Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We learned late last night that the House Republican leadership has stepped in to thwart the agreement reached in the Senate to fund the Homeland Security Department. As we all know, funding for these critical activities runs out tonight at midnight. We learned that, instead of taking the clean bill that would fund the Department for the remainder of this fiscal year, the House has come up with a new plan, a plan to string this mess out even further--the new plan, to pass yet another continuing resolution, 150 days into this fiscal year. This is really discouraging. Additionally, we learned that the House leadership has decided now would be a good time to formally request a conference committee be convened on the controversial immigration riders passed by the House bill and the Senate's clean bill. As hard as it is to believe, they really think requesting a conference with the Senate, on the very day funding expires, is reasonable. I could not disagree more. I understand that many of my colleagues disagree vehemently with the President's executive actions on immigration policy. I understand that many of those same Members believe strongly that they should fight the President through the power of the purse, the appropriations process. What I don't understand is how a decision could be made to wreak havoc on one of the most important agencies in the Federal Government, the agency tasked with protecting our Nation's homeland, over policies related to an agency that isn't even directly funded in this appropriations bill. Under a continuing resolution, the agencies that are funded through the Department of Homeland Security are hamstrung, forced to live at last year's levels and under last year's terms. Ironically, this means that Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, have to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they would get under the full-year bill. Instead of pursuing the bipartisan path--and I want to remind my friends that this Homeland Security bill was negotiated right here between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan bill; but, right now, instead of pursuing the bipartisan path the Senate has chosen, the House leadership has chosen yet another punt. By not passing the clean, full-year bill, the House plan would delay terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local public safety personnel, potentially leaving FEMA with insufficient time to get those grants out before funding expires. It would limit the Department's ability to advance the Secretary's unity of effort initiative, designed to improve coordination in our security missions; limit the ability of the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign; create uncertainty regarding ICE's capability to detain and deport dangerous criminals; complicate the Department's ability to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border; and delay implementation of new security upgrades at the White House and necessary hiring at the U.S. Secret Service. My colleagues, I am simply at a loss. I am mystified. I can't understand the wisdom of this strategy. I know some of my colleagues are upset with the President. I understand how much easier it is to take out your frustrations on the appropriations process, instead of through debate on an immigration policy bill, and we know we must have a serious debate on immigration policy. I support comprehensive immigration reform; but why should we would do this in such an inappropriate way through the appropriations process? Don't take out your frustrations on the appropriations process instead of a thorough debate on the immigration policy bill. I think the majority of my colleagues agree with me that this has gone on long enough. It is not rational to punish firefighters, EMTs, police officers, emergency managers you represent because of immigration policy. It is not rational to hamstring U.S. Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement because you are mad at the President. We are adults. I left my eight grandchildren home. We are adults, I hope, in this body. It is not rational to fund an important government department week by week. I really hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House gets serious by immediately taking up and passing the clean bipartisan bill, as the Senate has done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Homeland Security authorizing committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my good friend, the former chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee who was a key person in negotiating the bipartisan Homeland Security bill, which could have been part of the omnibus in December, and we wouldn't have been involved in these kinds of dangerous games.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to state for the record, as my good friend from Kentucky is aware, on December 12, the Senate and the House conference committees agreed on a bipartisan, bicameral Homeland Security bill--in December. It could have been implemented with all the other 11 bills. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. 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. Democratic and Republican negotiators reached a deal on 2015 Homeland Security funding levels and related policy issues in December. The Republican leadership made the political calculation to hold this funding hostage to ideological policy riders reversing the President's executive actions on immigration. Having failed to extort these policy concessions, 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 a 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 3 weeks failing to give our critical agency the budget certainty it needs to hire employees, invest in new equipment and technologies, and provide preparedness grants on which our communities rely. A $40 billion Cabinet-level department must be able to plan more than 3 weeks in advance and must not be forced to rely on outdated funding levels or policies for 1 day longer than they already have. 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 is time, my colleagues, it is time, my friends, to move on, and the way to do that is through a clean, full- year 2015 bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill that we negotiated, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. Let's do it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee for yielding me the time. I strongly support the Roybal-Allard motion, which gives the House an opportunity to vote for a full-year Homeland Security funding bill without any controversial immigration policy riders. Almost 4:30 Friday afternoon, we have heard lectures all day about the Constitution. We have heard lectures all day about the process. I just want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and especially those who may be new to the appropriations process--we can have a debate about the Constitution any time you want. We even can come up with amendments to the Constitution. Right now, we are talking about Homeland Security keeping our country safe; and, again, because we have had so many debates about authority and who is doing what and who is obeying the Constitution, for me, it is a pleasure to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on appropriations. We passed the CR/Omnibus because, back in December, we couldn't agree to include the Homeland Security bill as part of an omnibus. Just to remind us again about process, Democrats on the Appropriations Committee and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee debated those bills. We came together in a bipartisan way here in the House, and then we worked with the Senate to make sure we worked together in a bipartisan way. We had a good Homeland Security Appropriations bill. It may not have been perfect, but it was a bipartisan bill back in December. Here it is, almost March. I just want to conclude by making it very clear, we cannot hold hostage to this bill and delay the Homeland Security bill anymore. I urge my colleagues to vote for full-year funding. Point of Order

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Delaying the full-year bill limits the Department's ability to advance the Secretary's unity of effort initiative designed to improve coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border stations; delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the White House and hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; delays terrorism preparedness, my colleagues, and response grants for State and local public safety personnel and from fusion centers. I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders on immigration policy; but do they have the courage of their convictions to look the first responders they represent in the eye and to tell them that they are holding up critical assistance to firefighters, law enforcement, EMTs, and emergency managers because of a fight that is ideological over immigration? This is disgraceful. The Homeland Security bill should never have been held hostage with only 3 days left until the Republican shutdown. Hasn't this gone on long enough? Isn't it time to abandon this failed strategy and pass a clean Homeland Security bill? To that end, I urge this whole House to join me today in defeating the previous question so that my colleague Mr. Hastings can offer an amendment to provide a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Maura Breen, who is retiring from her position as Chairwoman of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA). Ms. Breen has had a remarkable tenure as Chairwoman of CCFA. Using her extensive experience in the areas of innovation and business development, she has lead CCFA as it improved access to treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)--the collective terms for Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis--and mobilized patient advocates across the country to raise awareness of IBD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud Ms. Maura Breen for her lifelong dedication to improving the lives of so many people affected by IBD. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating her for her tremendous leadership and exemplary efforts as Chair of CCFA, and wish her success in her future endeavors.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to immediately take up and pass the bipartisan negotiated clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. By defeating the previous question on the pending rule, we can immediately make in order the bipartisan, clean, negotiated Homeland Security bill and stop the theatrics over the President's use of executive orders. My colleague Ms. Roybal-Allard and I made a similar attempt yesterday, which was unfortunately defeated on a party-line vote. It is my sincere hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle have further discussed this issue amongst themselves and that they are now prepared to end this standoff. Mr. Speaker, as of today, we are 135 days into what should have been the start of the fiscal year. The situation this House has caused is completely unacceptable. We simply cannot wait 1 day longer--1 more day--to do the right thing, the responsible thing, and fund these critical agencies tasked with protecting this Nation. As the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, I was involved in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus spending bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed by the President last December. That package could have contained all 12 annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference and every one of them was ready to go. We thank Representative Price for his role in negotiating the Homeland Security bill last Congress. But an unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to omit the Homeland Security bill--not because there were outstanding issues or continued disputes. That bill was stripped from the omnibus because some in this body were upset by the President's executive order on immigration. They even admitted the President's actions had little to do with the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, yet that was the choice that was made on how to proceed. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution instead of having a full-year bill. Ironically, it meant the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--two of the agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our immigration laws--had to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they would have gotten under the full-year bill. Delaying the full-year bill limits the Department's ability to advance the Secretary's unity of effort initiative designed to improve coordination in our security missions, limits the ability of the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign, creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and deport dangerous criminals, complicates the Department's ability to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border stations, delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the White House and hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service, and delays terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local public safety personnel. Mr. Speaker, I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders on immigration policy, but I am compelled to remind those colleagues that they have every tool at their disposal to pass legislation changing the President's proposal. This stunt has gone on too long. It is time to admit these immigration policy decisions have little to nothing to do with the appropriations process. The Homeland Security bill should never have been held hostage in this fight. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I put a statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson into the Congressional Record because I thought it was so important for my colleagues to read. In it, the Secretary laid out the consequences of operating under a continuing resolution and summed up the dangerous situation we face with a sobering message.

Mrs. LOWEY. ``Border security is not free.'' I couldn't agree more. Yesterday, as a result of the party-line vote in the House on bringing up a clean bill, many of my majority colleagues insisted it was the Senate's turn to act, but it is clear for all those watching that the Senate cannot pass a Homeland Security bill with the House's extraneous riders attached. Further, the President has made it abundantly clear he would veto the bill if these riders remained. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: What now? Hasn't this gone on long enough? Isn't it time we abandon the failed strategy and pass a clean bill funding the Homeland Security Department? To that end, I urge this whole House to join me today in defeating the previous question so that my colleague Mr. McGovern can offer an amendment to provide a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. By defeating the previous question on the pending rule, we can immediately make in order a clean Homeland Security bill and stop the theatrics over the President's use of executive orders. Madam Speaker, as of today, we are 134 days into what should have been the start of this fiscal year. The situation this House has caused is completely unacceptable. We simply cannot wait one more day to do the right thing, the responsible thing, and fund these critical agencies tasked with protecting this Nation. As the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, I was involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus spending bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed by the President last December. That package could have contained all 12 annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference, and every one of them was ready to go. An unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to omit the Homeland Security bill, not because there were outstanding issues or continued disputes. That bill, negotiated by my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price), was stripped from the omnibus because some in this body were upset by the President's executive order on immigration. They even admitted the President's actions had little to do with the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Yet that was the choice that was made on how to proceed, so the Homeland Security appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution instead of having a full-year bill. Ironically, it meant Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--two of the agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our immigration laws--had to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they would have gotten under the full-year bill. Delaying the full-year bill, my colleagues: limits the Department's ability to advance the Secretary's Unity of Effort initiative, designed to improve coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border stations; delays the implementation of the new security upgrades at the White House and of the hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; and delays terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local public safety personnel. I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders on immigration policy, but I am compelled to remind those colleagues that they have every tool at their disposal to pass legislation changing the President's proposal. This stunt, my friends, has gone on too long. It is time to admit these immigration policy decisions have little to nothing to do with the appropriations process. The Homeland Security bill should never have been held hostage in this fight. Madam Speaker, just this week, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson issued a sobering statement about the consequences of operating under a continuing resolution. Quite simply, ``Border security is not free.'' I couldn't agree more. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter Secretary Johnson's statement in the Record. [Department of Homeland Security Press Release, Feb. 10, 2015] Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson on the Consequences to Border Security Without a DHS Appropriations Bill I continue to stress the need for a DHS appropriations bill for FY 2015, unburdened by politically charged amendments that attempt to defund our executive actions on immigration reform. The President has made plain that he will veto a bill that includes such language. At present, the Department of Homeland Security is operating on a continuing resolution that expires on February 27. As long as this Department is funded by a continuing resolution, there are a whole series of activities vital to homeland security and public safety that cannot be undertaken. The public must be aware of the real impacts to homeland security as long as DHS is funded by a continuing resolution, or, still worse, if Congress were to permit our funding to lapse altogether and the Department of Homeland Security goes into government shutdown. Last week I issued a statement noting the impact on DHS's grant-making activity to states, local and tribal governments as long as we are on a CR. Basically, we are prevented from funding all new non-disaster assistance grants. The public must also be aware of the impact on our ability to secure the borders as long as we operate on a CR. As part of our executive actions to reform the immigration system, the President and I have emphasized increased border security. Added border security is also a key component of the President's FY 2015 and FY 2016 budget submissions to Congress. But, as long as this Department is on a CR, and not a full-year appropriations bill, our ability to strengthen border security, to include maintaining the resources we put in place to respond to the surge in illegal migration into south Texas last summer, is constrained. Here are some concrete examples of things we need to do, but cannot, without a full-year DHS appropriations bill for

Mrs. LOWEY. If my colleagues are finally serious about these programs and priorities, I urge them to join with me today. Defeat the previous question so that my colleague, Mr. Hastings, can offer an amendment to provide a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, a commuter train struck an automobile at a grade crossing in Valhalla, New York, resulting in the deaths of six people and many others injured. I stand on the House floor today with my colleagues to call for a moment of silence to honor those who lost their lives in this tragic accident and offer sincere condolences to the families of the victims, pray for the full recovery of those injured, and thank our first responders for quickly arriving at the scene to help others.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Edmund Francis La Gamma for his receipt of the ``Mentor of the Year'' Award from the Eastern Society for Pediatric Research in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the care and treatment of our most vulnerable citizens--our newborns. For almost four decades, Dr. La Gamma has committed himself to improving our understanding of diseases which affect premature babies and advancing their care. He has served as a Professor of Pediatrics, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at New York Medical College and Director of both the Division of Newborn Medicine and the Neonatal- Perinatal Fellowship Program at Maria Fareri Children's Hospital. In these roles, he has been responsible for the care of infants at over 10 regional affiliate hospitals which span an area the size of the state of Delaware. In that time, he has transformed neonatal intensive care at Westchester Medical Center into one of the state's most recognized neonatal intensive care units, earning New York's highest designation of care and national admiration. In addition, his work as a scientist has contributed greatly to the field of neonatology. Working with some of the most prominent doctors in his field, Dr. La Gamma has expanded our understanding of neonatal development and improved our ability to treat deadly diseases in newborn infants. Moreover, throughout his career he has remained focused on ensuring his research be shared with the scientific community to advance neonatal care, and has published over 150 peer- reviewed research articles, including 25 book chapters. From this work, neonatologists across the country have benefitted from his insights on caring for premature and critically-ill newborns. As head of one of the largest neonatal fellowship programs in the nation, he has helped shape the future of pediatric and neonatology through his mentorship of students, junior pediatricians, junior neonatologists and academic faculty. He has directly mentored almost 100 fellows in his career, and he has also shared his knowledge in hundreds of invited lectures around the world. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. La Gamma for his lifelong dedication to newborn health, his over 15 years of dedication to neonatal intensive care in my district, New York State, and the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him for his well- deserved ``Mentor of the Year'' award, and applaud his tremendous accomplishments.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the distinguished ranking member. Madam Speaker, I am totally puzzled. I came to the floor thinking that we were going to be focused on creating jobs, putting people to work, helping our young people go to college, and reducing student loan debts. Where is the regular procedure that my friends on the other side of the aisle were going to bring to the House? Where did this bill come from? Did it come from the committee process? No. Let me make this very, very clear. I knew Henry Hyde. I worked with Henry Hyde. The Hyde amendment is the law of the land. There is no public money for abortion. This is a radical bill that restricts women paying for private insurance with their own dollars. Millions of women would lose comprehensive health care. I just don't understand it. As an appropriator, we still have not brought the Homeland Security bill to the floor. As a resident of New York, I am concerned by possible attacks. Let's do our work. Let's move on.

Mrs. LOWEY. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill just came to the floor without serious discussion and when there is no public money for abortion today as a result of the Hyde amendment. I look forward to bringing a Homeland Security bill to the floor. As I began to say, as a New Yorker, I am concerned about potential threats to our country. Let's get to work. Let's create jobs. Let's do the work that our citizens--our constituents--brought us here to do. I don't understand this bill. And in closing, there is no public money for abortion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the 114th Congress started 1 week ago with Republican leadership saying they wanted to work together and govern maturely. Well, it only took a week for Republican leadership to fold to its rightwing. Instead of compromise, we see confrontation. Make no mistakes. The amendments being debated this morning would stop the bill, would kill the bill, hurt those who were brought here as children and know no other country than the United States, prevent the Department of Homeland Security from prioritizing the deportation of national security threats and dangerous felons, and are little more than a collection of political sound bites. If you don't agree with the President's enforcement actions, which are legal and similar to steps taken by several Republican Presidents, then let us have a serious debate about comprehensive immigration reform, then bring an immigration bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, the President's executive actions will grow the economy by $90 billion to $210 billion over the next 10 years and raise average wages for U.S.-born workers by $170 a year. The House Republican proposal would not only eradicate these gains, but harm numerous security initiatives. After the tragic events in Paris, it is appalling that some would jeopardize our national security by adding these irresponsible amendments. Let's vote against these poison bills and move forward with a solid, bipartisan Homeland Security bill supported by Democrats, Republicans, the House, and the Senate.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, I want to thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for their very hard work in putting the original bill together, which was negotiated by the House and the Senate and could be law right now. As my colleagues are aware, our committee has not officially organized for the new Congress, which means we technically do not yet have a ranking minority member for the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. Again, I want to say to my colleagues that we could have completed action on this bill in the last Congress with the other 11 appropriations bills considered in the omnibus package. Unfortunately, the House majority kicked the can down the road and put these important programs under a continuing resolution in a misguided attempt to protest the President's executive order on immigration. Today, instead of putting a clean bill on the floor, my majority colleagues have decided to further inject partisan politics into the appropriations process. We all know the outcome of this very dangerous game. The legislation in this form will not be enacted. All we are doing is further delaying the enactment of a very good full-year bill. I am deeply disappointed that Republicans insist on making Congress play out this farce at the expense of our Nation's security. It has taken less than 2 weeks for the Republican Congress to prove that it cannot govern responsibly. The Republican majority has already delayed this bill enough. With more than a quarter of this fiscal year already gone, we continue to play games with the funding for an agency that was created to protect the Nation from terrorist attacks. Last week, terrorists brutally murdered 12 people at the office of a French satirical magazine, a police officer, and four individuals at a kosher grocery store. That is a tragic example of the kind of out-of- the-blue attack that the Department of Homeland Security, along with its other law enforcement partners, is working hard to prevent here in the United States. Partisan games on immigration will delay grants to States and major urban areas, funding that is critical for supporting local first responders in our defense against homegrown terrorism and for fusion centers, where the Department of Homeland Security gathers, shares, and analyzes threat information with its State and local law enforcement partners. The failure to enact a full-year bill will slow down efforts for the Secret Service to begin addressing problems with security at the White House. The Department will be limited in its ability to move forward with the Secretary's Unity of Effort initiative to make the Department more strategic and improve coordination among its components. Resources to detain truly dangerous criminal aliens and to manage another rapid influx of unaccompanied children and families across the southwest border are in jeopardy. Acquisition of the final National Security Cutter and other Coast Guard assets will be delayed, as will construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. Mr. Chairman, I urge my Republican colleagues to give up the partisan games that threaten our national security and allow the House to act today on the clean bill--again, that was negotiated by Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, a good bill--funding the Department of Homeland Security. We have already wasted enough time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, before I yield to the next speaker, I want to make it very clear that the bill that was negotiated by the Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, would pass immediately today, and then we could look forward to a debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I am very pleased to yield 9 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, who worked so hard with the Republicans in producing this outstanding bill. Unfortunately, the bill is very different with the additions that were added just in the last week.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit the text of an op-ed in The Journal News I wrote commemorating former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. [From The Journal News, Jan. 2, 2015] Rep. Lowey: Mario Cuomo Was My Mentor and Inspiration (By Nita Lowey) Mario and Matilda Cuomo and their five children were our neighbors in Holliswood, Queens. Mario's parents, Andrea and Immaculata, lived around the corner. When Mario, an attorney and law professor who gained prominence by successfully mediating thorny housing disputes in Corona and Forest Hills, first ran for Lieutenant Governor of New York in 1974, Steve and I promptly jumped into his campaign. He lost. But Gov. Hugh Carey, recognizing Mario's extraordinary talents, appointed him as Secretary of State. (His parents famously asked: ``Mario--you're a lawyer and a teacher. How come you took a job as a secretary?'') My first job in public service was in 1975 as an assistant to Mario Cuomo, working as a community relations officer in the New York metropolitan region. I worked closely with Mario, as he took charge of New York's anti-poverty programs following their devolution by the federal government through block grants to the states. He pursued housing, education, health, community development, and senior citizen initiatives, among others. He was indefatigable and inspirational. A profound thinker and eloquent speaker, no wonder that he was elected lieutenant governor in 1978 and then governor three times. Nobody articulated the ideals and values of public service better than Mario Cuomo. He aptly captured the essence of his brilliant career: ``You campaign in poetry, but govern in prose.'' During an event in 1984, when I was a New York state assistant secretary of state and Mario Cuomo was governor, Mario told me, ``Now listen to me and you'll be OK.'' I listened, I learned, and I am doing OK. I was honored when Gov. Cuomo spoke on my behalf at a ceremony celebrating my election to Congress in 1988. As we mourn his loss, I am confident that Mario Cuomo's legacy will continue and endure with the re-election of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.