Further Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I don't come to the well and speak on rules. I
think the gentlewoman from New York will almost not recognize me on the
House floor in this capacity. But I think this is an extremely
important rule, and I think the last two minority Members made the
point for me very well, and I would just like to maybe comment on it
for just a moment.

Mr. Polis is a dear friend of mine that I have cosponsored and I am
cosponsoring legislation with. He and I agree on a great deal. He
talked about the question of whether this was American to do what we
are doing. Nothing could be more quintessentially American than to say
when we have a real difference of opinion between two bodies--in this
case the House and the Senate--that we want to provide an opportunity
to reconcile those differences and to go to conference, to spend a week
or two, as necessary, publicly, as the rules require, debating the
differences between our visions.

Democrats in the Senate have been able to keep us from having any
kind of a comment on the President's acts, which have been ruled by a
Federal judge as unlawful and unconstitutional.

Now, I just got basically told ``shame on you'' by my other
colleague, and I really can't understand that. He knows that there is a
real difference of opinion in this body between what the President can
do and what he is doing. He said, and I am paraphrasing: Please don't
shut down the government because you disagree. Just disagree.

Mr. Speaker, the President has made it very clear time and time again
that the wrong place to argue with him is on a debt limit, the wrong
place to argue is on a budget, and now the wrong place to argue is on
our one constitutional absolute, which is the power of the purse.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more important place to reconcile these
differences than when we are debating the power of the purse. The
President has said he has the authority. Fine. A Federal judge will
decide that. But the House can decide whether or not to fund him. It is
our obligation to decide whether or not his spending of the American
people's hard-earned money is, in fact, consistent with the best
interests of the American people.

Now, I want immigration reform. I want every aspect of it. I have
hardworking farm families in my district who cannot live without an
effective solution for an out-of-control farm labor base. Almost every
farm laborer in California either is or was unlawfully in this country
at one time. We have held up other immigration waiting to try to get an
agreement with the Senate.

If we do not begin today by creating space in our democracy for the
healthy debate between the two bodies over the next 3 weeks, then we
have shirked our duty. If we simply shut down and give up, we have
shirked our duty. If we simply capitulate and fund whatever the
President wants--just a blank check--we might as well just say, Spend
such funds as you may need to, and go home. That is not what the
American people want us to do. They want us to reasonably provide the
advice and consent when it comes to appropriation.

This bill was intended to do it. The 3-week extension gives the
President a full 3 weeks to wage, if you will, his view with the
American people, the Senate to do so, but I desperately want the
healthy public debate between Members of the House, Members of the
Senate, Democrats and Republicans, on what we will do going forward. I
would hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee would vote with me, if
not on the rule, then certainly on the passage of 3 weeks to give
democracy a chance,3 weeks for our Republic to do what is enshrined in the Constitution, what has been the policy of these two bodies for over 230 years. Provide the 3 weeks, go to conference, publicly debate the differences
between the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the President
and, quite frankly, a Federal judge, in front of the American people.

I have been here 14 years; we have been working on immigration
problems. The President has been President for 6 years; we have been
working on immigration problems. Three weeks of healthy debate, nothing
could be more appropriate in our great Republic.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, anyone who says that we are going to let down
the guard on national defense because we are having a healthy debate
and we have continued full funding of the Department of Homeland
Security simply is not being genuine in the discourse. The fact is, 3
weeks of full funding is exactly the right thing to do. Our enemies
will know that we take homeland security seriously, but we also take
immigration seriously.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Burgess from Texas, said one thing
that should be repeated in this body every single time we use the word
``immigration'': America allows more people to come here through the
front door not more than just any country in the world but more than
all the countries of the world combined. Over 1.2 million people will
immigrate to this country legally this year. We are generous beyond any
other country in the world. So no one can say we are not pro-immigrant.
We are. But there are 11 million people in this country who are
unaccounted for, and getting it right and spending those dollars wisely
is Mr. Burgess' requirement, and it is my requirement. To all my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote ``yes,'' make this happen,
and we will have a healthy debate in our Republic.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source