days from now. the secretary ends his letter by saying that the american people are counting on us. again madam speaker, the american people are indeed counting on us and so far, the house republican leadership has let them down. this stopgap funding measure does not fully address our national security needs. it simply represents the complete and utter abdication of our responsibility as members of congress to protect the american people and our country. the senate has acted in the best interests of our nation and sends this house a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on funding for the department of homeland security. our enemies aren't waiting around while the republican leadership continues to delay a

full-year funding for the department of homeland security or for congress go to conference in the hopes that sometime in the future we may have an agreement. let the house, like the senate, do the right thing and send this bill to the president. i urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct conferees, to bring back a clean, full-year, bipartisan funding bill for this nation's homeland security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees. as the house and senate came together to find a path forward

on funding the department of homeland security, we must reck re-con sile our profound differences over how to hand they will president's executive actions. but a minority -- but the minority should keep in mind as we go to conference, majority of the american citizens oppose the president's actions on immigration and they've asked us to fight those actions. the house has acted decisively to fulfill the mandate. six weeks ago, the house approved a bill funding department of homeland security until the end of the fiscal year. the house also, by a large -- by large margins aprove proved six amendments -- approved six amendments to stop the president's far-reaching actions. the president himself has said no fewer than 22 time he is does not have the authority to change our immigration laws unilaterally. now the courts have weighed in,

saying no law has given the president the power to make these sweeping changes to our immigration policies. the evidence is overwhelming on this side of the debate. now we can vote again, but the jut come will be the same. the american people have spoken. we must stand up against the administration's overreach on immigration. while it's clear the president will not fulfill or act within the bounds of the law, we in congress are here to defend our constitution, to provide those checks and balances that our founding fathers put into place to ensure the president does not act like a king. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this motion to instruct and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: how much time

is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 25 minutes remaining. ms. roybal-allard: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member on the full appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. >> madam speaker, i rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees to agree to a clean funding bill for the department of homeland security. democrats and republicans reached a deal on homeland security funding levels and related policy in december. republican leadership made the political calculation to hold this funding hostage to ideological policy riders reversing the president's executive actions on immigration. mrs. lowey: having failed to extort these policy concession, the senate has done the right

thing and moved forward to pass a clean homeland security funding bill that does not include poison pill immigration riders. yet house leadership continues to dither, keeping alive the threat of shutdown affecting the agencies that protect our ports borders aviation systems, communities, and more. this motion to instruct would make clear the will of the house is for a clean full-year homeland security funding bill. this motion rejects spending another three weeks failing to give our critical agencies the budget certainty they need to hire employees, invest in new equipment and technology, provide preparedness grants on which our communities rely. a $40 billion cabinet level department must be able to plan more than three weeks in advance and must not be forced to rely

on outdated funding levels or policies for one day longer than they already have. mr. speaker, madam speaker, enough is enough. we know that the senate cannot and will not pass a bill that irresponsibly ties homeland security funding to immigration policy. we know that the president would never sign such a bill into law. this charade is wreaking havoc on some of the most important agencies in our federal government. it's time, my colleagues it's time, my friends, move on. and the way to do that is through a clean full-year, 2015, bipartisan homeland security bill that we negotiated, democrats and republicans, house and senate let's do it.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to my friend from florida representative jolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. chairman, madam speaker. i'm a new member of the appropriations committee. i fully understand and respect the significant place that this committee sits in. republicans, democrats, to keep the government funded. i know that. i think the first responsibility of congress is to keep the government open. but i take great reservation to my colleague's suggestion that somehow this is an abdication of our constitutional responsibility. nothing could be further from the truth. i want to make something clear to the american people today. all week, i have seen signs on the house floor saying that republicans are shutting down the department of homeland security. i've seen press conferences

saying republicans are shutting down the department of homeland security. scaring the american people about something that has not happened. and here's what we have not heard. where are the solutions and where is the compromise? because i will tell the american people this today. my colleague -- what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said is it's all or nothing. i understand the interest in a clean d.h.s. bill. i'm sympathetic to that. but to take that position when we know that there are members of this body who take grave reservations in the constitutional overreach of the president, that's an abdication of the constitutional responsibility of this body. all or nothing is not legislating. signs are not legislating. press conferences are not legislating. legislating is reaching a compromise between two sides of the aisle with very different views of this. and i will tell you, this process has not gone how i would have wished it to go.

but i know this. the nation is better and the congress is better when we have regular order and when we legislate the way the constitution has ordained. we cannot abdicate our constitutional authority to recognize that we have a bicameral bipartisan congress with a disagreement. and what we owe the united states constitution is the opportunity for us to find a compromise and so i'll ask you this. what if daca was removed from the d.h.s. bill the daca provisions. does that get us votes? what if we delayed the president's executive order until final disposition by the courts? does that get us votes? what gets us the votes we need as a body, 300 members, not 218, 300 member, where is the compromise. all or nothing is not legislating. i will tell you, it was a

remarkable comment by the majority leader on the other side of this building this morning to suggest that going to conference is a waste of time. that is an abdication of the constitutional responsibility of this body. all i am asking for is that we recognize the difference and we ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where is the compromise? because all or nothing is not legislating. signs are not legislating. scare tactics are not legislating. and press conferences are not legislating. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i would like to point out that we have a solution and it is the bipartisan, bicameral compromise bill that was sent by the senate for us to vote on and that's what we're asking for. i now madam speaker, yield three minutes to the gentlewoman

from california, ms. lofgren, ranking minority member of the homeland security subcommittee on immigration and border security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: a lot of discussion has been that somehow the president has acted unconstitutionally or unlawfully. nothing could be further from the truth. there's ample legal authority for what the president has done, prosecutorial discretion is a long established practice in every area of the law, both civil and criminal, and when a law enforcement agency has only enough resources to go after a fraction of the individuals who it suspects of violating the relevant law, it has to make choices. there's no alternative. and in the case of immigration, not only do we recognize this, congress has specifically directed the -- the head of the department to set priorities, enforcement priorities for removal. . now in addition to that, the

supreme court has recognized in many cases the need and really the authority of the executive to make these decisions. in the arizona case, it said federal officials as an initial matter must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. our own congressional research service has found that no court appears to have invalidated a policy of nonenforcement founded upon prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that policy violated the take clause -- take care clause. deferred action is nothing more than a tentative ref kabul signal to a -- revcobal signal to a noncitizen. not only is it attentive but the statute at u.s.c. 1182-ab-iii offers the period

of stay in such cases. congress has expressly recognized deferred action by name repeatedly. and in addition to the statute, the formal regulations of the justice department and homeland security have also expressly recognized deferred action. in the reno vs. american arab anti-discrimination case, justice scalia said this, at each stage the executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor -- referring to the removal process -- and at the same time arizona i.n.s. has been involved in deferred action of exercising that discretion for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience. the arguments that somehow this is unlawful are so far wrong because nothing in the recent executive actions conflicts with either the letter or the spirit of the immigration and

nationality act or any other federal statute. i would note that the court in texas did not find the president's action unconstitutional. it suggested -- and i think wrongly -- that administrative procedures act applies to these actions. there's nothing in the history of the administrative procedures act that suggests that is the case. so i would just suggest that republicans fund homeland security, let the process work through the courts and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown, the ranking member on the veterans' affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. brown: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. let me just be clear. i am from florida. the number one responsibility

of any member of congress is to defend the american people, and we don't do that by punting our responsibility to fund homeland security, period. you all need to stop playing games with the safety of the american people. >> if the gentleman will yield? ms. brown: the one that got on this floor and said it's a political football. if it is a political football you are the one that's playing. my time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: members should remember to convey their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is

recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from texas. not just for the time but the work he's doing to try to fund the responsibilities of government. i've been in this institution for four years madam speaker, and i've grown to love this institution. i've grown to love the people who serve in this institution, and it is disappointing to me to see some of the tempers that boil over here and have that on display for the american people, but the truth is those tempers boil over, madam speaker, because folks here care. they don't care a little they care a lot. and what i've been grappling as we've been going through this process, how do we bring our passion to the president's desk in a way that can make a difference for our people back home? i look at the chairman of the appropriations committee here and the ranking member.

for pete's sake, they passed a bill out of committee on this issue last summer. to watch this debate, you would think -- you would think that congress is so derelict that we put everything off until the 11th hour. not true, madam speaker. last summer the house passed this out of committee. now, of course the process broke down last summer. we passed seven bills across this floor. the senate had yet to pass one. i'm tired of figuring out who to blame here. i'm in the business of trying to figure out how to solve problems and the senate is making some progress. golly, they've had considered so many amendments than they considered all of last year. they're making progress. we're starting to get this train back on track. and what is happening here today -- though it seems so controversial -- is we've got a motion to instruct, madam speaker conferees. now, i disagree with the motion

to instruct. the motion says let's just do what the senate said we should do. i don't actually think that fulfills my constitutional obligation, but the fact that we're even in a place today to instruct conferees, that takes us back. i argue if we pull outside we can find -- poll outside, we can find everybody down constitutional they saw the skit on "saturday night law" with a bill tumble on how a bill becomes law. if we pass this we will be able to demonstrate how a bill becomes a law when the house has a position and the senate has a position and they come together to work out those differences before it goes to the president's desk. madam speaker, i've been here four years. i can count on one hand how many times i have seen that

process work. these issues are too important to say the other body took care of it, i'll just defer to them. the members of this body are too talented, they are too committed, they love this country too much for the 435 of us to come together and say we have nothing to add, let's just do what the senate said, i can't count the number of colleagues i have, madam speaker, on the democratic side of the aisle who love this country, care about this country on one hand. i can't count them on two hands. i can't count them on all of my fingers and toes because it's and the same is true on my side of the aisle. i would just ask my friends my committed patriot friends, it's three weeks to have an opportunity to have our collectsive voice heard. the american people deserve it.

the nation needs it and our leaders on the appropriations committee, republican and democrat alike, have given us an opportunity to do it. let's take yes for an answer. let's reject this motion to instruct but let's do go to conference, let's pass this continuing resolution and let's restore some pride in a process that has served this country so well for so long. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mr. carter: he yielded back yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yielded back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i just want to point out to the gentleman that ranking members and chairs of the appropriations subcommittee of the house and

the senate worked together on the bill that we are trying to bring for a vote, that this was a negotiated bill by both houses. so this is not something that we are just trying to bring from the senate without the house having any input. this was the negotiated compromised bill of both houses. and now i'll yield, madam speaker, two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i'd like to thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker just for people who are watching this debate, i'd like to take us back to december of 2014 when we passed this thing called a cronibus. all these spending bills together that we were -- that we spent money for the american people over the course of a year to fund our government

except for the department of homeland security bill, which would be funded right through tonight, midnight tonight. why did we single this one bill out for this short term? for one reason and one reason only the republican majority wanted to pick a fight with the president over the president's execution of his lawful authority to try to solve problems in the area of immigration. now, a federal district court judge who has a long history of republican partisanship decided that he would issue an order stopping the execution of this executive order action. so now why don't we let the district court handle it, pass a year-long bill and look after the public safety of the american people? this thing is where it should be. it is with the courts. people on the republican side of the aisle, madam speaker,

who say that this is unconstitutional, which it's not, now have the ball in the court they say they wanted in which is in the court's hands. so let us get about the business of protecting the homeland. madam speaker, i am from minneapolis, minnesota, and i am proud of that, but i got a terrorist group in somalia talking about what they want to do to my mom. that's a fact of my -- of my district right now, and i feel very bitter and resentful that we are holding up homeland security money. so i asked this body not to kick the ball for three weeks but get the business now so we can plan and protect our homeland. this is serious business, not a political football to acquire power. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: like to yield as much time as he may consume

to mr. aderholt from the great state of alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you madam speaker. i thank the chairman for letting me speak on this motion. as a past chairman of this subcommittee on homeland security, i know firsthand how important it is for the funding for homeland security to go forward. the bottom line is the house has done its job. back in december, the house voted to fund the federal government for the fiscal year. we kept the funding for the department of homeland security on a continuing resolution so it would not lapse. by doing so we were making a promise to the american people, a promise that once we had a -- the republicans had full control of the senate, we would work together as a congress to ensure the president's unconstitutional and dangerous actions would not go unchecked. every president takes an oath under the constitution that laws of this land will be

upheld. however, the concern that we have now is the president's directing federal employees to take unlawful actions. the house position on this bill provides proper funding. it defends the president's unlawful actions. the house has voted, the senate has voted and as my colleague from florida said earlier, once that happens when you don't agree you go to conference and that's how you legislate. i would urge my fellow house members to support the actions laid out by the speaker so we can move forward with this, so we can go to conference and act like true legislators and how the founding fathers in their wisdom had meant for this to move forward and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle a member of the foreign affairs committee and the oversight and

government reform committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. boyle: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. . today -- and i realize i haven't been serving in this body very long, only eight weeks, but today is the kind of day that drives most people nuts about congress. even though we all agree, senate republicans, senate democrats, in a more than two to one vote, house democrats and house republican, we can all agree we need to fund the department of homeland security. yet here we are, a few hours before the deadline once again playing around with the security of the united states. madam speaker we have a way to end this. we have the senate bill in front of us. let us adopt the bipartisan bill, get the homeland security department funded, and then we

can move on and have this legitimate debate about immigration. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth member of the budget committee and the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentlewoman if for yielding. madam speaker, i'd like to repeat some things i've heard over the last couple of weeks about this particular situation. quote, i fully believe we should not be playing politics with a national security agency like the department of homeland security, particularly given the high threat we are in right now. quote, the impasse on d.h.s. funding must end. responsible members of both parties must find some way to fund d.h.s. without delay. quote, the worst thing we can do

is let our enemies think we are backing off. this is no way to run a government. madam speaker, those aren't my words. those are words from republican members of this body discussing the reckless game their party is playing with the funding of the department of homeland security. every rationale i've heard for not voting for a clean funding bill right now involves some kind of ideological orientation. we've got a lot of constitutional lawyers apparently in this body because people are arguing whether it's constitutional or not. meanwhile, we face threats day in and day out, both here and abroad, they are not being able to cope with. there's a great legendary conservative thinker and writer, william f. buckley jr. who once said idealism is fine but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive. right now the cost to our defense, the security of our nation, are becoming prohibitive.

let's stop this argument, let's do what we both agree on, and fund our nation's security apparatus. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time, i yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. byrne: i rise to oppose this motion and would like to address the house with the reasons why. i have been here far year and two months and i believe in my time here this is the first time we have actually been in a position to get a bill back from the senate on which they disagree with us and that we have even the opportunity to go to conference. now, when i took high school civics, it was my understanding that that's the way the process works. that a bill starts in one house, goes to another house, the other house disagrees, it comes back to the other house if the other house wants to discuss it, we go to conference and discuss it

this house took an important position back in january. to fund the department of homeland security and we added some riders. now, we need to go to conference so that our position, the house's position can be fully discussed by the conferees for both houses. and during that discussion, we don't know what the outcome will be, but that discussion could lead to something that could get us a solution. and that's what the people of america want us to try to do, is get to a solution. so far, what we tried hasn't worked. now i wish the senate has acted earlier. i wish we could have got then back in time enough for us not to have to go through some of the gyrations we are doing now but we are where we are. and to go to conference and to give whoever is appointed as house conferees the opportunity to work with whoever is appointed from the senate as their conferees to try to arrive at something like a consensus that we can all vote for even if

we don't feel 100% good about it seems to be what i thought we learned in high school civics class is the way the process is supposed to work. so i hope that we will go forward. i hope this motion is defeated for that purpose. so that we can do things in regular order which perhaps this congress has forgotten to do since it's been so many years since we've done it. now that the senate has acted and many of us including me, have said we wanted the senate to act, let's take their action go to a conference committee with them, and work on trying to get this thing worked out. some people say that this suspect going to work, nothing is going to come of it. i'll tell you this. if we don't try it it absolutely is not going to work. but if we give it a chance, then we can get something out of it that's a win not for us in this house or the senate, but a win for the people of the united states of america, the people

we're here to represent. so i hope that the people in both houses and both parties can come together at least long enough for us to talk with one another not at one another, not from an ideology, not from a partisan standpoint, but from the standpoint of what's best for the people of the united states and for what's appropriate under the constitution of the united states. because we're also here as our oath requires, to uphold the constitution of our country. i believe our conferees should have an opportunity to go in there and do the right thing to protect the people of america through the funding of the department of homeland security and to do the right thing to defend the constitution of our country. by defeating this motion and going forward with the conference, we give the process a chance to work. and to work well in both of those regards.

so i respect the people on the other side who think we should just give in. but i don't think we should just give in. because i don't think the american people want us to just give in. i think the american people want us to do our work. to make sure we protect our country by appropriately funding the department of homeland security. but that we also defend our -- protect our country by defending the constitution of the united states. i believe the actions taken by the president are unconstitutional. a judge has stayed those actions because he's got some legal issues with them. i don't know what's going to happen in that court proceeding i'm not going to try to predict that here on the floor of the house because a lot of times when you try to predict a court proceeding you find out you're wrong. in the meantime we have an obligation to do our job. i think going forward with this conference committee is doing our job in the most important

consensus. i appreciate the opportunity to stand here today and address this house and to urge my colleagues to defeat this motion so that we can do something we haven't done in a number of years, and that is to fulfill the obligations given to us by our fore bears, do our job, get this thing done, get it done right and make sure we've done right by the people of the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: how much time is remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: both sides have 14 minutes remaining. ms. roybal-allard: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee ranking member of the crime terrorism, and homeland security subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady for her excellent work on the homeland security appropriations committee and the

gentleman, mr. carter. to the statements that have been made on the floor, might i just chronicle a more correct if i might say, articulation of really what happened. first, it is an applause and appreciation for the work done by the gentlelady from california and the gentleman from texas, along with the ranking and chairman of the appropriations committee because they had 12 appropriations bills ready to go forward. what my good friends have missed on the other side of the aisle is they debunked the full funding of the department of homeland security because of their ire against the president's authorized constitutional executive action. that's why we're here today for no other reason. rather than allowing the debate on the clean fund thoring only the bus bill the 12 that have come from the house they took out the department of homeland security and left it to the side. they took it out in the light of young women, as i indicated,

three denver girls played hooky from school and tried to join isis. they took it out in the light of the f.b.i. director saying there's an isis cell in every state. they took it out in the light of the tragedies that happened in paris, in denmark, and have happened around the world, in australia, on boko haram. they took it out. they took out that full funding of the department of homeland security and skewed it by adding their contempt for the executive action. but then lo and behold what happened is a judge didn't rule it unconstitutional in texas. that was not the order of the court. it was that there were questions that should be decided and it was actually a stay. and that it should have gone to an administrative procedure, the a.p.a. it did not rule it unconstitutional but it was an action that caused at least a moment, a stay in the actions of the president. what does that say, madam speaker? it says that today, we can come and give a full funding for the

department of homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. roybal-allard: i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: thank you. that order answers their concern about the executive action. in the meantime, we have every opportunity tonight, today, to vote on a clean, full funding of the department of homeland security until september because that is what the senate did. they did their work. but now we are playing games, in spite of the letter from the secretary of homeland security, and we're telling the customs and border protection, we're telling the t.s.o.'s, the f.a.a., i.c.e. officers, all of them wurk put a stop sign and said we no longer want to secure america. i ask for support of this motion to instruct and ask for full funding for the department of homeland security. let's do our job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the jerusalem's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is --

the gentlewoman's time has expire. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittinger: thank you mr. chairman. madam speaker -- mr. wittinger: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, we are here today and i'm in amazement because we're in discussion about the constitution of the united states. this is an issue of the balance of powers. this is an issue of our liberties. this is -- as important as the homeland security bill is, we recognize today that the congress has made its statement, the president of the united states has made a statement 22 times, that he did not have the right to declare amnesty. the courts have made their statement. and yet today, we're in a dialogue, i hope the american people are watching today and seeing the miscommunication of

truth. the truth is, we are committed to the constitution. we are going to stand by the constitution. we're not going to allow the edict of one person to commit this country to a direction unchallenged. we're here, committed to that principle. we believe that the rights of the american people are founded in this constitution, and we will submit ourselves to that, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentleman from texas. is recognized. does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. carter: i continue to reserve.

madam speaker, i can yield to someone to speak. did she reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has reserved. mr. carter: at this time i'd like to yield to austin scott of georgia two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you -- thank you for yielding thank you, madam speaker. as i listen to this debate and watched as some of the people talked about what our duty was and was not as members of congress, i thought i might come down and read the oath that we as members of congress take. and it is simple. i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, and that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which i am about to

enter, so help me god. ladies and gentlemen this is not about immigration. this is about whether the president has the ability to unilaterally run this country by creating fees and spending those fees as he sees fit and i would submit to you that he doesn't. and if the president can do this, if the president can do this, is allowed to get away with this then when we get a pro-life president then that pro-life president can create a fee on abortion providers and use it to fund adoption it. now, it seems to me that the democratic party, who prefers free cell phones to taking care of the men and women that protect our country in uniform like the rules when they're working for them but don't want to abide by the rules all the time.

now, what the president has done violates -- violates, i believe, the separation of powers, and i would suggest to you that this is a very dangerous precedent and this -- this is well worth fighting for in maintaining our oath as the members of the united states congress to defend the constitution. and with that madam chair, i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. we got our wires crossed here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. keating: thank you madam speaker. let's not lose focus here. we're talking about our country's security and we heard

what would happen if the homeland function is eliminated immediately if we shut down, even with the emergency provisiones that are existing, but i want to address an important issue and that's our security being jeopardized because of these stopgap budgets. now, what does that mean? that means we continue to work within the constraints of last year's priorities. we can't move beyond the funding that's there for those functions that we said were important for our security last year. now, the trouble with that is the terrorist threats are changing every single day. the landscape is changing under our feet, and yet we are in a straitjacket dealing with it. we cannot continue going forward. it's already jeopardized our ability to look at nuclear detection in this country

because of these stopgap budgets. now my state suffered through a terrible tragedy in the boston marathon bombing, but i think all of us agree and we all saw the way they organized, the way they coordinated, all the functions stayed local federal government, the medical functions the emergency service and we all concluded rightfully so, the countless lives were saved because of that. and you know why? because there was training and preparation for what could come. we cannot deal in this country successfully with the threats that are there today and tomorrow confronting us from terrorist attacks with last year's priorities and not being able to shift an meet those priorities. let's stop these stopgap budgeting. it's hurting our country. it's hurting our security. let's do what we're supposed to do under the constitution, make

these decisions to fund it, and with that i yield back to the gentlewoman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, the democratic whip of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you madam speaker. i rise in support of this motion. i also rise to lament the fact that we had an opportunity just a few hours ago or an hour ago to do what the senate rationally did and that is conclude after four opportunities of trying to adopt the house position, the

senate failed to do so. now, i heard my young friend from texas talk about the constitution. i've heard a lot of people say we ought to read the constitution. i agree with that. and the constitution has provided for the resolution of the injury of which you speak so passionately and that's article 3 of the constitution. marbury vs. madison said the supreme court had the authority, whether it was the president or the congress, to say that is not constitutional. but frankly by us passing a law and saying this is constitutional, as has been attempted and done in the past by my republican friends we say by legislative fiat this is

constitutional. now unfortunately today we gave up the opportunity to act responsibly. and my friend, mr. rogers, for whom i have great respect, and mrs. lowey know we'll be back here some 20 days from today with this same debate because the senate has already said, a, they're not going to conference. when i say the senate, the democrats are not going to give 60 votes, as the republicans would not give 60 votes to go to conference on other bills in past years. what we did was we reversed the order of the legislation we're considering. had we done the original order, we would have done this motion to go to conference and the motion to instruct first. and as a result we would have still had the senate bill in the house of representatives to

act responsibly, but there apparently was the fear that we might do that so that bill was sent back to the senate before we considered the c.r. for 21 days. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to instruct. vote yes to at some point in time do what is the responsible and doable alternative. it's not a question of whether you like it or i like it. it is the alternative that we in the congress can do and that's why 68 members of the united states senate republicans and democrats voted to say we've tried for six weeks to do what we all need to do and that's fund the

department of homeland security to keep america safe but we are going to delay that. but at minimum we ought to say to the conferees -- few of us on this floor believe there will be any conference. again, the senate will not vote to go to conference. let us vote at least for this responsible motion made by the gentlelady from california. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlemafr tass recog mrcaermam ear,ay i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 10 1/2 minutes, and the gentlewoman from california h 5 1/2 minutes. mr. carter: and i'd first like to say i certainly hope that mr. hoyer, when he referred to his young friend from texas, was talking about me.

that makes me feel really good and i appreciate that. at this time i'd like -- mr. hoyer: i tell the gentleman that -- mr. carter: well i'm certainly glad to hear that, mr. hoyer. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to my young friend from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for three minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciated so much my friend, mr. scott, bringing that oath. it does mean a lot. in my case, taking that oath to serve in the army for four years taking basically the same oath to be a prosecutor in texas, to be a judge in texas to be a chief justice in texas and now to be in congress, it means something. and protecting the constitution means that if we don't preserve the balance of power then this -- this little experiment in democracy or the republic, madam as benjamin franklin

referred to, will be lost. so i appreciated what my friend from maryland said, and i wrote it down because it was profound and i quote, we gave up the opportunity to act responsibly, and i would humbly submit, madam speaker, that that's been going on for the last six years. now, some of it went on during the bush administration as the president and -- used executive orders and took powers that probably shouldn't have been his. but in talking to people that have been in congress over the last 35 years or so, they've told me whether it was gerald ford or richard nixon, when goldwater went down pennsylvania avenue, gerald ford, jimmy carter ronald reagan george h.w. bush bill clinton or george w. bush,

there was a willingness on both sides of the aisle to get in a car together and go down pennsylvania and say, mr. president, you have usurped far too much power. we can't let you destroy the constitution any further. we are taking a stand, and we have missed that opportunity to act responsibly but fortunately it's not yet too late. this will act responsibly to say -- and if you don't know what irresponsibility is then look at judge hannon's opinion. he spells it out. this president didn't even have the gumption to write an executive order and sign it. he spoke his new amnesty law into being and then jae johnson did a memo. that took the power of congress away from us so the question on acting responsibly is, do we

make that message clear we're not having laws spoken into being in this country and having some bureaucrat unelected, come around with a memo that undoes laws by different congresses all these years signed by different presidents with a memo? come on. it's time to act responsibly. now is the time. please. i know party divisions run deep, but stand with us for the constitution. i yield back. mr. carter: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, democratic leader of the house. the speaker pro temre gentlemafr cifni ms. poss recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for

yielding and commend her and congresswoman lowey for their very important motion to instruct conferees to accept the senate language. i want to talk about what our previous speaker mentioned but i'll go to the most previous speaker. if you feel so strongly -- because i don't know if this is about thinking or feeling -- so strongly about the immigration issue and executive actions taken by the president, i respect that. but why are you jeopardizing the homeland security of the united states of america by attaching your emotions to this bill? that's what this is about. you have an argument about immigration, have an immigration bill come to the floor. let's have that debate. but it is totally irresponsible and you did say that we have given up the opportunity to act responsibly. well, that's exactly what you are doing today. policy differences about

immigration or the rest are the legitimate debate in this great marketplace of ideas that is called the house of representatives. but for you to hold hostage the homeland security of our country, to jeopardize the opportunity to prepare -- to prepare to have what is current and necessary for the realities of the threats that we are facing now instead of three months -- three months from december into march 19 three-month-old carried over from last year. a lot has happened since then. in paris, in the middle east, threats in our own country. get a grip on our responsibility. get a grip, mr. speaker. give us a chance to vote on a bill that passed by -- more than 2/3 in the united states senate with a strong bipartisan support. and as far as your criticisms

of president obama nobody said boo over there when president reagan used justifiablely so, rightfully so his -- justifiably so rightly so on using his executive order on protecting immigrants. george herbert walker bush the same. george w. bush. the invigoration of our country but nonetheless he led on that subject. you've made a mess, you have made a mess. we have so many bills, counterbills, c.r.'s, all the rest of it coming back forward and all the rest. and every time i ask all of you what's happening, everybody says, i don't know. well, it's only six, what, eight hours until the government will shut down.

that can't possibly happen. and i want to address that point. someone has said to me, well, the president said he won't let government shut down, that he would sign this three-week thing, if that's a bad choice that we have given the president, to shut government down or extend for three weeks when that three-week extension is as undermining to our national security as the shutdown in government. that's just not right. it's not responsible on our part, so i say to our colleagues, if they want to go down that path of poor choices, let the republicans do that. they have multi agendas here, anti-obama agendas here about immigration and the rest let them go down that path. let them put their 21 votes on the board without associating ourselves with it. and just because the president's person says, of the two bad choices he would choose, if it came to his desk, the three weeks don't let that

deter you from voting no on that and yes on what congresswoman roybal-allard is putting forth and congresswoman lowey as well. yes we do take that oath, the gentleman said, whether you're a judge, whether you're in the military, whether you're in congress, the president of the united states. to protect and support the constitution of the united states. we're not protecting anything with what you are doing here. we're not protecting anything. we're dragging it out. we're sending a message that for some historic reason we are now taking it out on barack obama because we're angry about what the republican gentleman said the one on the republican side, that reagan bush, clinton, bush have done. bring it up under another

circumstance. keep it off, the protection of our country. your chairman, mr. rogers, working with our ranking member, congresswoman lowey, were able to put together 12 bills which were a compromise a compromise that everyone was prepared to support. until you decided you were going it use immigration to hold hostage the national homeland security of our country. and so kick the can to here. now you've kicked the can to here, now you're going to kick the can to march 19. what do you think is going to happen on march 19? we've already had two recesses today, in this very day of congressional deliberation. what do you think you're going to accomplish if you're not willing to grow up, bite the bullet, you've made your point. your colleagues republican senators, do not agree to drag

this out. they're giving you a face-saving path. the judge in texas gave you a face-saving path. the urgency is very, very clear. well, clear to everyone except you happen to exist in this chamber. when your negative attitudes to president obama have so overwhelmed you that you are willing to jeopardize the national -- the homeland security of our country, the homeland security, so whether it's firefighters or safer acts or fema or anything that comes in contact, where the federal government comes in contact with people, you are standing in the way and using immigration as an excuse. for some of you it may be a reason. maybe it is for some of you. but for some of you it is an excuse and for all of you it is

a shame. it is a shame. so follow the lead of your -- one of the gentleman said, if we accept the senate language, we're not living up to our responsibility to have a bill in the house. and then you expect them to accept your language. doesn't it hold true both ways? if you don't want to accept their language, why do you expect them to accept your three-week language? do you not understand the legislative process? this constitution, which we value, has -- the legislative branch, the first article of government, the legislature, preeminent. the president can't sign what we don't send him in terms of making the law. he can take executive action. but the law is stronger. let us honor our responsibilities. and stop stop standing in the way of protecting the american people.

it's about the security of the american people versus the philosophy that you have going over there, which is perfectly to be respected. in another piece of legislation. let's have that debate separate from protecting -- it's about time it's about time for us to come together to get the job done. the senate did it we can. please support congresswoman roybal-allard, congresswoman lowey's motion to instruct the conferees to accept the senate bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds the members to please direct your comments to the chair and not to other members. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: madam speaker, about how much time do we got left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 7 1/2

minutes. mr. carter: oh that's good. you got other witnesses? the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman from california prepared to close? ms. roybal-allard: i'm prepared to close. mr. carter: i believe she has the right to close but i would like to say a little bit before we get there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i'll yield to myself about as much time as i may consume. i've had a lot of school teachers shake their finger at me and tell me things, most of the times i deserved it. i've been looked right at and been told i've been wrong before, some of those times i deserved. it but i want to make something really clear -- deserved it. but i want to make something clear. this is not a debate on immigration. this is not a debate on whether or not we are going to fund the department. we are funding the department

for the next three weeks. using the same manner that we funded this department for whole years at a time, when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in charge of this house. the c.r. was one of the most popular vehicles that they used in funding our country during the period of time they ran this place. so, we're not using anything that we don't all use. it funds the department. it keeps the border patrol paid. but it also allows us to do something that by the way, the gentleman is absolutely right, in what we would call recent history, going to conference is so rare, my mother used to say rare is hen's teeth. when they ran this place. so we are at least doing something that was designed to

be done and we're going to conference. when you go to conference and you have two sides of the story, you're supposed to go in there and discuss the two sides of the story. what they are asking to instruct here is to just take what the senate sent us. well, you know, to some extent i guess we should reward the senate. this is about the first thing they've sent us in recent history. where we've actually had a bipartisan vote. in fact, last year we just didn't have any votes at all. in fact, you wonledsered if they even knew -- wondered if they even knew how. so here we are. we're going to conference and doing it the way it's supposed to be done. and all parties will be able to participate and maybe we will resolve our differences and maybe we won't. but the american people also ask us to try to work in a bipartisan manner. and here's our opportunity.

the homeland security department will be funded. they will have a paycheck. we will address this issue in conference and hopefully we'll come to resolution the way we're designed, with bipartisan participation. but this is not about immigration and after having spent four years with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some of the colleagues over here, working on immigration, i am not anti-immigration policy. this is anti-stepping on the feet of the framers of the constitution and walking -- and walking all over that piece of paper and that's why we're here to fight today. we're fighting for the rights of this legislation -- legislative body, as we address the executive. and we're fighting to fund the department. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, let me just say that regardless of what the other side of the aisle will have us believe, the secretary of homeland security and the men and women who every day put their lives on the front line for us and to protect this country tell us that a continuing resolution jeopardizes their ability to fully and effectively protect this country. so i urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing and to vote for this motion to instruct conferees to bring back a clean, full-year, bipartisan funding bill that will enable the department of homeland security to fully and effectively protect our nation

they have approved a seven day extension much funding for the department of homeland security. the ball now in the court of the house and house members. take a look at some tweets coming from capitol hill reporters. one who says the senate passes a one week continuing resolution and goes home. and then house teeing up vote on one week continuing resolution under suspension of the rules according to congressman dent would need democrats to get two thirds of a vote. daniel reports several members of the freedom caucus on the house floor preventing a grill bill from passing by unanimous

consent. the house chamber closed on the floor a group of conservatives. and then alex mo from the democrat side if house leadership tries to go with a seven day c.r. to fund the department of homeland security sounds like democrats will not support that either. they want a fully funded bill. take look at what the minority leader nancy pelosi had to say. she issued this dear democratic colleague letter. thank you for your cooperation on the vote. our unity was a strong statement that the department of homeland security must be fully funded. we are asking you help advance passage of the senate-passed long-term funding of d.h.s. by voting in favor of the seven day pass on suspension in the house tonight. your vote will assure we will vote for full funding next week. things now again in motion in the house and senate and we could see action.

senate expected back monday and could see more action in the hots tonight. we are, of course, going to be taking you to c-pac. our plan is to take you there for remarx and keynote address by indiana governor mike pence he, of course, being a former member of congress. he will be delivering the keynote address to the ronald reagan dinner. former congressman of the events beg held at the national harbor in maryland and the american conservative union is hosting that. now before we go to the cpac conference hear from the indiana governor we will take look at what just happened on the not senate floor and how they moved towards the seven day bill to fund the department of homeland security. let's take look.

are not take noon account ames employees under the shared responsibility requirements contain in the patient protection and affordable carability. >> i have an amendment at the desk and ask its immediate consideration. >> the clerk will report. >> senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell proposes amendment number 268. >> i ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to and the bill be read a third time and senate vote on passage of the bill and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate. >> is there object objection? without objection so ordered. >> i ask that the chair -- >> the question is on passage of the bill as amend

ed. the bill is amended as passed. >> i ask that the chair lay before the senate the house message accompanying h.r. 240. >> the chair lays before the senate the following message. resolved that the house disagreed to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security and so forth and for other purposes and ask a conference with the senate on the disagreeing votes of the two houses thereon. >> i move to insist upon the senate amendment agreeted request by the house for a conference and authorized the presiding officer to appoint conferees. >> the motion is pending and debatable. >> i thank all senators for work together to mass one week funding extension for the department homeland security. the senators should expect the next vote at 5:38 p.m. on monday

which will be a cloture vote on the notion agree to go to a conference on the bill. >> the democratic leader. >> progress has been made all during the day. i appreciate very much the cooperation of everyone involved. i'm confident the house will pass seven day c.r. tonight and there will be within seven days full funding for the department of homeland security. >> madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of 92 submitted earlier today. >> the clerk report. >> senate resolution 92 designating february 28, 2015 as rare disease day. is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. >> i further ask that the resolution be agreed to in the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with ninth vining action or debate.

>> without objection. >> madam president i ask unanimous consent the appointments does appear separately in the record as if made by the bay without objection. >> i ask unanimous consent during the adjournment of the senate the marriage leader and junior senator be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. >> without objection. >> i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business tonight it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. monday, march 2 follow in the prayer and pledge the morning hour bedimmed expired and the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day following leader remarks the senate then resume consideration of house message to accompany h.r. 240. >> without objection. >> if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. >> the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday.

>> and the senate there passing a seven day extension so that means folk horse goingmeans follows going to work this weekend or through next week with the department of homeland security their agency will be funded but we do wait for the house to come in. they are expected in at 9:30 and if they vote on the seven day extension the funding will be complete at least for one tweak tweak allow the house and national to work on longer term funding. we will take you to the house as soon as they gavel in expected at 9:30 p.m. even time and while we do that we will join the cpac the conservative political action conference for upcoming speak keynote speech by indiana governor mike pence who is expected shortly. excluded george will following a column he wrote treat the issue of sexual assault on college

campus that's progressive feminists deemed offensive. i might have suggested a replacement. distinguished journalist from the magazine rolling stone. the president pull an honorary did degree from his -- a champion of womens rights original fly somalia where she had suffered severe discrimination and later fled to ether lands under threats of death were speak out too candidly gents repression of muslim women. a public statement retracting the offer of honorary death president of brandries dice was gracious enough to ask her and i "to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues." the symbolism of this was exquisite. just stop by, we won't let you in the front door but you can always enter through the service

door in the rear. tall would seem grounds for pessimism but as conservatives we have learned that it is far better to offer alternatives than to complain. this is such a great country even the universities might be saved. in this vein, the william f. buckley program at yale university recently came up with an ingenious die of holding an annual disinvitation dinner. [laughter] >> the inaugural event will take flays new york on april 15 and will have george will as the keynote speaker. at the end of the day who could not count the honor of an invitation to a disinvitation dinner as more than sufficient compensation for a disinvitation to an invitation dinner. laugh[laughter] now if there is no second dinner next year because no one has been disinvited i would be very

cautious before celebrating. the reason for such an outcome might well be that no one threatening the dominant consensus would even be invited in the first place. this result would mark a glorious victory for the progressive forces in the academy. and here, ladies and gentlemen we arrive at greatest threat that is posed by what is commonly known as political correctness. the ultimate objective of the ideology of political correctness is not to force cancellation of conservative speakers it is if possible to acquire such dominance and control voter mind of the acad neyacademy that fewer and fewer would ever conceive that other views should be heard or that they even exist. it ames at the repression of thought. in another evening needs to be told that political correctness

is rampant on campuses today but there is something more worrisome. it used to be thought that political correctness move out from the college campuses to exercise a modest influence on society and on the world of politics but today the movement of political correctness and its thoughts is traveling in both direction. the ma nip lakes of language and distortion of words are the tactics and trick of political correctness. pathologies that are now regularly practiced at the highest level of government. at the justice department and at the white house. and from there they are introduced on to the campuses. reminding ourselves about the threats too activities democrat freedom is the purpose of the gene kilpatrick award. it is possible to dwell so much on the threats that we forget to ask what is academic freedom for? what end or goal or purpose is supposed to be served gilbert serve by it?

what does the ancient greek thinkers might have asked? i know university vs. many functions to perform in modern society. transmission of important skills. advancement of research and preparation of young minds for gainful and productive employment. but higher education has another end of civilizing mission. toss afford at least some of our youth the opportunity and a precious opportunity it is, to question the prejudices and conventions of their surroundings. and to begin begin to think for themselves. the ultimate goal of academic freedom is the free human being. the shame of our universities today and it is the shame really of its teachers and administrators is that they either ignore or have forgotten this higher purpose exchanging it for the cheap alternative of using the university as a playground to promote a political ideology. now, some no doubt will say that the goal is striving to produce

free human beings is too tosh aspire to. perhaps it is. but if we can't achieve the highest at least work to then the lowest which is promoting academic enslavement. isn't it time to remind teachers and administrators in the name of our students let my people go. [applause] >> i give you this. >> want to take. >> okay, i will take it. ♪ to introduce our keynote speak they are evening please welcome

matt, an a.c.u. board member, john eddy. >> i wanted to just say couple of things about one of our newest board members john eddy. you can see john's name graces the stage here and around the front. but there is a name dallas grace that stage and that is grace eddytracy andwe are sorely that tracy is not able to be with us tonight. i worked with her in the white house and she a s. a wonderful person and we're proud to have john on the board. he stepped forward to help the conservative cause in some ways. he was a founding chairman of the great group called american majority which leads the

activism training. we are appreciative of the things downhas done to help a.c.u. and he will introduce the keynote speaker. thank you for everything, john. [applause] >> one thing i did notice when matt was speaking today was to keep it short and you will do well so that is what i doll tonight. it is my pleasure to introduce governor mike pence our keynote speaker. as governor he has bald the budget. he has added 100,000 new private sector jobs academy taken unemployment from 8% down to 5.8% in the great state of indiana. i wish we had more of him here in washington, d.c. that is for sure. it is my pressure to pressure to introduce the 50th -- pressure to pleasure to introduce the 50th gust state of governor of the state of indiana. governor mike pence. >> thank you. [applause]

>> thank you john. thank you for the warm introduction. good evening to you all. it is an oner to be with you among such a large group of some americans, men and women who represent the bullwork of the leadership of the conservative movement in the united states of america. i appreciate that kind introduction but the introduction i prefer is a little bit shorter. i'm christian. conservative. and a republican. in that order. [applause] >> you know there is an old saying when you see a box turtle on a fence post you know one thing for sure, he didn't get there on his own. that is certainly true of my life. and other than my faith, my family, my beloved wife who is with me here tonight and my fellow hoosiers i rise tonight first and foremost to pay a debt

of gratitude to all of you. i owe so much to cpac, to this movement, to the name sake of this dinner for the inspiration and opportunities i have been given. it is good to be back at cpac the premier conservative gathering in the united states of america. we gather in 2015 in a challenging time in the life of this nation. an administration paralyzed by ideology and incompetence weakened america's place in the world and stifled our nation's economy. the challenges we face are daunt the choice we must make to meet them are not. 50 years ago, ronald reagan helped to birth our movement with his iconic time for choosing speech. today i believe we have come to another time for choosing.

you either choose view america as a shining city on the hill that inspires the best in all mankind or you don't. you either want to america to stand by her friends and stand up to her enemies or you don't. you are either for limiting the power of the federal government or you are not. and you are either for protecting the unborn and the religious liberty of every american, or you aren't. [applause] i say tonight after winning both houses of congress more statehouses than ever before and electing 31 republican governors in states like, maryland, and massachusetts, and illinois, the american people have made their choice and we are on the verge of a great american comeback for our ideals. [applause]

. >> i believe that because i believe in this movement. my grandfather immigrated to this country from ireland. my dad built a gas station business in a small town in southern indiana. while i actually started in politics as democrat, when i heard the voice of the 40th president of the united states it all changed for me. i lived the dream of becoming a congressman from that small town and now i serve as governor of the great state of indiana. [applause] >> i served 12 years in the congress and i love to say if i only had 12 years left to live i would want to live it as member of congress. because that was the longest 12 years of my life. [laughter] >> the truth is we haven't had a government as good as our people in washington, d.c. for some time. but it is worse today than ever before. at home the errors of this

administration are almost to too numerous to recount. whether the government takeover of healthcare or now the internet the president's unconstitutional executive amnesty or the war on coal this administration policy are sapping our national vitality and threatening our prosperity. most americans understand you cannot improve healthcare by ordering every american to buy health insurance whether they want it or need it or not. you cannot expect the internet to thrive beneath unwarranted and unjustifiable regulation and cannot change the laws laws of this land by executive fiat and cannot build an energy policy by raising the cost of electricity on working americans. it should almost go without saying obama care must be repealed. the f.c.c. rule must we bereversed, the president's executive action rescinded and the e.p.a. war on american energy must end. [applause]

>> but tonight allow me to offer some advice. only advice to the rising generation of leaders. we are gathered here at cpac and maybe looking on from across the country of how we fight confront the challenges we face with renewed focus at home and abroad. first let me submit the 2016 could actually be the first foreign policy national election since 1980. and sadly, this administration has reduced our arm now its smallest size since 1940. the navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916. and our air force has its smallest tactical fighter force in history. now history teaches that you cannot reduce our military strength without provoking our enemies. weakness arouses evil.

as we speak, isis is setting up franchises across the middle east and is on the offensive across the arab world. now the president says the jobs are the answer to violent jihad. well mr. president jihadi john doesn't want a job. he wants to see paradise and i think we should help him get there as quickly as possible. [applause] with the growing threat of homegrown terror it is it is forne remember that our first line of defense is the right of self-defense. now more than ever the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed on the american people. but violent jihad is not our only threat. china is massively expanding its military.

the pentagon admitd that the china satellite and ballistic missile technologies are rapidly approaching parity with our own. as we gather mere here tonight a new iron curtain is descending down the spine of europe as modern russia seeks to redraw the map of europe by force. unlike the former soviet union that respected the strength of the west, putin's russia ignores talk of sanctions, claims land, and supports rebels in ukraine -- we have to leave this now. the shouse returning to work on a seven day extension on the homeland security department. peeker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 27, 2015 at 8:47 p.m. that the senate passed, with an amendment h.r. 33

appointments, senate national security working group for the 114th congress. signed, sincerely, karen l. haase. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 33. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 33, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five lennell slative days in which to revise

and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 33. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: a-- and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: the senate has acted this evening to take up a house bill and amend it to provide a one-week continuing resolution for the department of homeland security. i rise today to urge the house to suspend the rules and concur in this senate amendment to prevent a shutdown of the department of homeland security. in a matter of hours, the current mechanism funding d.h.s. will expire. to allow a shutdown of these critical functions would be an abdi case of one of our -- an abdication of one of our primary duties as members of the house. it is no way to govern the nation and the american people deserve better. it is the 11th hour and we must act to provide stable,

continuous funting for the agencies and -- funding for the agencies and groups tasked with defending our country. may we have order. the speaker pro tempore: members will take their seat of. the house will be in -- take their seats. the house will be in order. mr. rogers: this continuing resolution will last until march 6 allowing us the needed additional time to continue negotiating a path forward on how to fund d.h.s. for the rest of the year. without any further delay, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this critical legislation. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i wonder if the gentleman from kentucky would yield for a question. mr. rogers: i'm happy to yield. >> mr. speaker i would ask the gentleman, what then, happens to the underlying language where

we were protecting the firefighters and others in regard to the bill as it originally stood and as it related to them being covered under ppaca? mr. rogers: my understanding is we'll take that up later. >> i'm sorry i couldn't understand the gentleman. mr. rogers: my understanding is we will take that up later. >> would the gentleman yield for an additional question? it's his understanding that we take that up later but that means the bill we previously passed, the language we previously passed no longer exists based on the senate amendment, am i correct in that assumption. mr. rogers: that's correct. >> i appreciate the gentleman.

mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. roybal-allard: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: this has been a day of confusion both here in the house and for the men and women of the department of homeland security. just hours ago, the house rejected a plan to fund a three-week stopgap funding measure for the department so that we might instead take up the clean full-year funding bill. now we have before us a one-week c.r. that was just sent over to us by the senate. to avoid further confusion and ensure there is no funding lapse for the department, i urge my colleagues to put us on the path to enactment of the senate-passed long-term funding of d.h.s. by voting in favor of the seven-day patch.

i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. roybal-allard: does the gentleman from kentucky have any more speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has no more speakers. ms. roybal-allard: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: who says vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time has been yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 33. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate

amendment is agreed to -- the gentleman from virginia. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. it appears a sufficient number have risen. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]