>> you didn't hear a bit of anti-immigrant conversation which i heard is someone trying to find answers and trying to find solutions. the other gentlemen here is the former chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee. to suggest someone who has born that burden of responsibility is here today trying to undermine national security defies the

work we have done here. this is an important issue so it makes me sad. i have a district full of first-generations family. i doubt there is someone who has been in congress for five years who didn't try to work a case for a family who had a loved one pass away and wanted to bring a young family member in from overseas to be with the family at the funeral put the officers had to say no you don't meet the qualifications for coming into the country. you cannot come to be a part of your family's grieving. you have to stay away. as it turns out, as the president has defined things if you defy the law and snuck in there is now a pathway to the american dream for you but what there is not a pathway for still as we sit here are the families

in my district who want to be reunited and together. i know we can find solutions to those things. to suggest if we don't do it the president's way it is never going to get done rejects a whole group of folks who have the same challenges the gentlelady has in her district. having sat through four years of hearing committee hearings because it passed in the house but it will go nowhere in the senate, it distresses me the new idea is to pass a bill the senate is going to pass and now the president is rejecting it and that is an exercise in futility. if that is the way we definethi things such as what the house

and senate wants doesn't manter. this senator an immigration issue we are talking about tonight. this is a separation of powers issue. it is important we have both of those conversations. not a conversation about rhetoric but one that leads to solutions. we need to solve article one and two issues and solve our immigration challenges that again impact families in my district with every bit as much intensity, if not more given the composition of my district as any member up here. and to those folks who are working independently to try to make a difference for those family in my district and theirs i am grateful for folks doing that. i believe we have 218 vote for a solution and i believe in my heart that what the president did in november is making it harder to provide those

solutions not easier. and i regret it because this is an academic conversation. this is about real people. >> i will be brief. but i do think given the importance of homeland security i think frankly this was a drastic error in the first place and the secretary said he could not run a committee or agency if he didn't know what the budget was. so i certainly agree with that. but by attaching immigration to it surely you knew you were going to draw a veto and not many votes on my side. and not because of homeland security but because of the attachment of that. frankly, it was poison pill and the banking bill -- bill -- we will have to be alert and watch out to see that dodd frank doesn't appear off the books

completely here. and putting things in left and right. but i stay with what i said in the first place. i think it is almost a childish thing to make the president mad and go poke him with a stick or whatever it is you are trying to do here. i yield back. >> i hope that we can come to an agreement that defending article one purogotive is not sumonmous with poking the president with a stick. i hope it is bigger and more substantial than that. she is in an institution surrounded by meanness and i suggest she is in an institute surrounded by people with compassion and a deep love for the country and i think if we

focus on the commonalities we are more likely to come to solutions. with that i yield back. >> mr. hastings. >> thank you very much. first, madam chair, i would ask consent to include the statement of objection. i lift from its third paragraph the following: however the administration strongly opposes the addition of any amendments to the legislature that would place restrictions on the department's ability to get smart enforcement priorities focused on criminal national security threats and recent border crosses, hold undocumented immigrant accounting and modernize the immigration system. this will strengthen the border

security make sure that undocuments citizens who are residents of citizens or lawful residents pass background checks to obtain from removal and require everyone to play by the same rules. if the president with objectionable restrictions -- if he is presented with objectionable restrictions his senior advisors recommend he veto the bill. mr. chairman following on the discussion from my good friend from georgia, i would ask him if these amendments that were so adequately explained from the position that she takes after years of working before coming to congress on this issue and in congress as well and being a

county official also at some point, do you see these five amendments as the solution to our immigration problem? i ask my friend from georgia. >> i see these five amendments to a solution from the constitutional separation of power. >> all right. i hear you on that. i have been around here along enough to see and know the effects of other president's executive action and i understand understand. we mentioned what happened in france, but this particular measure, the base homeland

security measure takes and makes a decrease of $39 million in the national programs and protection directate for cyber security. now, let's bring us to january 12th and the early portions of this day that most of us awakened to in addition to the many retail establishments many of who we do business with and have credit cards with, and the sony cyber invasion. and i ask my colleagues how do

you feel taking $39 million away from the directorate. once you reprogram money for something if you don't have money and you start tinkering with it and you follow up we will be back here when the deadline for this ends we will be back here talking about the same measure again when we could very well have passed a clean appropriations measure and he could have the discussion that we need to have in this country about immigration. so toward that end i just for the life of me cannot understand why we would not want to fully fund the directorate for cyber security. all of us knowing that we are likely to be confronted with

many more issues of security or concern to all of us and we will live to see that because it is going to happen no doubt sooner rather than later. i want to direct my attention to one of the newest members and i, too, want to see ohio state get on with this business so i will not spend too much more time but i do want to address mr. collins and i hope mine and his becomes a similar friendship to that i share with your nelly -- fellow georgian. i don't speak for him but you will be here enough to hear from me until you might wish you had

not accepted this position on the committee. but there is no time i can think of in the long period i have been on this committee that i have feigned in being recognized. we all speak passionately as you did. we have that prerogative and you will hear from me about ideaology attacks like what is going on with these amendments but i am not training. and i want to make it very clear this is a pretty serious. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> i appreciate that. and i appreciate my friend from florida. and do look forward to that relationship growing. i think probably you are right. feigned dignition wasn't the right thing. i was probably trying to be

slier than i should have been. i believe the perception that something we on this side, many of us believed to do and then to bring up the fact instead of talking about what is the omission here on article one and two separation, but what we truly believe is the issue, which i believe should be a bipartisan issue, a bipartisan issue for congress. i go home all of the time and i represent democrats as well as my conservative district groups with democrats and republicans and they feel like congress doesn't matter anymore. they say what are you all doing anyway? it doesn't seem to matter. we run on continuing resolutions and executive orders and executive memorandum which has been used a great deal on this and been overlooked.

i will say this to my colleague, i appreciate the passionate debate. one of the reasons why i agreed to come up here. but also please accept when i say it should not be the same because i believe it was a diversionary. to say we should not talk about immigration when it could have been done and we had other bills we talked about in this committee today and were forced upon a minority at that time our party that was my purpose and what i was trying to say and that is let's deal with the real issue. and don't say it isn't about immigration. it is about a president who oversteps his bounds. it is about a president. and that is the focus today. i work with many of these people on the judicial committee.

we are dealing with something that was an overreach and overstep and for it to be characterized as anything less is really a retelling of history and that was where i was coming from. i yield back. >> i understand. and what led you to that is something i hope i can help to clarify for you. and that is that and if you recall when you were speaking you commented, of that democrats and you didn't say democrats you said yall and i say yall a lot as well. where do you think i am from? but anyway what you were saying was that we had control of the house and we had control of the senate and you were correct. and you say why didn't you do it then? it sounds so simple when you say it that way it is almost as if

the minority leader at that time who now is the majority leader did not have one of the most nuanced programs to ensure nothing was done, not only on this subject but on any subject. let me tell you what the hollow of that is getting ready to be as we move forward and the 2016 election is going to suck up all of the air in this place and we all know that. you are going to see the flip side on the united states senate. we call them the other body. and i can assure you and neverpen mind the president's veto and i understand the difference between article one and article two and i don't have any arguments to bring that prerogative here as you see it. but the simple fact of the matter is we could have done a bipartisan appropation bill that chairman rogers and ranking

members came up here and brought to us. and now we have this immigration attachment which can't help the argument on immigration reasonbly. let me turn now to the representativef -- representative of hazeltown. house education and workforce committee people when you left the mayorality lived in your area? >> approximately 30,000 at the time. it was estimated to be about 30,000 at the time during the court case. it was estimated about 10% of the pup -- population -- was there illegally. if i could make a point. it is important because i know it comes up often.

we are standing up against illegal immigration and that is not anti-immigrant. our city is 49% hispanic. i took probably at the time one of the strongest stances against illegal immigration and won with 90% of the vote. our hispanic population has grown every year from the time we passed the ordinance which defies the theory that hispanics would not come to hazelton. in fact they wanted to come and move their families there. so i think it is important, it sounds good but it isn't the reality of what happens. >> well, sir the reason that i ask you is that you went in to depth, sort of not are any rhetoric about the flip side of immigration and having dealt with it from the standpoint of being a mayor and you had a

substantial influx of people who were not here legally and not being productive as far as taxes coming in and services needed to be render. i want you to understand you don't have to come from a small town to know that flip side. i come from browered county. i cannot begin to believe there are too many congressional districts in this country that have as many persons who share the spanish language as the congressional district myself run and quite frankly i think i have a more diverse group because i am not limited to any one segment. i have a school that has 53 languages in that school. i have several that have more than 40. and one area you left out, and i don't know how pennsylvania is

setup, but you left out hospitals and the people that present and when you spoke about, and i agonize with you, the amount of mup money for your 35,000 citizens. i could fit them in my life with the beginning of the persons coming to this country from cuba and point to you the amount of money we utilized in assimilating those people and rightfull- rightfull-y we did. i can use andotal information to justify any one of these situations. and i don't know you well. i hope i do get to know you well. but by having a vowel at the end of your name i suspect your

heritage may very well be from europe somewhere. and i would more than likely suggest -- >> i know the vowel gives it away. >> i would suggest that your grandfather or great grandfather -- are they italian? >> they are. >> and let me share something with you. a lot of the territory of italians who came here. 29 of the 31 mafia family lived in the congressional district i represented to this one. and to talk about harm done by illegles i can begin to tell you we should never shun the harm that was done by certain immigrants that came to this country. >> are you talking about the italian immigrants? >> i am talking about one aspect

when it comes to crime. and i was going to ask you -- >> i wasn't talking about the nationity of anyone. an illegal immigrant can come from anywhere sir. >> most time in these days when we are talking about it we are talking more about people that share the spanish language than russian immigrant. i want you to reconcile for me if you can president obama having the reputation for deporting more people than any president in history. >> sure. i can do that. what he is counting is turn arounds at the border. he is counting deportations on the interior whereas they never counted the turn around as a deportation but it is now

included in the numbers. talking about trying to shine a different color light to make someone buy a different color suit that is what you are talking about. >> i would like you to respond to that. >> first of all let's be very clear we are not fixing the problem that the gentlemen from pennsylvania raised. we are not fixing that here today. we spoke about people that didn't pay taxes. i have 600,000 young people on the books with social security cards paying taxes and getting right with the law. he is talking about people who the police didn't know who they were. i have 600,000 kids who went through a background check and paid another fee to process it. that is what they are talking about. but that is not what we are talking about here. we are talking about people on the books paying taxes and contributing. to the gentlemen that came forward and said look at those thousands of people who are not

paying taxes and criminals but that is not what you are talking about. i am talking about members of the armed forces of the united states of america. members of the armed forces of the united states of america who when the president saw that their spouses were being deported while they were receiving order of deployment said that is wrong. that is what you are eliminating here. so i cannot understand even casually, what was going on in your city or town. i want to address immigration reform. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> i will yield. >> i just want to say we are here to address immigration reform. we could take care -- look there are bad people out there. let's go get them. we only put enough money to go get 400,000 people and there are 11 million of them.

why don't we set aside the parents of american citizen children, five million of them why don't we set them aside and all of them have to go through a background check. they used to say when they came to the border and got caught it was catch and release. so the anti-immigration members of the congress said that is catch and release. now they catch them and don't release them because precisely the argument was they were released back once again to be caught again. now they are processed and jailed. the number one crime prosecuted under obama's administration is

illegal reenter to the united states of america and yet people will sit here say he hasn't done anything. maybe for others it is imply a turn around at the border but i suggest you come into our neighborhood and see the real fear. >> would the gentlemen yield his time? >> yes >> that is why this is such an important issue. i know good people and children who are here illegally. how do you separate the salt from the sugar?

the good from the bad? the young child from someone who wants to do wrong. the 9/11 commission report that the president signed was career that the terrorist who want it do harm want two things: they want to gain entry into the country and two they want to be able to stay. with the president giving unilateral amnesty without face to face interviews. you cannot do a background check -- >> does that include finger prints when you say you cannot do background checks? and he just told you about people signing up. >> if you have no record from the country of origin -- >> but their finger prints at the schools and other places

they have been. they cleared the background check. we are talking about people coming here and brought them here at the age two. and are american citizens >> the person who is here -- we are talking about two different people. >> perhaps that is what we should be doing. i am not belittle it. i hear about you but my colleagues want to be on about their business. i will do one other thing and stop here. we have been using the figure 11 million for 11 years. there must be 12 million people in this country so let's begin to try to get it right. if he could not get rid of 11 we damn sure will not get rid of 12.

>> thank you very much. nothing says we don't want to address immigration issues. nothing says that in your report, does it? >> i think that is something congress realizes we have to address. i mentioned this earlier in my opening comment prevents funds and user fees to be carried out the executive announcements that will grant citizenship to four million people in the country signed by president obama. >> the real argument here isn't rather we take action on immigration to secure the border and deal with folks who are here illegally but how we do it.

and article one of the constitution says we took an oath to defend and says congress has the power to establish uniform rule of naturalization and the subject of bankruptcy to the united states. those are not intended to be together but the whole point is uniform laws created by congress and that is what the fight is about here. and i don't think the gentlemen from pennsylvania or the gentlemen from alabama are saying we don't want to deal with this issue. we do prefer to deal with this in a step-by-step approach. i think that is these two and three thousand page pills haven't been good for america because they are hard to implement and don't seem to work. the gentlemen, i think are here trying to solve the problem of the fact this was done in a way that i don't think conforms to our constitution. i respect what they are trying to do. i respect