Further Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, history is something we ought to
try to get right. So we have heard some versions of history here. But
let's talk about exactly why we are here today. We are here today
because, yes, the Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan effort put
together a whole series of bills to fund this government, one of which
is the Homeland Security bill. It is a good bill. I agree with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is a good bill. I am
proud to have had a part in that.
But there is a piece of history that is missing in this discussion.
Right after the last election, the President--well, we don't want to
talk about the President--the administration stepped forward and said,
well, the legislature hasn't changed the immigration laws, so the
administration is going to change the immigration laws.
Without any action of the legislature, they are going to ignore laws
that are on the books and in some cases have been on the books for
generations, and they are going to do what they want to do for
immigration reform, which includes the proposal that somewhere between
4 and 6 million people who are in this country illegally would be
allowed to be in this country, with other benefits added to those. So
that intervening cause is why all of a sudden the people of the United
States said: Wait a minute, this is not following the Constitution.
This is not the way our government is supposed to run.
Madam Speaker, we fought a war with a guy named King George to not
have a king in this country who would just do it without legislative
process. We fought a war to make sure that we follow the legislative
process. The people who are in charge of enforcing the law, the
executive branch, should be enforcing the law.
Madam Speaker, there became quite a tidal wave of people who were
very concerned about the action. So in an effort to try to engage that
fight, we came up with what has been referenced here as the CR/Omnibus,
and we withheld the Homeland Security bill as the instrument to go
fight forward on.
Now, once again, I say it is a great bill. But the decision was made,
and here we are. Now, we passed this bill with amendments that take on
the actions of the executive and sent it to the Senate 3 weeks ago.
Someone said once that is the greatest deliberative body on Earth.
Well, it may be, but this spring here, this early spring, they haven't
deliberated. In fact, they haven't taken action at all, because each
time the Republican leadership in the Senate said, let's go have a
discussion, let's go on the floor and have a debate, and we will accept
amendments, let's go have a debate, the Democrat minority said, no, we
won't have a debate. Four times they said no; under their rule, we
won't have a debate.
Madam Speaker, the Republicans didn't do what the Democrats did when
they ran the Senate and just waive the rules that Thomas Jefferson
wrote a couple hundred years ago. No, they followed the rules. So there
was no discussion in the greatest deliberative body on Earth of this
particular problem.
Now, are we funded now in our Department? Yes, we are. We have heard
cries from the other side, you are leaving this country in jeopardy
because you are not--if we close the Department--which I do not want to
do--if we close down the Department, you put us at risk from
terrorists.
Well, here we are. We are saying, you are right. Let's don't close
down the Department. Three weeks ago we sent it to them. We are getting
in a few minutes the results of their work product over there. Quite
honestly, we have a dispute with them.
What is the process? Now, I know there are many in this body who have
never even seen a conference committee because since 2006, this has not
been something we have done very regularly in this body. But, quite
honestly, the way we do this, to resolve differences, is go to a
conference committee.
So what we are saying here, Madam Speaker, is help us keep the
government open for 3 weeks--kind of the same 3 weeks they had to hang
around and never go to work in the Senate--let us have 3 weeks and go
to conference like we are supposed to and see if we cannot work out the
differences we have between the two bodies. Now, how unreasonable is
this?
By the way, Madam Speaker, if you are worried about those terrorists
attacks which are looming over the horizon, which very, very may well
be, then you had better vote to continue this government today or otherwise a ``no'' vote on this particular resolution keeping the government open will shut the government, and when the government closes, all those terrible things are going to happen. So you don't want to have the responsibility of voting ``no'' to keep the government open and let the government close and then face the fact that the terrorists may be looming in the wings.
Let's pass the CR. Do it like we are supposed to, go to conference,
work it out in the 3 weeks that the Senate had, and see if we can't
resolve this issue--an issue that was started by the executive branch
in their November surprise.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source