priebus, saying i am unveiling a postmortem, rnc committee chairman promised gop that will, not write off voters. that can with hispanic voters and immigration reform. end quote. i thought that meant that something was going to happen, something that was going to be respectful, something that was going to be compassionate, something that we could come together on. it may not be everywherththing i want, but something. and during my times of doubting achieve -- mr.d justrrez said, no, no,

way, we have some common ground here. and then here we are today. and what is really troublesome is that not only have we not become sosion hasnything and and so mean-spirited, even at this moment even if the republican leadership cannot say it our way it would be nice everyone -- every once in a while to hear the republican leaders condemn these angry mobs children coming are scaredborder who out of their minds, many of them fleeing for their lives. it would be nice to hear some condemnation and to get this debate back onto a better footing. carolinague from north

says that we should minimize the rhetoric and deal with reality. that is what we are trying to do. we are talking mostly about kids. kids who are fleeing some of the most violent countries in the are scared out of their minds, many of the. honduras has the highest murder in the any country world, more than afghanistan. in salvador, more people die each day and violence in the word during the war. and there is a correlation between the violence in some of these countries and the children we see at the borders. any -- manyeeing costa ricans and kids from beliefs or nicaragua. it is the countries where there is violence and that is another discussion how we can encourage conditions in those countries that would be more respectful of human rights and when people say their governments want them all back my question is where had these governments been question mark you had some of the most

corrupt police officers in the world in these countries. the most corrupt militaries and they do not give a dam about human rights. -- damn about human rights. i do not know my friends on the other side of the aisle appreciate how horrifying and difficult it is for some of these kids to make that journey so the reality is that we are talking mostly about kids. i want -- it is important for inryone so we can put this perspective. there were 15 million refugees around -- 50 million refugees along -- around the world. when 50,000 show up at the border that is 1/10 of one percent of the total number of refugees around the world. republicans are telling us that the world is coming to an end. this is the worst thing in the

world that can happen. react but wet only have to overreact. let's build a wall around the country. dig deeper. we ask other countries on a regular basis to assume responsibility for people anding violence and we join condemn them when they do not. we are not talking millions. we are talking 50,000. a cold shoulder. we cannot find a way to quickly deport them and strip them of their rights and get them back to their home countries as soon as possible not matter what the implications may be. i think that is awful. as far as this process it is lousy. rushing, we have an appropriations bill that is loaded up with authorizing

language which does not belong in an appropriations bill. there have not been hearings, we have not had expert witnesses, we john even know what the ultimate implications of all this will be. here we are being asked to consider it like that. sometimes -- my friends used to say read the bill or take time. do not rush things through. a rules committee meeting a couple of days ago. we were presented a version of this bill that would be considered for a floor vote. at 1:15 p.m. we were given another version of ms. but room cost to which his post be tougher. this bill that would be at 3:01 p.m. we are

given another version of the bill which i was trying to figure out why do we get to of the same bills and i realized there is some mistake in dates, the dates are wrong. already we are finding clerical errors, we are fighting given another version of the bill which i was trying to figure out why do we get to of the same bills and i realized there is some mistake in dates, the dates are wrong. already we are finding clerical errors, we are fighting misprints, and just a short time. i do not know what else there is in here that we might find out after we vote on something. there is language in here forcesand then with the armed and military bases. can anyone here tell me what kinds and how many air force activities have been interfered with by these displaced children? there's a provision in here that deals with this. can anyone tell me how many u.s. military personnel have been displaced by these children because the new section deals with that. is as you were called, the first was a sense of congress. the first bill yesterday was a sense of congress. this is trying to say you should displace.

i do not think it was a claim that there was. it was that you should not. rex i am trying to figure out where we are legislating on something that is not a problem but maybe i should not be surprised. think children belong on the military reservation and we are trying to and thatontext of this is what we have tried to do. thank you. >> i would remind our friends we have visiting here today that we have a panel and we have someone that has been given time. the audience will be asked not to participate in this hearing until they are authorized. lackland air force base in san antonio. that is where the converted some where enlistees

had been for boot camp. new ones, thankfully. the old ones that were scheduled for demolition into dorms into the kit -- for the kids temporarily. a proposedhere with putting the kids unless they have an alternative site in mind? i am happy to yield to anyone who can answer the question. i think the silence speaks. the dreamers.o the bill that we are dealing with today goes further than the bill that we were dealing with yesterday. says not only note

to future dreamers but it says no to current dreamers, am i correct on that? gutierrez? >> yes, it becomes more extreme in the clarified version. after a night of looking at the billy had last night. cannoty clearly they reapply. there are 700,000 young men and women who i tell you pledge allegiance to the same flag everybody in this room -- they are american in everything but a piece of paper there waiting for. this is the only country they know. the president exercises his authority. >> i would like to say he did it in june of 2012 and i do not remember anybody saying anything about it.

anybody really complaining. anybody trying to introduce legislation to say let's not do that. they did not want to do it before the election. then there was an election. the kids were signing up. >> and case we forgot what dreamers are. else have undocumented and -- adults and when they cross the border and it want to make will because i do not i shoot myself when i leave this room. part of the question here, we are always talking about security, the border, the border. there are 11 million had never crossed the border. they came on a ship, became an airplane, and the border was just kate, o'hare, or logan, but we never talk about those. we want to direct our attention to mexicans. and to those south of the

border. i think that is something fundamental we have to come to grips with. who are they? they are the children. when you take the 700,000, the largest group our children of immigrants that came from mexico. the second largest group did not cross the border. do you know where they are from? south korea. that is the second-largest group. i wish everyone would take a look. you will see that the children represent the world. was we will not punish the child for the actions moreover, the republican majority agreed with us when they issued their principles in january of this year. >> we are here to answer questions. f you had no questions -- >> i did. i asked how it affected dreamers. you go after new dreamers and

current dreamers as well. these are children who came here with their parents, some at a very early age he may have in their entire life here. who have gone through our schools. we have invested in them. ms. are the kids that slaughter referred to who are brilliant. and that we would take those children and forcibly send them back after we made that investment does not sound like a wise use of our resources. >> i want to make sure people understand what this does. this is an important part of this debate. , we're trying to understand what the difference is between yesterday's bill that was pulled and today's bill. this is one of the important differences. it expands the people, the kids would be deported. important it is an

conversation. it is fundamentally wrong for the government of the united states to extend the benefit and grant a benefit to a group of people, legalize them under the law for that long never to be challenged in a court of our nation, for there to have been an election after that application of the presidential authority was put in place, for the american people to reelect the person who issued that executive order and for us to say we will not let them reapply and they have given us their names and addresses, where the go to school, where they work so we can probably afford them. they will never trust us again. once you issue a trust to a sector of those are -- were in the country you should never violate the trust and the bonds you have created. >> one final thing. you had talked about the importance of reaching out to the white house. my suggestion would be that before you reach

out it might be helpful to reach out to some of the other members of this house who are of a different party. a minority leader or her minority whip or the credit leaders. we could have come to some sort of agreement on a bipartisan bill and instead you have chosen to go in a different way and i think that is unfortunate. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. we are here to answer questions if you have them. i want to remind us all we have the house waiting. >> if the gentleman will lease we just a moment. the jonah makes a point. i look -- alluded to it upfront. i asked a question that took very little time. people have taken very the time and what we're trying to stick on point. each member has tried to do

that. i believe it is important. asked three questions that went unanswered. >> duly noted. >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here. to speakd the chance on this bill and listen to my colleagues. my questions have been answered and satisfied. >> thank you. when you talk about going forward with time, we took up three weeks or portions of three weeks of time on something that i consider is not going anywhere and that is suing the president of the united states by the speaker. byant to set the stage reminding mr. goodyear is that if youe session began,

to filei implored you your bill. onlyoodyear is is not intellectually endowed but he has great affection for this institution and his response was, he thought that he would be able to work toward a more approach.nd partisan i am sorry that you failed and i wish you had filed your bill when we got here. it was not only republicans telling him not to file this bill, it was also democrats that did that. think about this, people. parents and their we need to get the numbers straight on that as well at the

rio grande. some of the people that are there are adults and they are being processed and most of them are being deported. another group are intact families where there is a husband and wife and their children and their is another group-- there is another of women with children and a few men with children and then we get to the children. i would only imagine how most of us would feel in the conditions .f these children especially after trekking hundreds of miles and we do not even know the numbers that died along the way. but after trekking hundreds of miles, they get on a train, some beast toalled the

ultimately arrived in the rio coyotes helpve the them across to the greatest country on earth to be treated like beasts. have some people act and talking about these children. what we are doing today is nothing but symbolism. we want to go forward. about ourgo on respective businesses and the media does us a disservice when go a long. all of us have responsibilities, any of us attend to matters in our constituency and some of us, me included, still have an election and so i, along with others, will be election neared -- electioneered. when mr. urban

says -- robinson said it would be unfortunate to leave without resolving this and he said it is dire but i think it is -- to goed without home without addressing minimum wage and have a heart -- halfhearted kick the can down the road on infrastructure. all we have to do is think of they get -- the millions of gallons of water wasted in los angeles the other day and 10,000 gallons right outside in maryland today. i would like to ask mr. good and mr. goodyear is and mr. rogers and i will come back when he finishes talking with is aid. in this legislation, it is contemplated that the national guard will be placed on the

border. in there funds legislation as i understand it and the amount of $35 million to dress salaries and expenses. i see nothing for training. what you contemplate is going to to theon the border national guard persons, are they to have a rest hours, are they to be trained, what happens when they do get in a firefight of some kind, what happens when they have detained the person and done so requiring them to appear in court. these are not evil that are to handle matters as customs officials. i am curious, how is this supposed to work with reference

to the national guard and let me perhapsth you and chairman rogers would like to tell me. ms. lloyd, no offense meant to you. i am bothering with my colleagues here who i know must know the answer to what they did with the national guard with in this matter. that's the short answer is that the national guard will be theoyed at the direction of governors of the state that choose to call the men to action as they traditionally do. there is a funding element that is causing a serious problem in texas where the governor has guard andhe national that is addressed in the supplemental so that when they take that action, since many people believe the president should take that action and has not taken it emma this provides to funding that is available

do that. the national guard is deployed for host of different reasons. will beonal guard deployed at the direction of the governor of the state. >> is that spelled out that it will be the governors of the border state governors? >> it is identified that the funding is for the governors should they choose. >> not for the border states. >> governors. >> yes. >> the national guard could be coming from arkansas or idaho. you still have not addressed my question as to training and whether or not they may appear in court or in matters where an arrest is made for you fix i doubt that the governor will call the national guard up in texas. it is not specify which governor. actually, it does.

in the amendment offered by mr. rogers it specifically says stateshe heading fema, will be reimbursed. not know that until you are handed that piece of an aide.and eight -- thee are colleagues in recesses of the capital waiting for a vote do not have a clue what is in this 41 pages of legislation. i arrived here on time, i have not seen one single solitary word of it until i sat down here and then i went through it and i to did not know what you just said. ahead.ers, you go >> i certainly did because i

wrote it. and we provided the money for it. already had national guard troops down there for some time. ideal b. some additional monies, $70 million is for the states in the southwest order for national guard purposes. they will be doing intelligence gathering, surveillance, reconnaissance, humanitarian work with helping take care of those that are coming across, logistics, and that sort of thing. it is within the discretion of the governors of the southwest border states. >> it sounds like a sop to texas. oneme ask you about

specific provision on page 20 in section b where it speaks about i am trying to move forward. if an unaccompanied alien child described in paragraph two claims in intention to apply for asylum on section 208 or fear of persecution and the rest goes on. my query would be for a 10-year-old child or the 11-year-old child whose mother and father were killed in honduras and happened to skedaddle at the same time everyone was trying to get out of the way and they wind up there before the judge. asylum innguage about spanish or is it in english? partd therein lies a great -- i want to say before i answer

your question, i want to make sure if i see a green might that means it is my time -- greenlight it is my time. >> it is there to let you know that the microphone is on. >> i wanted to make sure the chairman knew that i thought that was within the five minutes. that is why i spoke at length. >> the language is not in the bill that is before the committee right now. mark --at right russian right? 5250.s hr i evidently cannot read it all. on page 20 i am speaking to the subject of claims for asylum. perhaps you should have an aide

handed something else -- hand you something else. >> let us understand that the children have come as you have described, many on the train of death which is what is called. as you described it. and i just think just for moment thatmind everybody everybody who is in the room and sitting on this table voted in 2007, we actually had a vote, we did it by voice vote in 2008 and in 2007 we voted this way. that is what is wrong, i believe. thee going to undercut rights of children to be able to wring their asylum cases and i believe we should err on the side of the child, giving the child the full benefit of a court date. those are -- there are those who

say that could take three or four years. it could because our courtrooms are so backlog because we have not fix our broken immigration system. we kept putting more agents but not more judges. i believe that we should sustain and maintain the law that we all voted for why we were looking at this from a reasonable, levelheaded manner. it is difficult -- we have not had hearing so nobody knows how difficult it is to make an asylum claim. of people who make a claim receive asylum in our court system but the children have other claims. when people say that there is this rush to our borders and they are illegally -- they are coming to the borders and handing themselves order to border patrol agents and we should give them what the law affords them. that is their day in court. >> thank you. i have a good deal of experience

in this arena having handled refugees coming in as federal -- as a federal judge in having handled asylum claims and having had the constitutionality of that issue litigated before me particularly as it pertained to haitian refugees who are yet another category of people at another point in time that received the brunt of this irby in here needs to understand they came from somewhere and when they came from somewhere, mr.: i'm may be a appear at least to claim part of our ancestry as native american. mine is creek. , for all you white people in here, my mother and great-grandmother were as white as you for the reason that their fathers were white. so the white portion of my family came here from somewhere as an immigrant. and an african-american portion of my family were brought here. everybody needs to get real and

understand that we are dealing with the children but you know something, on a cold january day in maryland, my friends the growthcans put forth the and opportunity project. i happen to pull it up. a fellow that i got to know and and he didstill do so much in housing and understood some of the dynamics of poverty better than some of the current day people do and jack hamp used to say, no one cares what you know until they know you care. he goes on in this opportunity that thehere republicans put together on that cold day. if we are going to gross a party our helices and actions must take into account that the middle class has struggled mightily and that far too many of our citizens live in poverty.

the people who are flat on their back unemployed or disabled and in need of help, they do not care of the help comes from the private sector or the government. they just want help. and then they have a segment called america looks different. they quote and i am sure he was not prescient. obviously a concerning person when he was governor of texas. president george w. bush used to stopfamily values do not at the rio grande and a hungry mother is going to try to feed her child. it was that kind of compassion atet led to the compassion conservatism that has diminished considerably in this institution. and then the go on to their recommendations which are fascinating. we are not a policy committee but among the steps republicans take in the hispanic immunity we must embrace and

champion comprehensive immigration reform. if we do not, our party possibly a will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only. we also believe that comprehensive immigration reform republicannt with economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all. my god, what happened between january and now, wasn't just the rio grande that is causing all this harshness? i will not go because you want to go forward, mr. chairman. i will not go backward of what you all said, as backward as you sound here today that the recommendations that you put forward, i will leave them out and place them into the record under unanimous consent. they were on issues like withration and they dealt all the things that you would need to do in order to the able to appeal to the hispanic

community. i will not be here. i will long since be dead but i do predict for you that you're going to have one hell of a time getting people who share the spanish-language to be of a mind to want to support people that are acting as harshly and as. lee as they are today. you go forward, mr. chairman. i will state passed on the fat -- fact that you are doing wrong. we're back here today after the hearing yesterday when the amendment was think offered through the appropriations committee to supplemental. and the very first line of the portion related to the policy changes is beginning on page 12, --ike lane three through line three through page 23 line

nine. the line is no longer in the bill. >> [inaudible] that is what is wrong with this party. >> thank you. mr. woodall. chairmenk the sitting here today for their work in getting us to where we are. somewhere this stopped being about a supplemental spending bill inserted to be about making therms and candidly, if appropriations committee brought us a bill that would throw more money at the problem and offer absolutely no changes in policy to prevent the problem, i would be a no vote today and i am grateful for you for working to make this a bill that not only takes care of children today but prevents children tomorrow from finding themselves in the same

circumstance. committee, wee should not be authorizing on a supplemental appropriations bill. is your presence here the signal that all of this is copacetic from a jurisdictional perspective? >> absolutely. you have heard my position any times on this. unfortunately, the president, not recognizing that legislative powers are present took his hand and his cell phone and he legislated and that was taken by human smugglers and used to advertise that people should come to the united states because to get here even if they enter illegally they will be allowed to stay. so we believe that there is a problem. we also believe the president has a host of tools that he can use right now to solve this problem and we wish that he would. but if he did do that, he would find that he would need some

more money to appropriately and humanely detain people who are unlawfully here and appropriately and with the correct arrangements with their home countries send them home. but what he did that he would also find that there are some provisions in the law that are being exploited. and one of those is that children from central american countries and elsewhere are being treated differently than children from mexico and canada. changes thatlicy is appropriate i believe is to say that those children should be treated the same mess children from mexico. that is what this language does and i think it is appropriate that we treat them the same way. i am here to answer questions and i think you. follow-up on that. this discussion has been about children. i think everybody in this chamber is about children. i was not here in 2007-2008 when that will was promulgated it was

there a suggestion that children who are sex traffic from mexico and canada deserve less protection, is that a reason to provide different protections depending on what country? >> in my opinion there is not as long as you're making the of the writ arrangements with the home country which this bill provides for to have the ability to make sure that they are treated humanely throughout the process and when their return home. will ask you, i reject wholeheartedly the narrative from the other side that anyone is asking the president to use his phone in his pen to do anything at all beyond what statutes already require. i do not want him to do a thing except with the law already requires. i think about my community where 287g was shut down because the president will not let the log take effect. -- law take effect. the committeeing

is asking the president to do for which you have not authorized him to do that or is the whole scope, the president has options to medicaid this and mitigate this crisis, you're saying within the four corners of the statute you have offered. >> there are many statutes that would offer -- allow the president to take appropriate action to enforce the law and as i said what he does that he would find that there are some provisions that are being abused and we want people who have a genuine fear of persecution to be able to go through that process and determine whether the u.s. is the appropriate safe place for abusedt when it is being and the claims are skyrocketing, there are 600% since that time and that is a figure that is determined before this current surge has taken place so they are up a higher percentage than that. your point about

not putting money forward without also making sure that it is used appropriately justifies the provisions that are in the bill. >> my colleague from massachusetts mentioned the dialogue has become so ugly, i agree with him. i was on the floor today while colleague after colleague stood up to say the language was not mean enough for punitive enough so that today to do more. i heard my friend from florida talk about hatred of folks. we have serious issues here and i think the serious issues we can work on together but i would hope that the cautionary tale from the gentleman from massachusetts was a cautionary tale to all of us rather than just a fraction. i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized.

from kentuckyn seek to clarify? the gentleman is recognized. x talking about how we treat the children, there is $200 million in this bill just for the purpose of caring for those unaccompanied minors. temporary housing, humanitarian assistance of all sorts, including rental of space to house them. maintaining that space, meals, medical care. treatment of all sorts, vaccinations, security, therapy costs for these kids. is big on caring for those on this snare. and i yield to no one in saying .hat this bill has a big heart

in addition to hopefully securing the border. caring of this bill is people and seeing to their repatriation to their home country where the presidents told us, we want them back. we will take care of them. we will see that they get the proper care. we will see that their return to their families back home. that people want to say the bill does not care about young people. >> what is so valuable about your leadership is that there is not a member who would question your commitment to caring for children and i am grateful you -- to you for your legal or -- your leadership. >> thank you. >> you recall yesterday you help clarify what was in the bill and we have a couple of chairman

here and i can ask you this question as well. 1r, theing at the ar -- doca component. the question with regard to preventederday's bill the president from extending doca for any new people who are not eligible for today. it did allow renewal for doca or isthere is new language that proposed today. would young aspirant americans on doca be able to renew their status or with this cancel that? no agent or --1,

may use resources after july 2014 to consider or adjudicate any more new or previously denied application of any alien requesting consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. daca, they can renew? two exclusions, new applicants and for those who have a pretty -- a previously denied application. >> if you do not have a previously and nine application you are accepted and you're not new because you're already in it. dacacan then renew your c status. >> the language speaks for itself. i listen just today and she said that her bill would deny -- [inaudible] >> we have not had a hearing on

this. had a -- have not judiciary hearing so we do not understand the implications. before we move forward to change the rules and regulations, the american government invited them to come forward and they did and before you move forward you should consider it because there are many out there -- >> the kind of interpretation offered by the chair of the judiciary committee is not enough -- >> i do not think it is enough because we should have hearings on it, number one. we should guarantee the rights of the 700,000 people. the readingthat -- and they say after july of 2014, let me tell you why i believe that date is there. because the first daca applications began in august 2012. there are hundreds of thousands of young people doing what, reapplying for daca, so let's be

careful how we move forward on legislation that might usurp and undermine the very right of the vision people to reestablish their rights under daca. there are people under daca who arrived here by 2007 who will apply for it and are being denied the opportunity to apply for it. i am thinking of a couple of my constituents, of daca durado who is a audent and javier who is the student attending university of colorado. it sounds like under this and this is the question to mr. good lot -- goodlott. they are in the daca program, if this were to can -- become law,

with the be able to continue in daca? >> that is an appropriate interpretation. >> i will yield. this line of questioning and the answer was no and nobody said anything. now we're saying the language is what it is. it is either yes or no. either we will -- these people qualify or they do not. >> it is important to establish legislative intent. law,is were to become assuring us that this allows students to remain in daca and that, itcounteract excludes people who were eligible but did not apply, excludes people who were turned down to my -- it excludes new arrivals and that is what i want to clarify. moving onto the next topic, i wanted -- mystery govern cover

this briefly. -- mr. mcgovern covered this briefly. d there on two different trips and got to learn about what was going on. and goodness that lackland had these derricks available. these young people where in the temporary holding facility which was meant to hold very few people for short period of time. it was meant to hold a dozen people and they had three or 400 people and they needed somewhere to go. the intentially says of congress is to have 120 days, no more use of aces -- bases. my question to mr. rogers on maybene because this is,

we can clarify who added this component. where did you want the children to go if not to the air force base, where do they go? >> the 120 day number, that is current practice agreed to by dod and homeland security. i mean hhs. that explains it. >> one more time? >> the 120 days, that his long-standing practice. an agreement between dod and hhs for some time. use the base within 120 days of the inception of the crisis. i think it took a month or two maybe.

i do not think it took more than two months. 60 days? days, that is the number of days that they can stay. >> ok> . the language. to >> i think a couple of things. i think the record will establish the answer the question before you -- it had been asked and answered it. and i not only answered at wants, i answered it twice in the second time i was abundantly clear and i even said why would we allow these young -- why would we want to invite people whose addresses we knew, they wi ll never trust us again. i think i made that clear to the committee and it went without objection. one of two things. either i was right and somebody is try to say that i was wrong ng and they didro not know i was right.

i am not quite sure. here fundamentally what is flawed with this process, when you have a bill introduced by a member of congress which that is rewritten the next day but it sounds kinder and more gentler than the bill that she introduced the day before, what we know that the rush is not to -- kinder and gentler. everyone is in a rush to get out of here but i have been here 22 years, i got elected by the same number of americans as anybody else in this room. and i have the same rights to this microphone as long as the chairman does not call me out of order is anyone else and believe there are things that need to be said that come from a minority position and that is the american way to do it. i want to establish a few things. because when i hear a member of this committee say that the program was thwarted by the president, i have to sit back and say, really? there are a couple of dozen of agreements established when george bush was president.

there are hundreds of 287g established under this presidency. secure communities went from a dozen jurisdictions to thousands of jurisdictions across this country. that is secure communities. we had a one-year under judge pushes administration -- george bush's administration one million people detained and now it is 400,000. to have a reason conversation about this. do i think we can do more, absolutely we can do more but lets suppose the only way that we will do more by -- is by not saying that we will thwart their rights to my that the american people reaffirmed you had through an electro-process last year. that is when the president -- we should sustain what 5 million more people said was the position of the other guy. i respect the public and majority's right to have an immigration bill. and for us to join them and for

them to dictate the way we move forward and for us to join and help them in a bipartisan matter -- manner. by the same token we should respect the points -- rights of those kids. >> the reason that about in this and talking action is that our her in-laws are not enforceable. we have who knows how many people here illegally. limit makes all the difference of the world -- in the world. of deferraloncept of prosecutors real [inaudible] use resources.to the final question is the same posed to mr. rogers. is there a lan and i know this is a house bill, we do not have

state or it ministered policy. the president will veto the one yesterday and he will probably veto this one. the senate is gone. is there a plan that i do not know about as a rank-and-file member and member of the rules committee, is there a plan to get the funding out or is this all talk that we are doing here question mark >> it is a 10 -- an attempt to provide an answer to a crisis that is affecting nnocent people as well as -- quick scan the house alone provide that or does it need to do that in conjunction with the ?resident and senate will answer that. the house is trying to solve the problem. this bill does not. it doesspan of time but it and gives relief to those people waiting on the border that have come across, treats

them humanely, tries to seal the border, and this bill will do just that. i am sorely disappointed that the senate just up and left without saying a word to anyone, leaving this crisis alive. i would hope that the leadership of the senate would bring them back. , passthe senate back here this bill, and solve this problem. that is what the people expect us to do. that i havea plan not been made aware of or is this just talked today? >> you are wise in questioning where this bill will go and what this bill will accomplish. the president has already said that there would be a veto on this bill. the senate is gone. what is really unfortunate, my colleagues has -- my colleague has mentioned this several times, and has been a year since there was a bipartisan

comprehensive immigration bill that passed the senate. and my colleague, mr. gutierrez has worked incredibly hard. as i talked to my constituents, what is so sad is that we are doing this so quickly, dealing with such serious issues and three quarters of the bill is legislation. what is so sad about it is that there are many hard-working people of the 10 or 12 million who are here who are working, pay taxes, and frankly, they send billions of dollars in remittances home, so if we had passed the bill, these people who are working, pay their taxes, keep the money here, strengthen our economy, and pay for their own ticket to bring their child here so the child would not be paying for the parent paying. ,hen you look at those numbers

$1000 to a coyote and what concerns me that i think is a desperate situation and many of us have discussed it is between the coyotes and the cartels that they are affiliated or belong to, these are gangs, these are criminals, they are adding to the unstableand nature of these countries that we have been talking about, whether it is honduras or el salvador, and we are not solving the problem. i would just say with great respect, it is unfortunate that we are dealing with these legislative issues which deserve time and should not be done so everyone can get home and a couple of hours because this bill is not really going anywhere. >> a final question. given as she mentioned this bill is 3/4 policy and legislation, is their weight to conference

with the senate immigration bill and try to get it done that way? >> no. i do not see the president of the united states excepting -- accepting that 700,000 young people will be threatening. we could take that out and conference. let me go that -- to a greater point. the last time a study was done in 2012, what the study came back was was this and you can throw the money at the border and security. we analyzed our budget in 20 -- 2012 and spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement. $18 billion. that is more than we spent on fbi, and all eea, other federal enforcement and it did not -- the kids still showed up at the border. this is not a question. we need an orderly way to address our broken immigration system. you can throw money at it. you will feel good. i am sure governor perry will

feel great. he is one of my three favorite republican governors. not recall the other two but he is one of my favorite three. he might be happy with getting the money so he gets his way but it does not solve the underlying problem that we have. and know our colleagues having taught to the border patrol people down there, the kids are surrendering to our people at the border. there is no enforcement issue. they're going to our people and sing here we are. unaccompanied minor act which is our law. there is an of this we need somehow, maybe for other reasons for people sneaking across but we are talking about people who are seeking out our people and saying here we are. i wanted to be clear about that. was correct, they are very well coached.

the john lynch from -- gentlemen seek time? additional 35 million dollars provided to fema for the reimbursement of states will require states to apply for the money. -- does femadment have the ability of the the discretion to deny -- ability of the discretion to deny funding under the amendment? >> they would need to apply for it to be reimbursed. >> does fema have the ability to deny that reimbursement? for well substantiated claims. ok, thank you for the clarification. i yield act. >> i want to thank committee for their insistence to move through

this hearing and thank our witnesses and they are now excused. ofs ends the hearing portion this hearing and we will now -- thosegnize there are including the gentleman mr. gomer it and others who have sought to be recognized. the chairman of the committee, myself, has made a determination that we're going to move forward and move this to the floor. i look forward to having the gentleman, mr. gohmert and anyone else as we look forward. the chair would now be in receipt of a motion. committee will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized for the purpose of a motion.

>> mr. chairman, i move the committee adopt a rule providing for further consideration of h.r. 5230 making supplemental appropriate igses for fiscal year ending 2014 and for other purposes under closed rusme the rule provides one hour be additional debate. the rule provides that the amendments printed in part a of the rules report shall be considered as adopted. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section two of the rule provides that after passage of h.r. 5230 and on the legislative day of all -- august 1, 2014, the house shall consider h.r. 5230 to -- h.r. 5272 to prohibit certain aliens not lawfully

in the united states. the rule provided for on you doctor one hour of debate. the rule provides that the considered inted be as adoptnd. the rule waives all points of order. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 36b the rules strike 700 and of house bill it being in order any time on august 1, 2014, for the speaker o entertain motions reality -- relating to mess aisle defense -- >> i heard the gentleman from north carolina. the gentleman from colorado is recognized the >> i move the committee make an order to wabe number 10 which

would allow the speaker to bring the comprehensive bill to the floor. i made my case before. i hope that having heard the testimony about our brocken immigration system that we have been able to convince more of our colleagues that until we deal with the issue as a whole, these bandages don't get us anywhere. more than 2/3 of the american people agree. it's time to have a vote on that on the floor of the house. i encourage my colleagues to support this amend. >> you've now heard the amendment from the gentleman from colorado, for discussion, the gentleman is recognized. >> you glossed over discussion with reference to the full measure. are we going to come back and have discussion on the full measure? >> >> after the amendment? >> the normal process that i

follow is that i, after the motion that's made i ask if there is debate, discussion, or amendment. the gentleman from colorado was seeking recognition so i gave him recognition and he has an amendment. thank you. >> so the further discussion on the post amend, the gentleman seeking recognition? >> i just want to add that this amendment would reduce the budget deficit by owe $200 billion over 10 years. i will yield back. >> the vote will now be on the poleous amendment the aye? no? the nos have it. roll call vote. ? ms. fox? no. mr. bishop? no. mr. woodal? no. >> mr. nugent, no. mr. websterster? no. >> ms. ros-lehtinen, aye.

mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye, mr. poleous, aye mr. chairman, no. >> quick total? > five yeas, seven nays. >> the clerk will please report the total again. i apologize. >> five yeas, seven nays. >> the vote is five yes, sir -- yes. six no. the amendment is not agreed to. does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> yes, i do. >> recognized. >> earlier in your remarks you commented that there had been consultation, an the only question i have of you is whether or not with reference to the matter that is before us there was consultation with democrats having input to the 41 pages that are now the amendment as offered here?

>> that's a very fair and direct question by the scombra. the answer is only on that, that i am aware of, on the par amers -- parameters of what the rules committee has done did i go meet with my colleague, mrs. slaughter. she was most gracious. she then asked me about the rule and the procedures that would be followed, and i did not engage her, nor did she engage me on the substance except a little bit. but other people i cannot answer for. >> understood. i think i can speak for the democrats when i say that no democrat had anything to do scriveners rin -- of this particular legislation. often, mr. chairman, rightly you point to rules that allow that a certain number of

republicans and a certain number of democrats have been made in order. i think it's telling that in this particular measure in the summary of amendment, that there are only republican measures. and i follow that up with what our new majority leader is attributed to having said very recently. the most important, house republicans will focus on ending legislationive relics that breed unaccountability and bureaucratic ineptitude. he goes on to say, congress must let go of the stale policies of the past and move government to the 21st century. i've always believed that you must win the argument before you can win the vote. in congress, committees act as idea factories for policies from both sides, and as

majority leader i will commit to the committee process and regular order. we are not following regular order here, mr. chairman. e are now on our 72nd and 73rd closed rule and certainly i think everyone highlighted here today that there were no hearings with reference to the particular legislation. and i'll grant that many of the parts of what must be this legislation could very well have been put forward in other hearings, but not for this particular matter. and i think it is not a good thing that that many members are shut out from this process. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. further discussion? the vote will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. aye? those opposed, no? >> no!

i -- >> i don't know thousand rule so i would ask for a roll call vote. [laughter] . >> ms. fox. > thank you. >> ms. fox, aye mr. bishop, aye. mr. woodall, aye. mr. nugent, aye. mr. websterster, aye. ms. ros-lehtinen, aye ms. slausestsh slaughter, no. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, no. mr. chairman? aye? >> nine yeas, four nays. >> the item is agreed to. i will be walking this downstairs. i'm going to walk down right now. >> mr. --

>> i assume it will take some period of time >> mr. chairman, could i just have one second. . it has nothing to do with today's activities but all the members should have got a dear colleague letter that we're going to be holding hearings here with regards to the rules of the neck house as we sit down for the 114th congress. so we're going to want input from all -- both sides of the sle, open to the sbifere body. that dear colleague letter should have been sent out and we expect to do something in september. >> thank you very much. we'll see you down stirs. excuse me? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe georgia tech is the finest engineering institution in america. >> i didn't hear him. >> we couldn't understand you there. >> i said i believe that georgia tech is the finest engineering institution in

america. not m.i.t. >> i object! [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> 24 hours after their first border security funding bill collapsed on the floor, the

committee was back at it again. the rules committee to approve the rules for debate for the latest house republican border security supplemental bill, now totaling $700 million the >> also looking for your comments on facebook on facebook and -- and wait to -- twitter the we expect to be hearing shortly about how the house about gavel back in. here's how this may play out. a producer -- producer op capitol hill, his tweet on the rundown for tonight -- debate the rule for one hour, vote on the rule. debate the border bill, one hour and debate daca.

this is the bill that deals with president obama's executive bill that deals with the so-called dreamers, children that came to the country illegally. some language has been tweaked on that bill. let's go now to your calls. as we wait for the house to gavel back in. laredo, texas, peter on the republican line. caller: yes, sir. thank you for receiving my cail -- call. i just want to say here in laredo we've always had a problem with illegal immigrants for the last 50 years. drugs, corruption, you name it. when you talk about central america and mexico, you are talking about failed goferts that are corrupt, you want papers, you got the money, you

can get any kind of paper. if you're a criminal emement and you end up here in the united states, basically here on the american side, everybody in laredo due to the violence, we've got every criminal element that there is on earth basically. >> has the situation gotten worse there in laredo over the last 10, 20 years? >> oh, yeah. about five years ago on the property next to my parents' house they own, the dog had flushed like 40 illegal aliens about 11:30 at night. the police wouldn't do anything about it. neighbor was a moving wetbacks, as we normally used to call them back in the 1950's, and i think i.c.e. finally got hold of them.

we are up to our necks in problems. i think all these children should be sent back to their parents and to the home government and even the -- there was one young man that testified in spanish, claiming that he was afraid to be recruited by the maras in honduras or whatever the >> yes. >> he stated that when he crossed the border and turned himself in to the border tral -- patrol that he was so cold, it was the worst experience are he's ever experienced in his life. >> peter, thanks for your call. you've been hanging on a bit. we appreciate you calling in with us this evening. he's talking, too, with a -- about a hearing we covered earlier this week, a senate hearing that heard from a number of the migerants from those countries, cuauhtemoc blanco and honduras and salvador. linda next on the democrat line.

what do you think about the debate in the house on the border funding? >> i think what they are doing is really pathetic. it's the least productive congress in history -- they don't even know what's in this bill. they know it's not going to go anywhere. they waited to the last moment before they take yet another recess, five weeks. they're only scheduled to be in session 26 days out of the last half of the year. the rest of us actually work for a living. we actually have to accomplish something and i work, i represent a company and i actually have to work with people. and yet this congress, this house of representatives, has no intention of working with anybody at all. >> getting your thoughts on the border security funding bill coming up in the house. producer on capitol hill for fox tweeting that the house rules committee wrapping up its work now will bring the rule to govern the border bills to the

floor sometime in the next 30 minutes or so. he just tweeted that. let's say 5:45, 6:00 eastern. now to massachusetts. nancy on 9 -- the independents line. go ahead. >> i just wanted to say it's just so frustrating watching these congressmen and senators. the sfors have already gone home. they have no idea, they're like so out of touch with reality. i went to a rally last saturday at the statehouse in boston. 10,000 people were there. about this, the illegalize. we want them sent home immediately. we want the veterans in the country taken care of. we want the 350r -- pour people in this country taken care of the president -- care of. and the president could stop this all by himself if he chose too. -- to. i think they ought to stay back

in the states, don't go to washington, then they'll know how the people feel. they just bloviate and it's too frustrating to watch. >> grass valley, california, on the democrat line. >> good evening. how are you today? >> doing well, thank you. >> thank you for being there. i'd just like to say that we need house, h.r. 15 boat -- voted on. we have a senate bill passed 380 days ago. the house has yet to take up anything regarding it and they still won't because they know if they had a vote on it, it may pass. >> if were you -- you were watching the rules committee a moment ago, you may have seen an ous try to introduce amendment to that effect, but it was defeated. >> and not only that, all the other democrats on the floor lined up and asked it to be

passed or brought forward, yet it still won't be because they know that a vote will happen, and if a vote happens it will probably pass. the other thing i would like to say is, under your previous segment i loved the republicans calling in on the democratic -- on the independent lines stating that they are democrats but they really aren't. thank you for your time. >> thank you, of the we get that sometimes. we ask you to call in on the phone number that best reflects your political views. more of your calls coming up. the president held a 45, 50-minute news conference. here's the headline from pot i willico. obama blasts g.o.p. on immigration the just want to give you a sample of ha he had to say in response to the question on house action. >> house republicans as we speak are trying pass the most

extreme and unworkable version of a bill that they already know is going nowhere. they can't pass the senate and if it were to pass the senate, i would veto it. they know it. they're not even trying to actually solve the problem. this is a message bill that they couldn't quite pull off yesterday, so they made it a little more extreme so they could fass today, jut so they can chicken box before leaving town for a month. and this is on an issue they all insisted had to be a top priority. our administration has helped to slow the tide of child migerants attempting to come to the country. but without additional republic -- temperature from congress we're just be going to -- just not going to have the resources. that means while they're out on vacation i'm going to have to make the tough choices to meet the challenges with offer you

-- or without congress. even though they've been sitting on a bipartisan bill for over a year, house republicans said that i actually should go ahead and act on my own to solve the problem. keep in mind that just a few days earlier they voted to sue me for acting on my own, and they when they couldn't pass the bill yesterday, they put out a statement suggesting i should act on my own because they couldn't pass a bill. so immigration has not gotten done. a student loan bill that would help folks who have student loan debt consolidate and refinance at lower rates, that didn't pass. the transportation bill that they did pass just gets us through the spring when we should actually be planning years in advance. states and business are raising the minimum wage for their

workers because this congress is failing to do so. even basic things like approving career diplomats for critical ambassadorial posts aren't getting done. last night, for purely political reasons, the senate republicans for a certain period of time, blocked our new ambassador to russia. it raised such an uproar that finally they went ahead and let our russian ambassador pass. ate time when we are dealing every day with the crisis in ukraine. >> all president obama's comments are available at c-span.org. we understand that the house is coming in in about 15 minutes, so probably about 5:35, 5:40 earn. we will have live coverage here on c-span. a couple more calls and tweets.

>> again, c-span -- cspanchat is the handle. jesse, from? >> meridian, idaho. i'm pretty conservative. the problem i'm havinging is i can't seem 0 to side with either the republicans or the democrats because the republicans have an idea but they don't know how to really solve it, and the democrats don't have any idea on how to fix it. i think the real crisis is in mexico. the reason we have illegal immigrants coming to our country is because of how bad

it is in mexico. so if we went spo mexico and fix -- fixed their current system, take out the drug cartels, etc., etc., we would no longer have to deal with illegal imgramingts if that occurs we can side with the republicans and say we do need to have a more secure border. until that point, there is nothing we can do unless we fix mexico. >> thank you for the call. on the republican line? >> hi, there. this one is going to get you a little bit shocked. yes, it is. this thing does not get sent or put out over to the senate. i don't care whether they are there or not. there are so many republicans that are going to vote in ohio for the democrat to get john boehner out of his speakership. that's what's going on all over the block. want states of america,

these borders secured and not only that, they want this bill that george bush passed gone and nullified. >> well, the senate has left town without doing anything on their version. they did pass by unanimous consent a piece that deals with the israeli iron dome defense system. that is also coming up in this house debate in about 10 minutes or so. last call is oxford, ohio. the democrat line. >> i'm really upset with both parties. i'm going to let you have it like it is. i used to go 99% democrat. then i voted independent because you know who is doing what. now i don't know what is going on. >> is it this issue, immigration, that's making you -- >> 99% of it, yes. because all other countries have quotas. so many people in, period.

not anything like that. there are numbers. we have no numbers no more. our doors are open for terrorists, for illegals that come in here and cause crime, and we need to shut our borders, period. >> all right, worden, thank you for your call. thanks for all your calls. gep, you can continue to comment on line and facebook and twitter as well. house coming in in about 10, under 15 minutes certainly and we will have live coverage. until then we are going to show you a briefing from earlier today with the congressional hispanic caucus.

foinfoib -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> ladies and gentlemen, are the speakers on? can you hear us in the back? as chairman of the congressional hispanic caucus, i stand here with my colleagues in the c.h.c. and the democratic caucus to urge house republicans to stop playing politics with the leeves of innocent children and work -- lives of innocent children and work with us to find a bipartisan solution. this week we have seen a

continued lack of compassion from our republican colleagues for central american refugee children, latinos, and the immigrant community. the legislation she -- they put forward yesterday would have rolled back due process protections for young victims of violence. it would have curtailed president obama's deferred action for child arrivals program and would have militarized our border. but that wasn't enough for the republican majority. instead of working with us and our democratic caucus, house republicans continue to use the crisis at the border to push forward their extreme agenda. instead of focusing on providing funding to ensure these children are treated humanely, they want to eliminate the guarantee of due process protection. instead of working to solve our

broken immigration system. house republicans have refused to put forward the senate-passed immigration bill that they've had before them for more than 13 months. nor have they considered h.r. 15, that has over 200 bipartisan sponsors. the american people elected us to work together to solve problems. we ask house republicans once again to come to the table and work with us to develop an american solution to the humanitarian crisis along our border. and with that i yield to the leader of our democratic party, nancy pelosi from california. >> thank you very much. you make us so proud of helping us standup tour to our responsibilities of this great country.

as others say of us, america is great because america is good. today could have been an opportunity for coming together. we have extended the hand of friendship to the speaker to say let us work together to get this done, when we saw the path that they were on that was unsustainable and from our standpoint, unsupportable. instead of responding to the concerns, instead of responding to objections of the legislation, they have moved more to the right, not to the correct, but to the right. and so we have a situation where with all the best intentions of the world in a bipartisan way, in 2008 democrats and republicans came together for a bill that was signed by

president bush. we cannot let the message coming out of here be that we want to be magnanimous and embraced told him that might be involved in human trafficking, but it got to be too many children and that was another thing. let us respond to the adequacy of the sources -- other resources to meet the due process and representation for them, the judges to facilitate their acceptance or repatriation back to their own country. let us remember that some of these children have been through terribly traumatic situations. now we cannot make matters worse for them. i just want to recall to all of you a picture that representative castro had on the floor of the house today. soldiers with guns pointed at the border.

is that how we say suffer the little children to come unto us? with that, i yield to steny hoyer. >> thank you. i am honored to stand here with the hispanic caucus. let me make it very clear, the hispanic caucus speaks for all of us. not just for their caucus members, but for the democratic caucus and for millions of millions and millions of americans who see america as a welcoming, compassionate, humanitarian, fair country. there is a need that exists now. everyone recognizes that this need exists now for resources to ensure that we treat not just children, but all people in a humanitarian fashion. it is unfortunate, therefore, that republicans are playing partisan games with a bill that has no chance of passing the

senate or being signed into law. in other words, it is simply a message they want to send, not a solution they want to effect. we are bridged across the aisle to see what we can pass in a bar -- why partisan way, and they continue to move even further from the mainstream. we could work together to respond to the crisis and e the border, and then, as the majority leader said in an op-ed today, we could pursue the regular order and consider legislation debated and haven't vetted by the american people. but republicans are racing to the right, with the harshest and

most draconian processes they can think of. we ought to be passing comprehensive immigration reform now. i am honored in making that case to the america people. and articulating the values that has made america the good and great countries that it is. now i will yield back. >> i would like to recognize the leader of our party, xavier becerra. >> i thank the chairman of the hispanic caucus for bringing us all together. it is not as the members of the hispanic caucus, but all of us who believe we should do things the right way in this country. the corrosive effects of shutdown do-nothing politics is

on display today. stripping the rights of children is never a good solution in any legislation. at the same time, it is never a good idea and a good solution to sue the president of the united states for doing his job when you're not willing to do your job here in the house of representatives. but this is ultimately what happens when for more than 380 days you let a bipartisan solution to a broken immigration system sit in the house of representatives. we could've voted on legislation that would have tackled the issues we face down on the -- >> back alive to the house for four more debate. clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives,er is. 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 nat on august 1, 20 14rks at 12:13 p.m., that the senate passed,

with amendment, house joint resolution 76. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. hawes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, 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 august 1, 2014, at 4:17 p.m., that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 4386, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 5195, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 606, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 1671, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 2291, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 3472, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 3765.

with best wishes i am. gned sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bills were signed by the speaker on friday, august 1, 2014. the clerk: h.r. 3230, to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes. h.r. 5021, to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the speaker's table house joint resolution 76, with the senate amendments thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee, that the house concur in the senate amendments and that the senate amendments be considered as read, the

previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question and the chair may postpone the question of adoption of the motion as through -- as though under ause b-8 of rule 20 -- sorry -- under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition in >> mr. speaker, pursuant to the order of the house today, i call up house joint resolution 76 with a senate amendments thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution, designate the senate amendments and designate the motion. the clerk: house joint resolution 76, joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the national nuclear security administration for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. senate amendments. motion offered by mr. rogers of kentucky.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house today, the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to the order of the house today, proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: torpt title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 710, resolution providing for further consideration of the bill h.r. 5230, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 5272, to prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the united states and for other purposes. and providing for consideration

of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 710 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 135, house resolution 710, resolved, that during further consideration of the bill h.r. 5230, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes, pursuant to house resolution 696, a, the amendments printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. b, all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. and c, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one additional hour of debate equally divided and controlled

by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, after passage of h.r. 5230 and on the legislative day of august 1, 2014, the house shall consider in the house the bill h.r. 5272, to prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the united states and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, section 2 of house resolution 700, as amended, is to read as follows -- section 2, it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of august 1, 2014, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15 relating to a measure addressing missile defense of israel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, my friend, the ranking member from the rules committee, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks

. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: the rule providesed for expedited h.r. 5230 and h.r. 5272. mr. speaker, i rise today because we are facing an unprecedented crisis on america's southern border. nearly 60,000 unaccompanied alien children have entered the united states illegally this fiscal year, most of whom have come through the texas-mexico border. and today our country faces a threat to our sovereignty and to our rule of law. the time to act is now. it would be irresponsible for this body to go home for a month without doing our part to help work and solve this problem. i'm glad that members of the house recognize their duty to finish the job. i believe the house has put specific concrete proposals to act in the best interest of the united states. let's take a look at what this crisis on our border is doing.

first, the president's cash-and-release program is a big part of the problem. under this program, nearly 90% of unaccompanied alien children have been placed with their families in the united states, many of whom are here illegally themselves. second, the president's daca program. daca is a major reason for the influx of illegal aliens to the united states. the director on citizenship and immigration services recently testified before the judiciary committee that 700,000 undocumented immigrants have taken advantage of daca. third, there's a 2008 trafficking law which has allowed so many to effectively skip out on the judicial process and live in our country illegally. catch and release under the president's proposal is wrong and bad for our country and

only encourages many, many more to continue their trek here. combine these policies plus signals from the administration encourage more illegal immigration and have led to the border crisis that we face today. to stop this crisis, our border must be secured and the tide of illegal immigration should be stemmed. i believe that this rule provides for legislation to accomplish that goal. h.r. 5230 would provide $659 million for border security, the enforcement of existing laws, illegal immigration prevention and humanitarian assistance. additionally, $70 million would be provided for national guard border efforts. this proposal is paid for which means that it does not result in any new or additional federal spending this fiscal year. however, the house will not

simply throw money at the problem. this package also makes specific concrete policy changes to address the underlying problems that are fueling this crisis. specifically it prevents the administration from using taxpayer dollars to adjudicate any legislation under daca or similar legislation. it also changes the trafficking law so all unaccompanied alien children are treated the same as under law today mexicans and canadians. this is for the purpose of removals. it also provides additional temporary judges to make sure that these children get their day in court with 14 days from their initial screening. it also strengthens the law to prohibit criminals and serious drug-related convictions -- those who have them, from applying for asylum.

it allows for customs and on federal law. it prohibits housing if housing ould remove any military personnel. ese steps come after serious discussions with the majority. as a texan, i have pushed and pushed for us to make sure we have a bill that could be supported by our members. it is texas and those who are who are on the border that are seeing conditions that are placing our state and local people at a disadvantage. thus, i want to thank the members for continuing to work together on a bill to get 218 votes. i applaud those who spent the time, including today, dedicating themselves for putting the package together.

i want to thank the staff and as always, i expect and want this body to support this good piece of legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. you would think after four years the majority would know how to run the house but this week makes us wonder. all we have accomplished this week is sue the president and deregulate pesticides into the environment and canceling a vote because tea party members refused to support a border bill tailor made for them. it was in their interest to pass it yesterday. my colleague, of whom i'm inordinately fond, said that the time to act is now but the time to act was yesterday when the senate was in town because there's no way now what we're doing today could ever become legislation because the senate would have to pass something and then it would go to the

president, who has said already he would veto it. so we stayed an extra day here to make a point. instead of going home to our constituents, we are under siege new york a choke hold, by some members of the house. this much is true. it costs the taxpayer $24 million a week to run the house of representatives and i'm afraid the american people aren't getting their money's worth. president truman, it's worth noting, campaigned for president using a quote, do-nothing congress. which had passed nearly 1,000 bills. and under, mr. speaker, this congress, we've passed 120. mr. truman was mad because they had not done a health care bill. fortunately, we got that down four years ago. but this recalcitrant congress is why president obah ba ma had to act on his own. nothing is working here but he was responsible for keeping the country moving. i think we need to describe for

the record and for the public exactly what's been done today. this morning, the majority adopted martial law rule under this -- until thesivity of september -- until the 5th of september, which is unusual. martial law rule usually lasts one, two, three days at the outside but we have it for five weeks. which means the speaker could call us back at any time. we hope he would not do that without telling us what we're going to do but today we don't know what's in this bill. we don't understand the legislation because the 40 pages of it, we have not had time to look at system of here we are. we do think it's pretty toxic. but not only was the bill drafted by republicans only in a basement room, there are absolutely no democrat fingerprints or ideas or amendments or thoughts or suggestions or hopes or anything else in this bill. there have been no hearings.

no markups. no amendments. nothing on which we are entitled to by the nature of being members of the house and sent here by 750,000 americans. now this bill does, we know, give $35 million to reimburse the national guard for activities relating to border security and the current influx of illegal immigrants, end quote. it turns out that only texas has spent any money on that and one wonders if that piqued senator cruz's interest in this bill and what we were doing over here because it looks like that's where the money will be going. the bill tragically cuts all funding for the dream act, the deferred action for childhood aprivel programs. as we were told, it was something like 700,000 children involved in that, who came forward on a promise of this government that they would have an opportunity to go to school. they would not be deported.

now the country has their names, their addresses, they will be easy to deport because this bill puts an end to the dream act. i related today, in rules committee, a story about four undocumented young men in a high school in the united states that decided to enter into a contest to build an underwater robot. the trouble that they had simply getting the equipment to do it and the teachers who helped them do it. and they were really -- they felt they had been outmatched and outgunned when they were going to compete against engineers. high school students against engineering students at m.i.t. a premiere engineering school in the united states. what happened? those four young men won. they beat m.i.t. now they were part of the dream act. we hope to doodness -- goodness they would not be deported because more than anything i can think of, the united states needs that kind of thinkers and

innovators in what they had to do. so the cato institute agree they wrote on the 29th of july, three days ago that daca, the dream act, was not a primary cause of the surge. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert this report from cato be entitled "daca did not does a surge in unaccompanied children" dated july 29 into the record. i would also like to submit statistical findings from the university of california-dage into the record, into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: what's really happening here is the most extreme anti-immigrant voices in the republican party uses the crisis as political cover to repeal a commonsense policy like the dream act. the speaker has caved once again to those voices. representative steve king has

described the underlying legislation as something that he could have ordered off the menu. furthermore, the rules are, of course, closed, setting a record anew for the most closed rules in any congress this bill does stop short of catapulting those children into mexico and then leaving them to walk to their home country, but it senchly doesn't do very much for anyone since discussion in the house of representatives for several years ago -- for several years now has been what to do about imgrigs. it's a sorry pass, we have reached this point, a one-house bill a senate that's gone, and a president that won't sign it. if we learned anything this week, we learned from speaker bayne earest comments on his blog -- speaker boehner's comments on his blog that the president should do more, notless, in contrary to the reasons why you sued him and we

hope the president will do that and bring a more humane solution to this, as almost all religions in the united states have asked us to do i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: one of the things i learned this week is that the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, presented not only her thoughts and ideas at our conference when we met about how we can make our border stronger, but she was present the entire time at the rule committees, had a chance to forthrightly participate. we had hours and hours of discussion about not only the legislation and what we were doing but we actually shared ideas among members on a bipartisan basis today and i felt like it was a pretty good exchange. i'm delighted at this time to yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 15 minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding time. mr. speaker, young children are being sent off alone, or put in the hands of criminal cartels, to cross vast, inhospitable spaces in the hopes of eventually reaching our border. this is a humanitarian crisis. today, we seek to address the plight of these children in a responsible fashion. there's been much discussion in the house this week about constitutional roles. the president has acknowledged his constitutional role in immigration policy. in 2011, speaking to a meeting of la raza he, said, quote, i swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. i know some people want me to bypass congresses and change the laws on my own. believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, i promise you. not just on immigration, but

that's not how our system works. that's not how our democracy functions. that's not how our constitution is written. end quote. if the president's actions had remained consistent with these words, we would not be facing the crisis we are today. unfortunately, though, the president did take it upon himself to unilaterally rewrite immigration law and did so in a way that aggravated the situation. and he knew the potential consequences. in 2010, the president said this -- quote, there are those in the immigration rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are here illegally with legal status or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better law. but i believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. it would suggest to those thinking about coming here

legally that there would be no repercussions for such a decision. and this could lead to surge in more illegal immigration, end quote. despite his clear foresight on this issue, the president still unilaterally suspended deportations of select illegal aliens. he pre-- his predicted surge quickly became a reality. now young border crossers are setting off on harrow, costly journeys, under the belief that upon arrival, they will receive a permiso, permission to stay in our great country. the motivation for illegally crossing the boarder is understandable. i join my colleagues who recognize the uniquely generous and welcoming nature of this great country. as a mother and grandmother, i am moved by the plight of these young children. as the granddaughter of immigrants, i'm grateful that this country has welcomed generations of tired and poor and given them the chance to

breathe free. and as a lawmaker, i recognize that the foundation of american generosity and freedom is the rule of law. today, through a constitutionally prescribed process, we have the opportunity to pass a bill that will give the president the tools to address this crisis. today, we can provide resources to secure the border and ensure that those who have already undertake then journey can be speedily reunited with their families. today, we can send a clear, compassionate message that undertaking this bodder crossing journey is a mistake. today, i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation so that we can begin to solve this problem. and mr. speaker, with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california,

the ranking member of the judiciary committee subcommittee on immigration and border security, export on -- expert on immigration, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: some have been asking whether this bill repeals daca and puts the dreamers back in deportation and the answer is yes. page 1, line 5 through 17, point out that no pounds can be use forward new application. the daca applications were granted deferred action for tworeyoose. they must make a new application, there's no guarantee that application will be approved at the end of two years, that's beginning now so this will require that the dreamers be removed from deferred action and become subject to deportation. further, the bill is