Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today with a motion that will move us forward to ensure the security of our Nation by keeping the Department of Homeland Security funded until the end of the fiscal year.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security will expire this week. To allow a shutdown of these critical functions would be an abdication of one of our primary duties as Members of Congress.

It is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the Federal Government, all of the Federal Government, and this should be without the threat of shutdowns or the lurching uncertainty of continuing resolutions.

The House acted in January to fund DHS for the year and has extended short-term funding several times in order to maintain the critical security activities that keep our Nation safe. The Senate has now done all it can do, given their unique procedural constraints.

It is clear that the legislation before us, while not exactly what the House wanted, is the only path forward to avoid a potentially devastating shutdown and to provide stable, continuous funding for the agencies and programs tasked with defending the home turf.

Let us remember that the underlying legislation--and this is important--is a great bill. The security of our homeland is one of our highest priorities, and this bill provides $39.7 billion for that purpose. It will assure that we can defend our Nation against threats of terrorism and that the men and women on our front line remain well-equipped and trained.

We are now nearly halfway into the fiscal year, and it is imperative that we get this bill enacted. At the same time, Congress must continue to fight the President's executive actions on immigration that I do not support and the American people do not support. We must continue this vote, but we must also allow funding for critical security functions to move forward.

These two priorities are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both. For now, the President's executive actions have been stopped in court. This is where we must focus our efforts and continue to battle against this unconstitutional overreach.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time to act to provide responsible, adequate funding for the Department of Homeland Security to protect the people who elected us and to defend this great Nation.

I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the spirited debate we have had, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the comments made by my colleague from Kentucky and the people that have spoken during his time. The problem is I don't see a path to victory with what they are looking at. What they want to do will not result in defunding the President's actions, because there is no funding in this bill for the President's actions. There is no funding in this bill for the President's actions. Everybody knows that, don't we? What it will lead to is a closedown of the Department of Homeland Security. And that is not a victory. That is dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between the Republicans and Democrats and between the administration and Congress as to whether the actions that the President made were constitutional or not.

I have actually voted for something in this body several years ago that I thought was perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional. The court later found out it was unconstitutional and told us it was unconstitutional. That is why you have a court. When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination. It has happened since the Founders who wrote our Constitution disagreed about what they had written--Marbury v. Madison. It was up to the courts to make the determination of what the Constitution said.

As for voting for this hurting our case--it is not our case; it is the Attorney General's case of the States--that is before the courts currently, if this voting to defund Homeland Security that doesn't have any funding for the President's action hurts our case, then I would say that any law that passes Congress can't be declared unconstitutional because we all voted for it. That is not reality. Again, let the courts do their job.

Now, it is true that a majority in this Congress and in the Senate voted to defund the President's actions, but because of the Senate rules, it didn't pass.

We didn't even get to go to conference because of the Senate rules. Some people suggest maybe we ought to change the Senate rules. We ought to insist that the Senate change their rules.

For the last 4, 8 years, I was kind of glad the Senate rules were the way they were. They prevented what I believed to be a lot of bad stuff from coming over here from the Senate.

I don't know that I would go that way because, remember, at some point in time in history--I hope it is not soon--but at some point in time in history, my party is going to be in the minority over there, and it is going to be nice to be able to control some of the agenda.

Let's remember, the underlying bill is a darn good bill, and we need to pass it, and we need to pass it for the security of the American people, and for the employees that work at the Department of Homeland Security, so that those that are considered essential don't have to go to work without pay. That is irresponsible. That is us not doing our job.

I will fight with anyone, and I will stand on their side--as long as they can show me a path to potential victory. Let's get this bill passed. It is a good bill. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source