Hoyer Remarks in Opposition to House Republicans' Partisan Amendments to DHS Funding Bill

WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) spoke on the House Floor this evening in opposition to the partisan amendments House Republicans have attached to must-pass legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Below is a transcript of his remarks and a link to the video.

Click here for the video.

“I thank the Gentlelady for yielding. I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee for the work that he's done on this bill. I want to thank the Chairwoman, the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Price for working on this bill.

“This bill is an appropriation bill. This bill funds the department that is charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe – and Americans safe.

“This bill is an appropriation bill. It is against the Rules of the House of Representatives to put legislative language on an appropriation bill. Now, frankly, having served there 23 years, I know that that Rule is not always followed. And you, therefore, need a waiver from the Rules Committee in order to effect this end. This is not, therefore, regular order.

“We just had another demonstration of the clear and present danger to which every citizen in the free world is subject. We saw it in France, and seventeen people lost their lives. We, of course, lost over 3,000 lives on 9/11. This is an issue on which there ought to be no difference among the 435 of us who have the privilege and honor of serving in this country and in this Congress.

“Mr. Hensarling raised his right hand – ‘to preserve and protect.’ Yes, the Constitution and laws thereof, but also to preserve and protect the general welfare of all of our people.  That is what this bill seeks to do. Mr. Speaker, there are many compelling reasons why the House must pass a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security without delay.  I have spoken to some of them.

“We saw one of those reasons all too clearly last week, as I have said. Our homeland security agencies are hard at work every day to prevent incidents like those from occurring here in the United States. And how extraordinarily successful they have been since 9/11. And again, Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Lowey, I want to congratulate you for coming together and agreeing on a bill, agreeing on funding levels, agreeing on the objects of expenditures to keep Americans and America safe.

“But with only a continuing resolution to fund it, as has happened in December, the Department does not have the full flexibility necessary to respond to every threat to the best of its ability. This leaves us vulnerable at a time that we cannot afford to be vulnerable. That is why it is so unfortunate that House Republicans have chosen to play political games.

“If this is, in fact, unconstitutional, the courts are set forth in Article III to resolve this issue. If you feel so strongly that you are right, that's where relief should be sought. But let us not hold America's national security and the safety of our people hostage to that political difference. In doing so, you have managed to snatch partisanship from the jaws of consensus.

“We have agreement. The underlying bill before us will have the support of over 400 Members. Over 400 members would support the underlying bill. Wouldn't it be wonderful to show to the American public that we come together not in a partisan way, but as Americans, to make sure they are as safe and secure as we can make them. But, no, we have denigrated this debate to a political debate about a difference between the President and the Congress. Now that's a significant debate to have.  But not on this bill.  Not when we have consensus. Not when Americans’ security is at risk if we fail.

“Two of the amendments are solely designed to undermine the executive actions that President Obama took to address our broken immigration system. We think they’re appropriate; you don't. That fine.  That’s a political difference. Do not defeat consensus because we have difference on an unrelated issue. You say it is related because this is, after all, the agency that deals with immigration and border security.  I get that. 

“We will vote against these amendments. But the sad truth is, you know, all of you, that if those amendments are put on this bill, the President of the United States will not sign it, and you will, therefore, have to take it to court. And I see my friend back there – who is my friend – saying, yes, that's great, he won't sign it, and we'll blame him for undermining homeland security.

“In other words, you are going to hold hostage the security, and in return, if he doesn’t do what you say, security be damned.  That is not the way we ought to be running America, particularly on this issue. Americans expects better of us. More importantly, and as importantly, we ought to expect better of ourselves.

“The Appropriations Committee has agreed. The Senate and the House have agreed. There is consensus here. Americans are so frustrated by all of us grabbing defeat and obstruction and disagreement from the jaws of consensus. Vote against these amendments so that all of us can vote to pass this important and critical bill.”