette with our homeland security. They are being driven by the most extreme anti-immigrant voices in the Republican caucus. So we are going to waste at least this entire week and maybe even more weeks to come debating ugly anti-immigrant amendments that are likely dead on arrival in the Senate and will most certainly be vetoed by the President.
I say to my Republican friends: I get it. You can't stand this President, and it is making you irrational to the point that you are doing real harm to this country. And I understand that you would rather tear immigrant families apart than keep them together. But you had the opportunity last Congress--for months and months and months--to legislate on this issue. You chose not to. Instead, you have chosen to make a mess of a very important Homeland Security Appropriations bill. You have chosen
to demagogue rather than legislate. With all that is going on in the world and with what happened in France, I ask my Republican friends: What are you thinking, playing politics with our national security?
For 6 years, the Republicans have blocked all efforts to fix our broken immigration system, and then they keep wailing and whining about it being broken. They keep punishing individuals and families who have been in our country for years, working hard, paying taxes, raising families. Enough is enough.
I urge my colleagues to choose fairness and compassion and to vote down this shameful rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. Here we are, just 2 weeks into the brandnew Congress, and the Republican leadership has decided to combine three major controversial bills into one rule. They aren't content to exclude amendments. Now they also want to stifle debate. It is ridiculous, it is shameful, it is undemocratic, and it needs to stop.
And why are they doing all of this? To what end? So they can attach poison pill amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
We had a perfectly fine bipartisan bill ready to go last year, but no, the Republicans would rather play Russian roulette with our homeland security. They are being driven by the most extreme anti-immigrant voices in the Republican caucus. So we are going to waste at least this entire week and maybe even more weeks to come debating ugly anti-immigrant amendments that are likely dead on arrival in the Senate and will most certainly be vetoed by the President.
I say to my Republican friends: I get it. You can't stand this President, and it is making you irrational to the point that you are doing real harm to this country. And I understand that you would rather tear immigrant families apart than keep them together. But you had the opportunity last Congress--for months and months and months--to legislate on this issue. You chose not to. Instead, you have chosen to make a mess of a very important Homeland Security Appropriations bill. You have chosen
to demagogue rather than legislate. With all that is going on in the world and with what happened in France, I ask my Republican friends: What are you thinking, playing politics with our national security?
For 6 years, the Republicans have blocked all efforts to fix our broken immigration system, and then they keep wailing and whining about it being broken. They keep punishing individuals and families who have been in our country for years, working hard, paying taxes, raising families. Enough is enough.
I urge my colleagues to choose fairness and compassion and to vote down this shameful rule.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage people on both sides of the dais, both sides of the aisle, to support the rule and the underlying appropriations bill with its attached amendments.
I do tire of hearing people talk about our broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, last year, in the United States of America, 1.1 million people came into this country, raised their right hand, took the oath of citizenship, and came in legally. And it has been that way every year that I have been in Congress since 2003. So, by my arithmetic, that is well over 12 million people that have become naturalized United States citizens in the last 10 or 12 years.
Does that sound like a system that is broken?
For comparison, let's look at other countries. The fact of the matter is, when you combine every other country on the face of the Earth, they don't match half of the number of people that are allowed to come into the United States and take the oath of citizenship.
But I will tell you what is broken. What is broken is the enforcement of our immigration laws, and we have seen that demonstrated time and again.
The President made some unilateral decisions in June of 2012, and we in Texas, particularly in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, understand very much what happens when someone makes adjustments without going through the rule of law. As a consequence, in late 2013, and then throughout the spring and summer of last year, we saw unprecedented amounts of unaccompanied minors simply coming across the border and turning themselves in to Customs and Border Patrol.
Now, why did they do that? Did someone just suddenly wake up one day in Honduras or Guatemala and say: I'm going to make that dangerous trek across the Mexican desert? No, it is because child traffickers, coyotes, saw what the President did, and said: Here's a business plan. Let's go to these families, charge them thousands of dollars, with the admonition that if you don't do it now, this door is going to close. But right now the President has got the door open for you to come up and get your
amnesty. Step up and get it while you can.
So what did the President do in November? He doubled down on that. The message to the child traffickers around the world is: Y'all come. Y'all come and it will be all right.
But the fact of the matter is it is not all right. In fact, our homeland security is threatened.
This is an important bill. Judge Carter has done enormous work to bring this bill to the floor. For that, I thank him. The bill is important, along with the amendments. I urge adoption of the rule, and I urge adoption of the underlying bill with its accompanying amendments.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage people on both sides of the dais, both sides of the aisle, to support the rule and the underlying appropriations bill with its attached amendments.
I do tire of hearing people talk about our broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, last year, in the United States of America, 1.1 million people came into this country, raised their right hand, took the oath of citizenship, and came in legally. And it has been that way every year that I have been in Congress since 2003. So, by my arithmetic, that is well over 12 million people that have become naturalized United States citizens in the last 10 or 12 years.
Does that sound like a system that is broken?
For comparison, let's look at other countries. The fact of the matter is, when you combine every other country on the face of the Earth, they don't match half of the number of people that are allowed to come into the United States and take the oath of citizenship.
But I will tell you what is broken. What is broken is the enforcement of our immigration laws, and we have seen that demonstrated time and again.
The President made some unilateral decisions in June of 2012, and we in Texas, particularly in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, understand very much what happens when someone makes adjustments without going through the rule of law. As a consequence, in late 2013, and then throughout the spring and summer of last year, we saw unprecedented amounts of unaccompanied minors simply coming across the border and turning themselves in to Customs and Border Patrol.
Now, why did they do that? Did someone just suddenly wake up one day in Honduras or Guatemala and say: I'm going to make that dangerous trek across the Mexican desert? No, it is because child traffickers, coyotes, saw what the President did, and said: Here's a business plan. Let's go to these families, charge them thousands of dollars, with the admonition that if you don't do it now, this door is going to close. But right now the President has got the door open for you to come up and get your
amnesty. Step up and get it while you can.
So what did the President do in November? He doubled down on that. The message to the child traffickers around the world is: Y'all come. Y'all come and it will be all right.
But the fact of the matter is it is not all right. In fact, our homeland security is threatened.
This is an important bill. Judge Carter has done enormous work to bring this bill to the floor. For that, I thank him. The bill is important, along with the amendments. I urge adoption of the rule, and I urge adoption of the underlying bill with its accompanying amendments.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
Let us be perfectly clear about what is happening here today. House Republicans are holding our national security hostage to the extreme policies of their most radical Members. I speak from experience, having been
one of the three or four that started this committee back after 9/11. You know that.
A vote for this rule and the poison pill amendments that will follow is a vote to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, plain and simple. It is a vote against the brave men and women in our Border Patrol, Secret Service, Coast Guard, and local public safety departments who put their lives on the line every day.
As the cochair of the Congressional Fire Caucus and the Public Safety Caucus, I am outraged that this stunt will jeopardize important funding under the Fire and SAFER grants programs. It provides community firefighters with the equipment they need and the ability to hire additional firefighters to help keep the risk of loss of life and property damage at a minimum.
I welcome a debate about immigration, but this is another ruse. This is an exact ruse. Whether you are talking about border security or whether you are talking about ``amnesty,'' it is a ruse. It doesn't matter whether it is this or something else to stop immigration, House Republicans have done nothing but run from that conversation.
Speaker Boehner has been sitting on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill since June of 2013. He has done nothing to move the bill through the House. He hasn't proposed an alternative. And if you don't like the President's executive actions to help address our broken immigration system, why haven't you put your own on the table?
Policies like the President's executive order provide responsible solutions to prevent families from being torn apart. Don't we want family unification? Don't we support that? In the bowel of our values, don't we support that more than anything else: keeping families together?
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
Let us be perfectly clear about what is happening here today. House Republicans are holding our national security hostage to the extreme policies of their most radical Members. I speak from experience, having been
one of the three or four that started this committee back after 9/11. You know that.
A vote for this rule and the poison pill amendments that will follow is a vote to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, plain and simple. It is a vote against the brave men and women in our Border Patrol, Secret Service, Coast Guard, and local public safety departments who put their lives on the line every day.
As the cochair of the Congressional Fire Caucus and the Public Safety Caucus, I am outraged that this stunt will jeopardize important funding under the Fire and SAFER grants programs. It provides community firefighters with the equipment they need and the ability to hire additional firefighters to help keep the risk of loss of life and property damage at a minimum.
I welcome a debate about immigration, but this is another ruse. This is an exact ruse. Whether you are talking about border security or whether you are talking about ``amnesty,'' it is a ruse. It doesn't matter whether it is this or something else to stop immigration, House Republicans have done nothing but run from that conversation.
Speaker Boehner has been sitting on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill since June of 2013. He has done nothing to move the bill through the House. He hasn't proposed an alternative. And if you don't like the President's executive actions to help address our broken immigration system, why haven't you put your own on the table?
Policies like the President's executive order provide responsible solutions to prevent families from being torn apart. Don't we want family unification? Don't we support that? In the bowel of our values, don't we support that more than anything else: keeping families together?
Mr. PASCRELL. Republicans have no solutions for these families--and they are out there. They are all over. It is quite simply unbelievable that they are willing to put politics before national security and shut down the Department of Homeland Security to block the President from implementing his solutions.
Let's end this charade now. You want to have a debate about immigration? Great. We welcome it. But we will not play along with this dangerous plan to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. PASCRELL. Republicans have no solutions for these families--and they are out there. They are all over. It is quite simply unbelievable that they are willing to put politics before national security and shut down the Department of Homeland Security to block the President from implementing his solutions.
Let's end this charade now. You want to have a debate about immigration? Great. We welcome it. But we will not play along with this dangerous plan to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a few quotes. First:
[Page: H241]
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.
Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws.
The problem is that I'm the President of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.
I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress.
I am President. I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself.
I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.
I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can't do.
Congress has the power of the purse, for example.
These are the words and the statements of the President of the United States. And words matter. But, even after the President said all of this in a politically motivated action last November, he pursued a course that could allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States illegally and without consequence.
Like my constituents, I am outraged. President Obama defied the will expressed by the American people last November and blatantly contradicted his own statements about the limits of the executive branch.
Now, let's be clear, lest others confuse this issue today. This is not a debate about immigration. That will come later. But this is about the rule of law. This is about the constitutional separation of powers. This is about the respect we owe the American people.
In this appropriations bill, we are exercising the power of the purse and we are taking a strong, narrow approach that will, first and foremost, provide security to our homeland and, secondly, deny any funds whatsoever from being used to carry out the President's unwise and, in my opinion, unconstitutional actions.
Now, I have to say, the President was right about a couple of things. He is not an emperor, and he is surely not a king. House Republicans are united in making sure that he doesn't get away with acting like one either. And yet before the debate even begins, last night the President has already issued threats. He is threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because this bill prevents him from implementing his own ideology.
But make no mistake: a veto threat is a threat to our national security; a veto threat is an open invitation to our enemies. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack this week in France, is the President really willing to compromise the safety of 320 million Americans to appease his base and score political points? God help us if that is the case.
Today, it is up to us in the House. Let us vote to defend the constitutional role of this legislature, let us vote to stop the President's blatant overreach, and let us vote to secure our homeland.
[Time: 13:15]
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a few quotes. First:
[Page: H241]
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.
Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws.
The problem is that I'm the President of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.
I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress.
I am President. I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself.
I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.
I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can't do.
Congress has the power of the purse, for example.
These are the words and the statements of the President of the United States. And words matter. But, even after the President said all of this in a politically motivated action last November, he pursued a course that could allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States illegally and without consequence.
Like my constituents, I am outraged. President Obama defied the will expressed by the American people last November and blatantly contradicted his own statements about the limits of the executive branch.
Now, let's be clear, lest others confuse this issue today. This is not a debate about immigration. That will come later. But this is about the rule of law. This is about the constitutional separation of powers. This is about the respect we owe the American people.
In this appropriations bill, we are exercising the power of the purse and we are taking a strong, narrow approach that will, first and foremost, provide security to our homeland and, secondly, deny any funds whatsoever from being used to carry out the President's unwise and, in my opinion, unconstitutional actions.
Now, I have to say, the President was right about a couple of things. He is not an emperor, and he is surely not a king. House Republicans are united in making sure that he doesn't get away with acting like one either. And yet before the debate even begins, last night the President has already issued threats. He is threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because this bill prevents him from implementing his own ideology.
But make no mistake: a veto threat is a threat to our national security; a veto threat is an open invitation to our enemies. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack this week in France, is the President really willing to compromise the safety of 320 million Americans to appease his base and score political points? God help us if that is the case.
Today, it is up to us in the House. Let us vote to defend the constitutional role of this legislature, let us vote to stop the President's blatant overreach, and let us vote to secure our homeland.
[Time: 13:15]
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think my good friends who are on the floor today, my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, have failed to read the Constitution, which includes, clearly, the President's authority for executive actions and not, as they have articulated, an executive order.
And it says in the ``take care clause'' that he has the ability to manage this government, as Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower did.
What I would offer to say is, there is nothing in what the President has done but to exercise executive action. But I will say to them that Secretary Johnson of Homeland Security has said that we are placing ourselves in a dangerous position, not because of the President's actions, not because of the appropriations bill, but because of these enormous poison pills that are stamping and stomping on the President's right to executive action.
I oppose all of the bills that are presently in this rule, including the regulatory bill, the Financial Services--all of them have poison pills. The regulatory bill, for example, wants 70 criteria before any agency can pass a regulation.
Yes, to my Republican friends, we are in a moment, a historic moment. France was more than a wake-up call. But what I will say to you is that we can pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and we can end this dangerous condition that we are in.
I would ask my colleagues to eliminate the poison pills of pulling back on the President's constitutional authority.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think my good friends who are on the floor today, my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, have failed to read the Constitution, which includes, clearly, the President's authority for executive actions and not, as they have articulated, an executive order.
And it says in the ``take care clause'' that he has the ability to manage this government, as Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower did.
What I would offer to say is, there is nothing in what the President has done but to exercise executive action. But I will say to them that Secretary Johnson of Homeland Security has said that we are placing ourselves in a dangerous position, not because of the President's actions, not because of the appropriations bill, but because of these enormous poison pills that are stamping and stomping on the President's right to executive action.
I oppose all of the bills that are presently in this rule, including the regulatory bill, the Financial Services--all of them have poison pills. The regulatory bill, for example, wants 70 criteria before any agency can pass a regulation.
Yes, to my Republican friends, we are in a moment, a historic moment. France was more than a wake-up call. But what I will say to you is that we can pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and we can end this dangerous condition that we are in.
I would ask my colleagues to eliminate the poison pills of pulling back on the President's constitutional authority.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this combined rule and the underlying bills. Specifically, I came to the floor to speak in support of H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2015.
First, I applaud House leadership for bringing up this clean legislation in a timely fashion and allowing the full House of Representatives the opportunity to work the will of the body, which is, in fact, the will of the American people.
The amendments approved in this rule are vital to protecting the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch, while keeping the Department of Homeland Security funded through fiscal year 2015.
I would like to remind my colleagues who are opposed to this bill, just last week, Members of the House read on this floor the Constitution of the United States, myself included, and renewed our commitment to defending the principles in our Nation's founding document.
In that Constitution, article I gave all legislative powers and authority to Congress and established the framework of our legislative process.
The President's executive action on immigration threatens this separation of powers, ignores our Constitution, disregards the right of the American people to have a voice in important legislation through their elected representatives.
Americans sent a clear message on November 4. They did not want the President to act alone on immigration. Now, this bill and the accompanying amendments are sending a strong message that Congress will not stand by as the President attempts to rewrite our Nation's laws.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this combined rule and the underlying bills. Specifically, I came to the floor to speak in support of H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2015.
First, I applaud House leadership for bringing up this clean legislation in a timely fashion and allowing the full House of Representatives the opportunity to work the will of the body, which is, in fact, the will of the American people.
The amendments approved in this rule are vital to protecting the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch, while keeping the Department of Homeland Security funded through fiscal year 2015.
I would like to remind my colleagues who are opposed to this bill, just last week, Members of the House read on this floor the Constitution of the United States, myself included, and renewed our commitment to defending the principles in our Nation's founding document.
In that Constitution, article I gave all legislative powers and authority to Congress and established the framework of our legislative process.
The President's executive action on immigration threatens this separation of powers, ignores our Constitution, disregards the right of the American people to have a voice in important legislation through their elected representatives.
Americans sent a clear message on November 4. They did not want the President to act alone on immigration. Now, this bill and the accompanying amendments are sending a strong message that Congress will not stand by as the President attempts to rewrite our Nation's laws.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Just over 1 month ago, I stood on this floor urging the majority to allow Members of this Chamber to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the omnibus. The majority did not listen.
In the past month, even as the majority plotted to punish the Department for the President's action on immigration, a series of terrorist incidents across the globe have brought into sharp focus the need for a fully funded and fully functional DHS.
First, in Sidney, Australia, we witnessed a terrorist attack on a cafe where, at the end of a lengthy standoff, two innocent people lay dead.
The crippling cyber attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment's network raised awareness of the damage that hacks can do.
Then, last week in Paris, there were a series of terrorist attacks that have sent shock waves beyond the borders of France.
The execution-style murders of 12 members of the creative team of Charlie Hebdo, followed by the indiscriminate killing at a Jewish supermarket, are not simply tragic incidents; they serve as a reminder that the terrorist threats we face are evolving, and they are evolving quickly.
As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to be dynamic and agile in response to these evolving threats.
The underlying DHS appropriations bill under consideration today, although not perfect, could certainly pass both Chambers and be enacted into law with the President's signature.
However, the likelihood, dare I say inevitability, that one or more of the poison pill amendments that the Rules Committee approved will get attached ensures a DHS shutdown or slowdown continues.
And to what end?
The majority decries the administration's immigration actions but offers no solution.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Just over 1 month ago, I stood on this floor urging the majority to allow Members of this Chamber to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the omnibus. The majority did not listen.
In the past month, even as the majority plotted to punish the Department for the President's action on immigration, a series of terrorist incidents across the globe have brought into sharp focus the need for a fully funded and fully functional DHS.
First, in Sidney, Australia, we witnessed a terrorist attack on a cafe where, at the end of a lengthy standoff, two innocent people lay dead.
The crippling cyber attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment's network raised awareness of the damage that hacks can do.
Then, last week in Paris, there were a series of terrorist attacks that have sent shock waves beyond the borders of France.
The execution-style murders of 12 members of the creative team of Charlie Hebdo, followed by the indiscriminate killing at a Jewish supermarket, are not simply tragic incidents; they serve as a reminder that the terrorist threats we face are evolving, and they are evolving quickly.
As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to be dynamic and agile in response to these evolving threats.
The underlying DHS appropriations bill under consideration today, although not perfect, could certainly pass both Chambers and be enacted into law with the President's signature.
However, the likelihood, dare I say inevitability, that one or more of the poison pill amendments that the Rules Committee approved will get attached ensures a DHS shutdown or slowdown continues.
And to what end?
The majority decries the administration's immigration actions but offers no solution.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for the additional 30 seconds.
The majority decries the administration's immigration actions, but offers no solution or alternatives of its own. Instead, it plays and replays the game of we will or we won't fund the government.
Mr. Speaker, the game of chicken has come and run its course. It is time to provide full-year funding to DHS so it can continue its critical mission.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for the additional 30 seconds.
The majority decries the administration's immigration actions, but offers no solution or alternatives of its own. Instead, it plays and replays the game of we will or we won't fund the government.
Mr. Speaker, the game of chicken has come and run its course. It is time to provide full-year funding to DHS so it can continue its critical mission.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding some of his time.
This bill is necessary to make sure that the negative effects associated [Page: H243]
with the President's actions do not cause long-term damage to our country.
As a new Member of Congress, I was sent to Washington to represent the people of southeast Georgia against the numerous harmful actions taken by the President and his administration.
From the time that I have been here, I have been shocked by the actions of the President and the way he directly ignores the will of the American people, statutory law, and, most importantly, the Constitution of this country.
This bill makes sure that no funds will be used to implement the President's executive order that allowed thousands of illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
This bill also makes sure that no funds will go to implement any rule or regulation that has been issued by the administration over the last several years.
It is time to stand up to the President and say, no more. No more, Mr. President. No more rewarding bad behavior. No more rules that ignore the will of the American people. No more ignoring statutory law. And most importantly, no more ignoring the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding some of his time.
This bill is necessary to make sure that the negative effects associated [Page: H243]
with the President's actions do not cause long-term damage to our country.
As a new Member of Congress, I was sent to Washington to represent the people of southeast Georgia against the numerous harmful actions taken by the President and his administration.
From the time that I have been here, I have been shocked by the actions of the President and the way he directly ignores the will of the American people, statutory law, and, most importantly, the Constitution of this country.
This bill makes sure that no funds will be used to implement the President's executive order that allowed thousands of illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
This bill also makes sure that no funds will go to implement any rule or regulation that has been issued by the administration over the last several years.
It is time to stand up to the President and say, no more. No more, Mr. President. No more rewarding bad behavior. No more rules that ignore the will of the American people. No more ignoring statutory law. And most importantly, no more ignoring the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 240. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 weeks into this new Congress, Republicans have turned a bipartisan issue, funding our Department of Homeland Security, into a cesspool of despicable amendments that cater to the most extremist anti-immigrant fringe.
There is the Blackburn amendment mandating that we deport thousands of students who are as American in their hearts as you or I.
There is the Aderholt amendment prohibiting DHS from prioritizing whether we deport hardworking parents or hardened criminals.
And there is the Schock amendment decrying the legal
immigration backlog but doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix it.
Guess whose amendment wasn't accepted?
The Deutch-Foster amendment, which would save taxpayers over $1 billion a year by ending the detention bed mandate, effectively an earmark that requires 34,000 beds be filled by immigrants every single day inside for-profit detention centers.
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 240. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 weeks into this new Congress, Republicans have turned a bipartisan issue, funding our Department of Homeland Security, into a cesspool of despicable amendments that cater to the most extremist anti-immigrant fringe.
There is the Blackburn amendment mandating that we deport thousands of students who are as American in their hearts as you or I.
There is the Aderholt amendment prohibiting DHS from prioritizing whether we deport hardworking parents or hardened criminals.
And there is the Schock amendment decrying the legal
immigration backlog but doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix it.
Guess whose amendment wasn't accepted?
The Deutch-Foster amendment, which would save taxpayers over $1 billion a year by ending the detention bed mandate, effectively an earmark that requires 34,000 beds be filled by immigrants every single day inside for-profit detention centers.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here to solve problems. What this bill reveals instead, unfortunately, is a majority with no interest in solving our broken immigration system. If they had that interest, we would have passed comprehensive immigration reform 2 years ago.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 240, the fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to faithfully carry out the laws sent to him by Congress. Unfortunately, this President, over the past several years, has chosen time and time again to ignore our immigration laws in order to achieve his executive amnesty objectives.
His actions continue to fundamentally threaten the separation of powers set forth by the Constitution that was read on this floor last Friday, and it needs to stop.
This rule will provide the House with the opportunity to completely defund and end this executive amnesty. With the adoption of the amendments made in order under this rule, H.R. 240 will responsibly fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year and ensure the protection of our borders, while, at the same time, restoring the boundaries between the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government.
In addition to defunding this power grab by the President, we will also consider an amendment that will express the sense of Congress that we should stop putting the interests of illegal immigrants above legal immigrants, who are being punished for simply obeying the law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 240, the fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to faithfully carry out the laws sent to him by Congress. Unfortunately, this President, over the past several years, has chosen time and time again to ignore our immigration laws in order to achieve his executive amnesty objectives.
His actions continue to fundamentally threaten the separation of powers set forth by the Constitution that was read on this floor last Friday, and it needs to stop.
This rule will provide the House with the opportunity to completely defund and end this executive amnesty. With the adoption of the amendments made in order under this rule, H.R. 240 will responsibly fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year and ensure the protection of our borders, while, at the same time, restoring the boundaries between the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government.
In addition to defunding this power grab by the President, we will also consider an amendment that will express the sense of Congress that we should stop putting the interests of illegal immigrants above legal immigrants, who are being punished for simply obeying the law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 240, the fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to faithfully carry out the laws sent to him by Congress. Unfortunately, this President, over the past several years, has chosen time and time again to ignore our immigration laws in order to achieve his executive amnesty objectives.
His actions continue to fundamentally threaten the separation of powers set forth by the Constitution that was read on this floor last Friday, and it needs to stop.
This rule will provide the House with the opportunity to completely defund and end this executive amnesty. With the adoption of the amendments made in order under this rule, H.R. 240 will responsibly fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year and ensure the protection of our borders, while, at the same time, restoring the boundaries between the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government.
In addition to defunding this power grab by the President, we will also consider an amendment that will express the sense of Congress that we should stop putting the interests of illegal immigrants above legal immigrants, who are being punished for simply obeying the law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if you trample on democracy and discard regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient House of Representatives.
This rule is an abomination of procedure, wrapped in another abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. It deals with three bills, but one of those bills contains 11 bills. Add it up. One rule, 14 bills.
Let's look at the 11 Financial Services bills. Eleven bills, zero amendments allowed. Why? We are told that, well, all 11 of those bills have gone through the committee without controversy or gone to the floor without controversy. Not true.
One of those bills extends until 2019 when banks have to comply with an important part of the Volcker rule. Has that extension to 2019 ever been voted on in committee? No. Has it ever been discussed on the floor? No.
And when the Rules Committee was asked, can we have an amendment to deal with this new matter, which has never been subject to a markup or a discussion on this floor, the answer is ``no.'' Why is that?
Because we need to improve Dodd-Frank.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if you trample on democracy and discard regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient House of Representatives.
This rule is an abomination of procedure, wrapped in another abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. It deals with three bills, but one of those bills contains 11 bills. Add it up. One rule, 14 bills.
Let's look at the 11 Financial Services bills. Eleven bills, zero amendments allowed. Why? We are told that, well, all 11 of those bills have gone through the committee without controversy or gone to the floor without controversy. Not true.
One of those bills extends until 2019 when banks have to comply with an important part of the Volcker rule. Has that extension to 2019 ever been voted on in committee? No. Has it ever been discussed on the floor? No.
And when the Rules Committee was asked, can we have an amendment to deal with this new matter, which has never been subject to a markup or a discussion on this floor, the answer is ``no.'' Why is that?
Because we need to improve Dodd-Frank.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if you trample on democracy and discard regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient House of Representatives.
This rule is an abomination of procedure, wrapped in another abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. It deals with three bills, but one of those bills contains 11 bills. Add it up. One rule, 14 bills.
Let's look at the 11 Financial Services bills. Eleven bills, zero amendments allowed. Why? We are told that, well, all 11 of those bills have gone through the committee without controversy or gone to the floor without controversy. Not true.
One of those bills extends until 2019 when banks have to comply with an important part of the Volcker rule. Has that extension to 2019 ever been voted on in committee? No. Has it ever been discussed on the floor? No.
And when the Rules Committee was asked, can we have an amendment to deal with this new matter, which has never been subject to a markup or a discussion on this floor, the answer is ``no.'' Why is that?
Because we need to improve Dodd-Frank.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, that is a very sad way to explain what we are doing here today. The gentleman knows that these 11 bills have all been heard, most of them voted on the floor, overwhelming majorities, if not----
Mr. SESSIONS. No, sir. We covered this yesterday in the Rules Committee, and we intend to move forward. And they are great bills that will help the economy and jobs in this country.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield----
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. Speaker, John Adams, as President of these United States, stated:
Our Constitution is for religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
What John Adams was referencing is that our Constitution is only as solid--it is only as resolute--as the willingness of the people to uphold the limits of its power.
What has sustained the United States of America as the longest continual constitutional republic in the history of the world is our commitment to recognizing and our respecting the limits of power inscribed in this Constitution. A clear and distinct division of those [Page: H244]
powers among the three separate branches of government is what we have all sworn to uphold.
The President through his recent executive orders has seized the constitutional authority of the United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill does not bring an immediate end to the President's pattern of executive overreach, it does, within the rule of law, begin to restore the constitutional authority of this governing body.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. Speaker, John Adams, as President of these United States, stated:
Our Constitution is for religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
What John Adams was referencing is that our Constitution is only as solid--it is only as resolute--as the willingness of the people to uphold the limits of its power.
What has sustained the United States of America as the longest continual constitutional republic in the history of the world is our commitment to recognizing and our respecting the limits of power inscribed in this Constitution. A clear and distinct division of those [Page: H244]
powers among the three separate branches of government is what we have all sworn to uphold.
The President through his recent executive orders has seized the constitutional authority of the United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill does not bring an immediate end to the President's pattern of executive overreach, it does, within the rule of law, begin to restore the constitutional authority of this governing body.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible time for Republicans in Congress to play political games with America's homeland security. Our country and its citizens must remain safe and secure. International travel, border crossings, and our transportation systems must be protected. In Florida, this is an economic issue as well.
In a recent Gallup Poll, Americans named politicians as their top concern over even the economy and jobs, and this Republican bill is a fine example of why that is: at the heart of the House Republicans' obstruction of homeland security is their inattention to bipartisan solutions and their continued dodging of needed immigration reform.
Remember last session? The Senate passed a bipartisan bill. It was passed overwhelmingly, but it hit a roadblock here in the House, and this roadblock continues to be a drag on the economy. One particularly heartless amendment will be offered by Republicans that directs young DREAM Act students to pack their bags and leave America, even though America is the only country they have ever known.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible time for Republicans in Congress to play political games with America's homeland security. Our country and its citizens must remain safe and secure. International travel, border crossings, and our transportation systems must be protected. In Florida, this is an economic issue as well.
In a recent Gallup Poll, Americans named politicians as their top concern over even the economy and jobs, and this Republican bill is a fine example of why that is: at the heart of the House Republicans' obstruction of homeland security is their inattention to bipartisan solutions and their continued dodging of needed immigration reform.
Remember last session? The Senate passed a bipartisan bill. It was passed overwhelmingly, but it hit a roadblock here in the House, and this roadblock continues to be a drag on the economy. One particularly heartless amendment will be offered by Republicans that directs young DREAM Act students to pack their bags and leave America, even though America is the only country they have ever known.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am perplexed with the heartless amendments from the Republicans in Congress because, in the State of Florida, our Republican legislature passed a law last year to provide instate tuition to the same DREAM Act students.
Now, the Republican Congress wants to send them packing. This is unnecessarily harsh, and it is inconsistent with our American values. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CULBERSON. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican
House takes an important step in restoring the trust of the American people in their elected Representatives and in restoring the rule of law in our Nation.
Two of the most important principles underlying our entire system of government are trust and the rule of law. The American people in the election last November decisively rejected the aggressive, liberal agenda of this President and of the Democrats in Congress.
They elected this Republican majority to stop the President from doing further damage to our system of laws and further damage to our Constitution. The American people elected us to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, but that work begins with trust.
We, today, are doing what the voters of America asked us to do in enforcing our laws on the border to ensure that our laws are respected, to ensure that our immigration law is fair, and that it treats everyone equally as the Constitution requires.
We are keeping our word to the American people to do precisely what we said we would do, and that is to overturn these illegal executive memos that are attempting to ignore what the law says the President must do. Not even King George III had the authority to waive a law enacted by the Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, once we have begun this path today of restoring that bond of trust, we will restore the rule of law in America because, without the law, there is no liberty.
In fact, the first design on one of the first coins ever minted in the Republic of Mexico, a coin which I have here with me, shows the liberty cap--liberty and law. There is no liberty without law enforcement, and the House today is doing what the American people hired us to do: to restore their trust and to restore the rule of law.
This is a law enforcement issue. Border security and immigration, these are matters of law enforcement. We trust the good hearts and the good sense of the officers in the field to do the right thing for the right reasons, which is to enforce our laws fairly and equally, because the people on the Rio Grande understand better than anyone else that if the law is not enforced, there cannot be safe streets and that you cannot have good schools and a strong economy without law enforcement.
We in Texas understand better than anyone else that this debate is far larger than it just being about immigration or border security. It is far larger than just these individual issues we will debate today.
Today, we in the Republican House are honoring the will of the American people. We will keep our word. We will make sure that the laws of the United States are enforced equally and fairly for all.
Above all, we will preserve and protect the Constitution and the America that we know and love. That was the message of the election last November.
Mr. CULBERSON. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican
House takes an important step in restoring the trust of the American people in their elected Representatives and in restoring the rule of law in our Nation.
Two of the most important principles underlying our entire system of government are trust and the rule of law. The American people in the election last November decisively rejected the aggressive, liberal agenda of this President and of the Democrats in Congress.
They elected this Republican majority to stop the President from doing further damage to our system of laws and further damage to our Constitution. The American people elected us to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, but that work begins with trust.
We, today, are doing what the voters of America asked us to do in enforcing our laws on the border to ensure that our laws are respected, to ensure that our immigration law is fair, and that it treats everyone equally as the Constitution requires.
We are keeping our word to the American people to do precisely what we said we would do, and that is to overturn these illegal executive memos that are attempting to ignore what the law says the President must do. Not even King George III had the authority to waive a law enacted by the Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, once we have begun this path today of restoring that bond of trust, we will restore the rule of law in America because, without the law, there is no liberty.
In fact, the first design on one of the first coins ever minted in the Republic of Mexico, a coin which I have here with me, shows the liberty cap--liberty and law. There is no liberty without law enforcement, and the House today is doing what the American people hired us to do: to restore their trust and to restore the rule of law.
This is a law enforcement issue. Border security and immigration, these are matters of law enforcement. We trust the good hearts and the good sense of the officers in the field to do the right thing for the right reasons, which is to enforce our laws fairly and equally, because the people on the Rio Grande understand better than anyone else that if the law is not enforced, there cannot be safe streets and that you cannot have good schools and a strong economy without law enforcement.
We in Texas understand better than anyone else that this debate is far larger than it just being about immigration or border security. It is far larger than just these individual issues we will debate today.
Today, we in the Republican House are honoring the will of the American people. We will keep our word. We will make sure that the laws of the United States are enforced equally and fairly for all.
Above all, we will preserve and protect the Constitution and the America that we know and love. That was the message of the election last November.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, the world is mourning. Millions have marched in Paris in memory of the victims and to stand against terrorism; yet, at a time when we should strengthen our response against terrorism, Republicans are playing games.
By hijacking this bill with measures that dismantle the President's executive action, Republicans are threatening to endanger the security of our entire Nation for the sole purpose of playing partisan politics.
Despite claims of support for reform, we are not being asked to vote for a better immigration system; we are being asked to vote for a crueler one--a system of mass deportation, one that tears parents away from children, disrupts communities, and weakens our economy,
one that replaces the open hands of the Statue of Liberty with a sign that reads: You are not welcome here.
Worse, Republicans know that this will not become law, so today's debate serves only to placate an extreme wing of their party while making millions of hardworking and aspiring Americans afraid and unsettled.
Undocumented or not, immigrants are integrated into our communities, and pulling a thread once woven just weakens the fabric. I urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic bill.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, the world is mourning. Millions have marched in Paris in memory of the victims and to stand against terrorism; yet, at a time when we should strengthen our response against terrorism, Republicans are playing games.
By hijacking this bill with measures that dismantle the President's executive action, Republicans are threatening to endanger the security of our entire Nation for the sole purpose of playing partisan politics.
Despite claims of support for reform, we are not being asked to vote for a better immigration system; we are being asked to vote for a crueler one--a system of mass deportation, one that tears parents away from children, disrupts communities, and weakens our economy,
one that replaces the open hands of the Statue of Liberty with a sign that reads: You are not welcome here.
Worse, Republicans know that this will not become law, so today's debate serves only to placate an extreme wing of their party while making millions of hardworking and aspiring Americans afraid and unsettled.
Undocumented or not, immigrants are integrated into our communities, and pulling a thread once woven just weakens the fabric. I urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic bill.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying DHS bill and relevant amendments.
Already, the United States admits 1 million legal permanent immigrants per year, so long as they follow our Nation's legal immigration process. Unfortunately, like those coming to the United States illegally, this administration wants to ignore our Nation's immigration laws and immigration process.
The problem is twofold, Mr. Speaker. This not only undermines the rule of law in our country, but it also unfairly treats those who follow our legal immigration process, as complicated as it is.
After this administration established DACA in 2012, unilaterally granting amnesty to illegal minors, the number of unaccompanied children at the border increased almost tenfold in just 3 years.
The President's most recent amnesty actions send a resounding message to wishful immigrants that our Nation may have immigration laws, but that it is just not important that they are respected.
Simply put, this is wrong, so I support this rule, and I support restoring the rule of law.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying DHS bill and relevant amendments.
Already, the United States admits 1 million legal permanent immigrants per year, so long as they follow our Nation's legal immigration process. Unfortunately, like those coming to the United States illegally, this administration wants to ignore our Nation's immigration laws and immigration process.
The problem is twofold, Mr. Speaker. This not only undermines the rule of law in our country, but it also unfairly treats those who follow our legal immigration process, as complicated as it is.
After this administration established DACA in 2012, unilaterally granting amnesty to illegal minors, the number of unaccompanied children at the border increased almost tenfold in just 3 years.
The President's most recent amnesty actions send a resounding message to wishful immigrants that our Nation may have immigration laws, but that it is just not important that they are respected.
Simply put, this is wrong, so I support this rule, and I support restoring the rule of law.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the bill.
For over 500 days, Republican leadership refused to bring comprehensive [Page: H245]
immigration reform for a vote, this despite ample support from both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation from the Senate.
In the face of Republican inaction, however, President Obama made the appropriate and the lawful move to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and to create deferred action for parents. Now, Republicans have decided to hold our national security hostage in order to placate the anti-immigrant fringe.
Make no mistake, this rule and bill have nothing to do with our national security and have everything to do with tearing down the President's legal executive action on immigration.
It has been clear to me, though, that whatever this President puts forward, Republicans will oppose; but it is hard to believe, given the dangers we face, that Republicans won't work in a bipartisan manner to keep our country safe.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the bill.
For over 500 days, Republican leadership refused to bring comprehensive [Page: H245]
immigration reform for a vote, this despite ample support from both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation from the Senate.
In the face of Republican inaction, however, President Obama made the appropriate and the lawful move to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and to create deferred action for parents. Now, Republicans have decided to hold our national security hostage in order to placate the anti-immigrant fringe.
Make no mistake, this rule and bill have nothing to do with our national security and have everything to do with tearing down the President's legal executive action on immigration.
It has been clear to me, though, that whatever this President puts forward, Republicans will oppose; but it is hard to believe, given the dangers we face, that Republicans won't work in a bipartisan manner to keep our country safe.
Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but the President has dropped a poison pill with his executive amnesty--of his own choosing, I might add--into the well of goodwill in this Chamber.
Now, before anything even gets sent over to him, he is issuing a veto threat on the front end. The President has now made it abundantly clear that he is willing to risk national security to protect those who have come here illegally.
What the President should be doing is exactly what the gentlewoman just mentioned a moment ago: working in a bipartisan fashion with Congress, through the rule of law, to pass immigration reform.
This debate is no longer about immigration reform. The debate, unfortunately, isn't even about homeland security. The debate has become about choices and the President's choices, about the choices that the President, himself, has made in regard to this issue. He will soon have another choice to make.
I wish this were just about immigration reform because I believe, quite frankly, that we can find a path forward on immigration reform, Mr. Speaker. We need to fix our immigration system. Every single person here, unless Native American, is a son or a daughter of an immigrant.
We need to address our immigration system to make it easier for people to enter our Nation legally and to make it more difficult to come here illegally. This appropriations bill does that very thing: it puts more guards on the border than ever before, and it creates security that is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the President not to veto this piece of legislation but to work with this Congress to do this in the correct way, which is within the confines of the Constitution.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to pass this bill as fast and as quickly as possible.
Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but the President has dropped a poison pill with his executive amnesty--of his own choosing, I might add--into the well of goodwill in this Chamber.
Now, before anything even gets sent over to him, he is issuing a veto threat on the front end. The President has now made it abundantly clear that he is willing to risk national security to protect those who have come here illegally.
What the President should be doing is exactly what the gentlewoman just mentioned a moment ago: working in a bipartisan fashion with Congress, through the rule of law, to pass immigration reform.
This debate is no longer about immigration reform. The debate, unfortunately, isn't even about homeland security. The debate has become about choices and the President's choices, about the choices that the President, himself, has made in regard to this issue. He will soon have another choice to make.
I wish this were just about immigration reform because I believe, quite frankly, that we can find a path forward on immigration reform, Mr. Speaker. We need to fix our immigration system. Every single person here, unless Native American, is a son or a daughter of an immigrant.
We need to address our immigration system to make it easier for people to enter our Nation legally and to make it more difficult to come here illegally. This appropriations bill does that very thing: it puts more guards on the border than ever before, and it creates security that is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the President not to veto this piece of legislation but to work with this Congress to do this in the correct way, which is within the confines of the Constitution.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to pass this bill as fast and as quickly as possible.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is both risky and callous. It asks Americans to give into their worst instincts. If you or someone you know is out of a job, blame an immigrant; if an undocumented person commits a crime, they are all like that.
We are at a moment when there are growing security threats to our Nation, and Republicans in this House of Representatives are willing to play Russian roulette with the security of the American people. The American people know better.
Wide majorities support comprehensive immigration reform, including those in my home State of Texas. Majorities disagree with taking away DACA for young kids who came here through no fault of their own.
[Time: 13:45]
I will leave with you with this question to ponder, Mr. Speaker: What do you tell somebody who was 3 years old when they were brought here to the United States of America, knows no other country and no other language but the English language, what do you tell that person when you tell them that they have got to leave here? This is the only life that they have ever known. How are they not as American as you and I?
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is both risky and callous. It asks Americans to give into their worst instincts. If you or someone you know is out of a job, blame an immigrant; if an undocumented person commits a crime, they are all like that.
We are at a moment when there are growing security threats to our Nation, and Republicans in this House of Representatives are willing to play Russian roulette with the security of the American people. The American people know better.
Wide majorities support comprehensive immigration reform, including those in my home State of Texas. Majorities disagree with taking away DACA for young kids who came here through no fault of their own.
[Time: 13:45]
I will leave with you with this question to ponder, Mr. Speaker: What do you tell somebody who was 3 years old when they were brought here to the United States of America, knows no other country and no other language but the English language, what do you tell that person when you tell them that they have got to leave here? This is the only life that they have ever known. How are they not as American as you and I?
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is both risky and callous. It asks Americans to give into their worst instincts. If you or someone you know is out of a job, blame an immigrant; if an undocumented person commits a crime, they are all like that.
We are at a moment when there are growing security threats to our Nation, and Republicans in this House of Representatives are willing to play Russian roulette with the security of the American people. The American people know better.
Wide majorities support comprehensive immigration reform, including those in my home State of Texas. Majorities disagree with taking away DACA for young kids who came here through no fault of their own.
[Time: 13:45]
I will leave with you with this question to ponder, Mr. Speaker: What do you tell somebody who was 3 years old when they were brought here to the United States of America, knows no other country and no other language but the English language, what do you tell that person when you tell them that they have got to leave here? This is the only life that they have ever known. How are they not as American as you and I?
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is both risky and callous. It asks Americans to give into their worst instincts. If you or someone you know is out of a job, blame an immigrant; if an undocumented person commits a crime, they are all like that.
We are at a moment when there are growing security threats to our Nation, and Republicans in this House of Representatives are willing to play Russian roulette with the security of the American people. The American people know better.
Wide majorities support comprehensive immigration reform, including those in my home State of Texas. Majorities disagree with taking away DACA for young kids who came here through no fault of their own.
[Time: 13:45]
I will leave with you with this question to ponder, Mr. Speaker: What do you tell somebody who was 3 years old when they were brought here to the United States of America, knows no other country and no other language but the English language, what do you tell that person when you tell them that they have got to leave here? This is the only life that they have ever known. How are they not as American as you and I?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and the underlying bills, many of which have not been discussed because we have been discussing the one that is, frankly, the most effective and have been discussing what the President has done and the funding issues. But the one thing that I want to emphasize is what is not being discussed here, and what is not being discussed is the simple opportunity to restore constitutional checks and balances.
My friends across the aisle have talked about what question would you want to talk about. Well, let's talk about immigration. When they had the opportunity, they punted on that issue, so I wouldn't want to talk about it if I were them either.
They want to talk about how we are going to leave the country in jeopardy. No, we are not. The President can sign this bill, get back to proper constitutional order, and then everything is funded; and there, order is restored.
What I find amazing is the blame on running other things. And even when we bring up this, some of my friends from across the aisle will bring up, well, other Presidents have done it. Well, that reminds me of what my mother used to say: If everybody jumped off the roof, would you?
Just because it was wrong then does not make it right now.
It is time. And what people in America tell us all the time is it is time for Congress to reassert its congressional authority. That is what this is about. Throw the blame anywhere you want to, try to direct us, but you are not deceiving the American people, as the speaker just said. The American people do know the difference when you are trying to misdirect them.
So this package of rules, these bills underneath, they get at the heart of restoring constitutional order, of taking back regulations that need to be rolled back so that our businesses can function, our markets can function, and we can get back to doing exactly what we are supposed to be in here doing.
So as long as we hear the distractions, I know the American people aren't fooled because I am not fooled. I did what I have said I would do--I came here to fight--back at the first of the year: to fight what was being done around Congress and around this executive order. I will continue that fight. That is the promise that we made to the American people. That is the promise the Republicans are bringing forth. Jobs, people, and kitchen table. That is what we are about. It is about what the Founding
Fathers said we would do.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and the underlying bills, many of which have not been discussed because we have been discussing the one that is, frankly, the most effective and have been discussing what the President has done and the funding issues. But the one thing that I want to emphasize is what is not being discussed here, and what is not being discussed is the simple opportunity to restore constitutional checks and balances.
My friends across the aisle have talked about what question would you want to talk about. Well, let's talk about immigration. When they had the opportunity, they punted on that issue, so I wouldn't want to talk about it if I were them either.
They want to talk about how we are going to leave the country in jeopardy. No, we are not. The President can sign this bill, get back to proper constitutional order, and then everything is funded; and there, order is restored.
What I find amazing is the blame on running other things. And even when we bring up this, some of my friends from across the aisle will bring up, well, other Presidents have done it. Well, that reminds me of what my mother used to say: If everybody jumped off the roof, would you?
Just because it was wrong then does not make it right now.
It is time. And what people in America tell us all the time is it is time for Congress to reassert its congressional authority. That is what this is about. Throw the blame anywhere you want to, try to direct us, but you are not deceiving the American people, as the speaker just said. The American people do know the difference when you are trying to misdirect them.
So this package of rules, these bills underneath, they get at the heart of restoring constitutional order, of taking back regulations that need to be rolled back so that our businesses can function, our markets can function, and we can get back to doing exactly what we are supposed to be in here doing.
So as long as we hear the distractions, I know the American people aren't fooled because I am not fooled. I did what I have said I would do--I came here to fight--back at the first of the year: to fight what was being done around Congress and around this executive order. I will continue that fight. That is the promise that we made to the American people. That is the promise the Republicans are bringing forth. Jobs, people, and kitchen table. That is what we are about. It is about what the Founding
Fathers said we would do.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans offer a very clear immigration plan today: Deportation now. Deportation tomorrow. Deportation forever.
They don't just want to roll back what the President has recently done with pro-family action; they would roll back previous protection for our DREAMers, young adults brought here as children, who have so much to offer. Republicans would deny them that opportunity, just as they would deny an opportunity for families that pay their taxes, work hard, and pass a criminal background check--they would deny them an opportunity to stay together.
Republicans want to deport Pedro. Pedro is a young man who came to America at age three. He excelled in school. He graduated near the top of his class at the University of Texas. And he hopes to work for the district attorney's office, securing our community from crime, or in some other public service. This bill does not just deny [Page: H246]
opportunity to Pedro; it denies our entire community the opportunity to benefit from his talents. I say let these DREAMers
help us build a better and stronger America.
Sadly, we have had so many broken promises in this House that the day would come when people of goodwill in both parties could come together and consider broader reform. Yet we are still denied that opportunity. Republican leaders have apparently given up on resolving the broken immigration system. They will stop at nothing to avoid doing anything.
This amended bill would deny the right to learn, the right to work. It would deny hope for so many of these young people who pledge allegiance to America, who have so much to offer. Pandering to angry isolationists is not a sound immigration policy. It is not what this country, where the Statue of Liberty stands so tall, is all about.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans offer a very clear immigration plan today: Deportation now. Deportation tomorrow. Deportation forever.
They don't just want to roll back what the President has recently done with pro-family action; they would roll back previous protection for our DREAMers, young adults brought here as children, who have so much to offer. Republicans would deny them that opportunity, just as they would deny an opportunity for families that pay their taxes, work hard, and pass a criminal background check--they would deny them an opportunity to stay together.
Republicans want to deport Pedro. Pedro is a young man who came to America at age three. He excelled in school. He graduated near the top of his class at the University of Texas. And he hopes to work for the district attorney's office, securing our community from crime, or in some other public service. This bill does not just deny [Page: H246]
opportunity to Pedro; it denies our entire community the opportunity to benefit from his talents. I say let these DREAMers
help us build a better and stronger America.
Sadly, we have had so many broken promises in this House that the day would come when people of goodwill in both parties could come together and consider broader reform. Yet we are still denied that opportunity. Republican leaders have apparently given up on resolving the broken immigration system. They will stop at nothing to avoid doing anything.
This amended bill would deny the right to learn, the right to work. It would deny hope for so many of these young people who pledge allegiance to America, who have so much to offer. Pandering to angry isolationists is not a sound immigration policy. It is not what this country, where the Statue of Liberty stands so tall, is all about.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republicans are playing partisan games with our country's border security and our safety. By tacking on unrelated immigration measures to a basic funding bill for Homeland Security, they are putting us on a path that could shut down our Department of Homeland Security and endanger the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider a clean version of the Homeland Security bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republicans are playing partisan games with our country's border security and our safety. By tacking on unrelated immigration measures to a basic funding bill for Homeland Security, they are putting us on a path that could shut down our Department of Homeland Security and endanger the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider a clean version of the Homeland Security bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republicans are playing partisan games with our country's border security and our safety. By tacking on unrelated immigration measures to a basic funding bill for Homeland Security, they are putting us on a path that could shut down our Department of Homeland Security and endanger the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider a clean version of the Homeland Security bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because the law requires that the House of Representatives pass funding bills. Today we are here because we are going to fund Homeland Security, and that we are. We are going to fund Homeland Security because every single member of this Republican Conference, and I believe every single Member of this House, understands how important Homeland Security funding is to protect this country and our citizens.
But we also need to understand that the President of the United States last year, and perhaps the year before, took actions which we disagreed with, which I believe embarrassed this country, which I believe we were unprepared to fulfill the responsibilities, and that is directly related to issues of executive orders and ideas that he had about illegal immigration.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because we feel passionately about the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. It is the President of the United States who we believe has gone well past not only his constitutional authority, but the authority that I believe is vested in him: well and faithfully executing the laws of the country, which is his oath of office.
So we have gathered together, united in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. We are also going to follow the Constitution and pass it here today and tomorrow with the bill and send it to the United States Senate and let them deal with it.
Thank goodness we have Republican control in the Senate; otherwise, it might not even be heard with the other 360 pieces of legislation that the former head of the Senate decided not to take up in that body to debate or to have a vote on.
So we stand today prepared to fight the President's unwise and unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. It is time for this House to fight, I believe, for what is a constitutional issue, and we are going to politely do this. There was no screaming and yelling on our side. We have great resolve. We have an understanding about what is in the best interest of the United States.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 27 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
Strike section 3 and insert the following (and redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
Sec. 3. 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. 240) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours 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. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. When the Committee of the Whole rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill
do pass, 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 240.
--
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 [Page: H247]
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. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because the law requires that the House of Representatives pass funding bills. Today we are here because we are going to fund Homeland Security, and that we are. We are going to fund Homeland Security because every single member of this Republican Conference, and I believe every single Member of this House, understands how important Homeland Security funding is to protect this country and our citizens.
But we also need to understand that the President of the United States last year, and perhaps the year before, took actions which we disagreed with, which I believe embarrassed this country, which I believe we were unprepared to fulfill the responsibilities, and that is directly related to issues of executive orders and ideas that he had about illegal immigration.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because we feel passionately about the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. It is the President of the United States who we believe has gone well past not only his constitutional authority, but the authority that I believe is vested in him: well and faithfully executing the laws of the country, which is his oath of office.
So we have gathered together, united in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. We are also going to follow the Constitution and pass it here today and tomorrow with the bill and send it to the United States Senate and let them deal with it.
Thank goodness we have Republican control in the Senate; otherwise, it might not even be heard with the other 360 pieces of legislation that the former head of the Senate decided not to take up in that body to debate or to have a vote on.
So we stand today prepared to fight the President's unwise and unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. It is time for this House to fight, I believe, for what is a constitutional issue, and we are going to politely do this. There was no screaming and yelling on our side. We have great resolve. We have an understanding about what is in the best interest of the United States.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 27 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
Strike section 3 and insert the following (and redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
Sec. 3. 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. 240) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours 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. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. When the Committee of the Whole rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill
do pass, 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 240.
--
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 [Page: H247]
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.