critical to the nation's security and to public safety. mr. speaker, last week we watched a terrible tragedy unfold in paris. as armed terrorists killed innocent french citizens who were doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. like 9/11 this event and others have occurred this year remind us that our democratic values are under constant attack and serve as a warning that we must remain vigilant. make no mistake, what happened in paris can happen anywhere, including the united states. and we must provide the resources necessary and root out the seeds of terrorism. therefore passing the homeland security appropriations bill is an imperative we cannot fail to meet. mr. speaker, this agreement is

very good, and i'm proud of it. it supports d.h.s.'s frontline personnel and essential security operations and maintains fiscal discipline. specifically for customs and border protection, this agreement adds 42 million above the request to ensure -- assure 24/7 surveillance of all land, sea and air approaches. it increases air and marine flight hours from 74,000 to 95,000 per year. this agreement fully funds 23,775 border patrol officers to reduce wait times of passengers arriving at the nation's international airports without resorting to burdensome user fees as proposed by the president. funds are included for 21,370

border patrol agents the highest operational force in d.h.s. history. funds for tactical communications equipment and border security technology are increased by $20 million above the request. substantial increases are included for targeting systems and data analysis to support counterterrorism efforts. for immigration and customs enforcement, custody and deportation are increased by $862 million above the request to ensure full funding of 34 000 legislatively mandated detention beds and to detain deport and deter the influx of families and children illegally crossing the southwestern border. included in this amount are $3,732 -- 3,732 family detention units and 207 new

enforcement officers to expedite the process of returning illegal immigrants to their country of origin. isis investigative capacity is increased by $240 million over the request. which will result in more convictions of drug smuggling. all existing 27-g agreements. for the transportation security administration t.s.a. screeners are capped at $45,000, $1,000 below last year's level. privatized screening is increased by $12.1 million over the request, and funds are reduced from t.s.a.'s current request and prior year balances, saving the taxpayers almost $300 million. for the u.s. coast guard operational hours in critical source and transit zones are

increased by $16.7 million over the request. depot and level maintenance, which is crucial for the coast guard readiness is increased by $52.7 million over the request. the eighth national security cutter is fully funded and $95 million over the request is added for an additional c-130-j aircraft. for the united states secret service $25 million in additional funds are provided to address training shortfalls highlighted by the white house fence jumper and to enhance perimeter security, including for additional k-9 teams. for the national protection and programs directorate funds are provided so d.h.s. can effectively manage the collection of biometrics and protect and enhance the

resilience of the nation's physical and cyberinfrastructure. for federal emergency management agency $7 billion is provided to fully fund operational needs for disaster relief. first responder grants are increased by $300 million above the president's request to sustain funding for state and local grants, firefighters' assistance grants and emergency management performance grants. for science and technology $23.7 million above the request is provided for vital research efforts, including biological defense cybersecurity, border security and first responder technology. and $300 million is included to complete construction of the national bioagro defense facility. finally, this agreement provides absolutely no discretionary fubbeds or mandatory funds to implement

the president's executive actions on immigration. as you know, the cost of proceeding immigration applications are paid entirely by individual applicants when they submit their supporting documentation. fees from those transactions are collected in a specific amount in the treasury as mandated by the immigration and nationality act. the hard-right hand income of american taxpayers -- the hard-earned income of american taxpayers does not subsidize applications and spending -- and the spending bill under consideration today has no funding for these purposes. in closing, mr. speaker this homeland security bill meets the security needs of our nation and the fiscal stewardship expected by are the taxpayers. i believe it is worthy of every member's vote, and i urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. carter: and i'll reserve

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as desired. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i want to at the outset thank chairman carter and ranking member price for their very hard work on putting the original bill together which was negotiated by the house and the senate and could be law right now. as my colleagues are aware our committee has not officially organized to the new congress, which means we technically do not have a ranking minority member for the department of homeland security appropriations subcommittee. again, i want to say to my colleagues, we could have completed action on this bill

in the last congress with the other 11 appropriations bills considered in the omnibus package. unfortunately the house majority kicked the can down the road, put these important programs under a continuing resolution, in a misguided attempt to protest the president's executive order on immigration. and today instead of putting a clean bill on the floor, majority colleagues have decided to further inject partisan politics into the appropriations process. we all know the outcome of this very dangerous game. the legislation in this form will not be enacted. all we are doing is further delaying enactment of the very good full-year bill. i'm deeply disappointed that republicans insist on making

congress play out this farce at the expense of our nation's security. it has taken less than two weeks for the republican congress to prove that it cannot govern responseably. the republican majority has -- responsibley. the republican majority has already delayed this bill enough, with more than a quarter of this fiscal year already gone, we continue to play games with the funding for an agency that was created to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. last week terrorists brutally murdered 12 people at the office of a french is i tearcal magazine, -- is a tearcal magazine, a police officer and individuals at a kosher grocery store. that is the example of the kind of out-of-blue attack that department of homeland security, along with its other law enforcement partners, is

working hard to prevent here in the united states. . it will delay grants to states and major areas that is critical to supporting local first responders in our defense against home-grown terrorism and for fusion centers, where the department of homeland security gathers, shares analyzing threat information with its state and local law enforcement partners. the failure to enact a full-year bill will slow down efforts to the secret service to begin addressing problems with security at the white house. the department will be limited in its ability to move forward with the secretary's unity of effort initiative, to make the department more strategic and improve coordination among its

components. resources to detain truly dangerous criminal aliens and to manage another rapid influx of unaccompanied children and families across the southwest border are in jeopardy. acquisition of the final national security cutter and other coast guard assets will be delayed, as will construction of the national bio and agro defense facility. mr. chairman i urge my colleagues my republican colleagues, to give up the partisan games that threaten our national security and allow the house to act today on a clean bill. again that was negotiated by democrats and republicans, house and senate, a good bill, funding

the department of homeland security. we have already wasted enough time. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i would like to yield as much time as he may consume to mr. hall rogers, the chairman of the full committee. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for his good work inputting this bill together and for yielding this time. i rise in support of this bill. it funds department of homeland security. in december, the house passed on a bipartisan basis an aggregated appropriations bill that funded most of the federal government 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. and today we consider the last remaining of those bills. the security of our homeland is of the highest priority.

this bill provides $39.7 billion for that purpose to protect our borders, and defend against the threats of terrorism and enforce our nation's laws. today, we will also consider amendments to the bill that will reverse the president's declaration of executive amnesty for illegal aliens. one of these amendments would change existing law to prohibit any funding, including fees from being used to implement the order. as the chairman of the subcommittee has said there are nor appropriations in this bill for the illegal amnesty decree. that's being funded by fees. and this amendment would get at that problem.

the american people have spoken loud and clear. they want our immigration laws enforced, rather than unilaterally changed by executive decree in an unlawful way that undermines our constitution and the integrity of our laws. i will vote for these amendments because the presidential amnesty decree grossly exceeds these authorities and violates the constitution. now, the base legislation before us ensures that our immigration laws are upheld, that our border is fortified, and that the men and women on our front line remain well equipped and trained. the bill provides $10.7 billion for customs and border protection. that's an increase of $118-plus

million. and to ensure around-the-clock border surveillance. border for border enforcement i.c.e. is boosted, totalling and increases to detention bed capacity for both individuals and families and full funding for e.-verify that they can work in the u.s. in addition, the legislation provides funding to ensure the safety of our skies and our coasts. the transportation security administration is funded at $4.8 billion, targeted funding to passenger security, cargo inspections and intelligence. the coast guard receives $10 billion, denying the president's

proposed cuts that would have gutted vital operations of the coast guard. the security of this nation is also dependent on a secure cyber network and recent headlines have underscored our need to be prepared against new and foreign cyber attacks. to improve our cybersecurity programs the bill includes, $753.2 million in the national programs and protection directive. the bill also includes increased funding to address critical lapses in secret service, communications and training at the white house and to start preparations for the 2016 presidential election. in addition to providing for these important security efforts, the department bill provides funding for disaster

recovery and response. there are $7 billion in the bill for fema's programs, fully funding their requirements. it provides $2.5 billion for important first responder grants that helps states and communities act in the critical moments following a disaster. and finally, mr. speaker in all, this legislation before us takes the necessary steps to ensure the responsible transparent use of taxpayer dollars, including streamlining d.h.s. operations, reducing overhead costs and trimming funds for lower priority programs. now, i want to thank chairman carter and the entire subcommittee and staff for their hard work in reaching that bipartisan agreement back in december, which now is reflected

in this bill on the floor and to thank the staff for their many hours putting this legislation into final form. nearly halfway into the fiscal year, it's high time we get this bill enacted, to strengthen our homeland security efforts, ensure our personnel are well equipped and trained and maintain our readiness for any threats that come our way. we cannot put our security at risks with outdated funding levels and uncertainty of the continue continuing resolution. i urge my colleagues to vote responsibly for the security of our country and security of our board iris and i urge our -- borders and i urge our colleagues to vote yes. mrs. lowey: before i yield to our next speaker, i want to make it clear that the bill that was

negotiated by the democrats and republicans, house and senate would pass immediately today, and then we should look forward to a debate on comprehensive immigration reform. i'm pleased to yield nine minutes to the ranking member of the appropriations committee who worked so hard to work with the republicans in producing this outstanding bill. unfortunately, the bill is very different with the additions that were added just in the last week. i'm happy to yield nine minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from from north carolina, mr. price. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. mr. price: the bill before us today, funding the department of homeland security for fiscal year 2015 has been ready for final passage for almost two months. i want to thank chairman carter

and our senate counterparts and our staff for working through november and december to have a comprehensive and balanced measure. chairman carter has summarized the underlying bill very well. it provides increases for the secret service to hire new agents for the 2016 presidential campaign and make necessary security adjustments at the white house. it provides increased funding for the coast guard's eight cutters. disaster relief funding at fema and efforts to continue enhancing our national cybersecurity capabilities. but it pains me to say, mr. speaker, all of these positive efforts stand in stark contrast to the poison pill amendments, amendments designed to inject

partisan anti--immigration politics. unfortunately there is nothing new about adding highly inflorida ma tower riders in a way that wricks months of cooperative work and makes bipartisan support impossible. we have seen this in middle of the night, homeland security, anti--immigration amendments for two years running. but today we are seeing the most egregious and irresponsible abuse of the appropriations process yet. republican leaders have already delayed a full-year funding bill by nearly a month longer than for the rest of the government despite the fact that this bill was fully negotiated well before the omnibus bill was assem bled at the last congress. more than a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, the republican leadership is continuing to play dangerous and irresponsible games with the

funding of this department the department that was created to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. members, of course are aware of the horrendous murder of 17 individuals in france by terrorists. this is an alarming example of the kind of brutal and calculated attack that department of homeland security and law enforcement partners are working hard to prevent here in the united states. it's the kind of attack that keeps secretary johnson up at night and should keep us up at night as well. this alone, this alone, should make it unthinkable to dawd lmp e on a full year funding people. three million people participated in unity marches in france but we are sending a different message by delaying homeland security funding. six days removed from a heinous terrorist act, we are dawdling.

and holding back and refusing to send to the president a bipartisan bill to keep the nation's people safe. we are tasking on items that will ensure a veto. some members seem to be under the mistaken impression that departments and agencies might make out just fine. perhaps some members even think that it would be ok for the department's funding to expire beginning in late february so they could underscore the political point they want to make. that is a patently tals assumption. in a few weeks the 2016 budget will be submitted by the president and d.h.s. doesn't know how much money it will be spending in 2015. how can they effectively budget if they have no idea. how can we expect them to function when the vaket is

undermined undetermined for a quarter of the fiscal year or more. how can we as a congress even perform effective oversight when we force ourgses to at the same time finish 2015 funding as we consider the 2016 request. ironicically, the two agencies that stand to lose the most from this flawed republican strategy are the very agencies they purport to champion. agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, customs and border protection. under the house bill, these two agencies combined would receive nearly $1 billion more than the current spending level, which a c.r. would reflect, the bill we're not passing would provide that additional funding. republicans appear more interested in scoring political

points than on making progress on the border. . how's that going to really play out? without 60 votes in the senate, the bill will go nowhere even if the senate were to pass the bill with the poison pill riders in tack, the president would certainly veto it with absolutely no chance the house or senate could override that veto. so what's left of the majority's strategy? would the republican majorities in the house and senate really be willing to let funding for the department of homeland security lapse when the short-term continuing resolution expires? the vast majority of d.h.'s employees, d.h.s. employees are considered essential. so they would still need to show up for work. will the house majority really be willing to let front line agents and officers at c.b.p. and i.c.e. work without pay? would the house majority be willing to let the coast guard military personnel continue to

risk their lives at sea without compensation? imagine the outrage, imagine if a democratic congress ever held funding for the department of homeland security hostage during the george w. bush administration. yet that's precisely what house republicans are doing with these poison pill amendments made in order under the rule. and believe me, these pills really are poison. they kater to the republican conference's most extreme elements. one of them even targets the dream act students. reversing the president's widely acclaimed and accepted decision to focus instead on the deportation of dangerous criminals. a full-year d.h.s. funding bill was negotiated in good faith on a bicameral bipartisan basis and it addresses the most pressing needs of the department and works to protect the country from harm. if republicans want to make mean-spirit and destructive changes in im-- spirited and

destructive -- mean-spirited and destructive changes in military policy, that's a constructive way to do that. in the meantime, we should be passing a clean, full-year funding bill for the department of homeland security, just as we should have done in december. i urge defeat of the immigration amendments and adoption of the underlying appropriations bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. >> i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i first want to begin by thanking the chairman of the department of homeland security's appropriations subcommittee, and the chairman of the full appropriations committee, the gentleman from texas -- the gentlemen from texas and kentucky for their lent work on this legislation. it's important that we pass it and use the power of the purse in this process to stop the president's unconstitutional

actions. president obama has embarked on some of the biggest executive power grabs in american hitchtry by unilaterally rewriting -- history by unilaterally rewriting our nation's immigration laws. these actions ignore the will of the american people who voted in november to change the way washington operates. and these actions flout the united states constitution. they must be ended because these policies threaten the separation of powers between congress and the executive branch. and violate president obama's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. congress must fight to stop these unconstitutional actions from being implemented and today the house of representatives is doing just that. we will consider amendments to this bill that will stop president obama's executive overreach in its tracks. two of the amendments will completely defund president obama's executive power grabs. one offed -- offered by representatives robert

aderholt, mr. mulvaney and mr. barletta, will defund the president's new deferred action program for over four million unlawful alien parents. it will also defund the other executive actions he announced on november 20 and d.h.s.'s so-called prosecutorial discretion memos that have gutted immigration enforcement within the united states. importantly, in addition to borrow --ing the use of appropriated fund -- barring the use of appropriated funds, the amendment will bar president obama from using immigration

the fourth amendment will be offered by representative shock. it expresses that the obama administration should stop putting the issues of unlawful immigrants ahead of legal immigrants. legal immigrants have it the price. -- pauid id the price. they have longer wait times even though have -- they have paid

the fees to have their forms processed. should not be harmed by the granting of deferred action and work authorization to unlawful aliens. in many cases businesses now have a $3,000 incentive to hire an alien granted daca benefits over a u.s. citizen or legal immigrant worker since daca recipients are not eligible for obamacare. so in other words, an employer has an incentive, either not having to provide health insurance and not having to pay the fine, so a minimum of $3,000, if they hire somebody who is not lawfully present in the united states until the president's executive memos take effect. that should be stopped. if president obama's unilateral immigration amendments are not stopped, future presidents will continue to expand the power of the executive branch and encroach upon individual

liberty. the time is now for congress to take a stand against these abusive actions. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and these important amendments and yield back the balance of my time. the ch t ntmays bae e h te. the gent fw mrs. loy:r.hama elthe nus t distinguished gentmafr california, mr. becerra chairman of the house democratic caucus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. three. the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the ranking member for yielding. to govern means to get things done. that's pretty simple and quite honestly that's about all the american people ask us to do on a daily basis. get things done. but instead of bringing a clean homeland security funding bill to the floor of this house, our colleagues on the republican

side have decided to put our nation's security at risk and kater to some of the most -- cater to some of the most ratcal views in their party. it is -- radical views in their party. it is stunning that only a week after the tragic terrorist attacks in paris, we are standing here on the floor of the house of representatives talking about attempts to make it more difficult for the department of homeland security in the united states of america to defend our nation. a good bill, and we've heard this, republicans and democrats alike say that the underlying bill to fund the department of homeland security is a good one. it's just all the poison pill amendments that have been forced into this bill. so a good bill to fund our government's homeland security and all of its obligations will come before us and become a victim of what has become known as shutdown partisan politics. what's at stake? border protection customs

enforcement, transportation security, coast guard protections secret service protection emergency management in the event of an attack or a natural or manmade disaster, all put in jeopardy. to play partisan politics. if the american people are going to believe that congress is anything more than a graveyard for good ideas then we need to get to work and not let a tiny minority of radical voices block progress. it is time for us to say to americans, we get it. we heard you. it's time to protect the homeland, it's time for us to act bipartisanly, and it's time for us to act as leaders for all americans, not a political party. we must pass a clean funding bill for the department of homeland security without delay and then, yes, we can get to debate immigration and immigration reform and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. but don't put the security of our people and our homeland at risk simply to gain -- game the

system. let's pass a clean homeland security bill. let us defeat all these amendments and get to work the way the american people expect us to. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: at this time mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the honorable chairman of the financial services committee, mr. jeb hensarling of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this critical piece of legislation. mr. chairman, every president in the history of our republic from george washington to barack obama has raised their right hand and said, i do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution -- defend the constitution of the united states. clause 4, section 8 of the

citiosa, e ngthcore sll have por to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. when we as a body read the constitution on the house floor last week, i had the honor of reading this very section for all to hear. section 3, article 2 of the constitution says the president, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. but never in the history of our republic has a president so blatantly ignored his oath. we know our president has a pen, we know he has a phone, we just wonder, when will he acquire a copy of the constitution and read it? his executive action on immigration is an unconstitutional power grab. it tramples on the authority that the constitution gives congress, the people's elective representatives, over immigration. it ignores the separation of powers. we cannot let it stand. co-equal branches of government separation of powers, the rule of law.

these must be preserved. and in this bill, as amended we do this by exercising the house's constitutional power of the purse. and this d.h.s. funding bill, as amended, will achieve this. the debate is much bigger than immigration. it is much bigger than amnesty. it is about our constitution it is about the principle of separation of powers, it is the bedrock of our freedom and prosperity as americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer the minority whip of the house. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the work that he's done on this bill. i want to thank the chairwoman,

the ranking member of the appropriations committee, and mr. price for working on this bill. this bill is an appropriation bill. this bill funds the department that is charged with the responsibility of keeping america safe. and americans safe. this bill is an appropriation bill. it is against the rules of the house of representatives to put lelingtive language on an -- legislative language on an appropriation bill. frankly, having serbed -- served there 23 years, i know that that rule is not always followed. and you therefore need a waiver from the rules committee in order to affect this end. this is not therefore regular order. we just had another demonstration of the clear and present danger to which every

citizen in the free world is subject. we saw it in france. and 17 people lost their lives. we of course lost over 3000 lifes -- lives on 9/11. this is an issue on which there ought to be no difference among the 435 of us who have the privilege and honor of serving in this country. and in this congress. mr. hensarling raised his right hand, to preserve and protect. yes, the constitution and laws thereof, but also to preserve and protect the general welfare of all of our people. . i have spoken to some of

them. we saw one of those reasons all too closely. our homeland security agencies are hard at work every day to prevent incidents like those from occurring here in the united states. and how extraordinarily successful they have been since 9/11. and again, chairman carter and ranking member lowey i want to congralt late you for coming together and agreeing on a bill, agreeing on funding levels, agreeing on the objects of expenditures to keep americans and america safe. with only a continuing resolution to fund it, as has happened in december, the department does not have the full flexibility to respond to every threat to the best of its

ability. this leaves us vulnerable at a time that we cannot afford to be vulnerable. that is why it is so unfortunate, house republic -- republicans have chosen to play political games. the courts are set forth in article 3 to resolve this issue. if you feel so strongly that you are right, that's where relief should be sought. but let us not hold america's national security and the safety of our people hostage to that political difference. in doing so, you have managed to snatch partisanship from the jaws of consensus. we have agreement. the underlying bill before us will have the support of over 400 members.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: may i have one additional minute? over 400 members would support the underlying bill. wouldn't it be wonderful to show to the american public that we come together not in a partisan way, but as americans, to make sure they are as safe and secure as we can make them. but no we have denigrated this debate to a political debate between the president and the congress. that's a significant debate to have. but not on this bill. not when we have consensus. not when the americans' security is at risk. two of the amendments are undermining the executive actions that president obama took to address. we think they are appropriate, you don't. that is a political difference.

do not defeat on this on an unrelated issue. you say it is related because it is an agency that deals with immigration and border security. one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. hoyer: we will vote against these amendments. but the sad truth is, you know, all of you, that if those amendments are put on this bill, the president of the united states will not sign it. and you will therefore have to take it to court. and i see my friend back there who is my friend saying, yes, that's great, he won't sign it and we'll blame him for undermining national security. you are going to hold national security and if he doesn't do what you say, security be damned. that is not the way we ought to

be running america. america expects better of us. more importantly, we expect better of ourselves. the appropriations committee has agreed. the senate and the house have agreed. there is consensus here. americans are so frustrated by all of us grabbing defeat and obstruction and disagreement from the jaws of consensus. vote against these amendments so all of us can vote to pass this important and important critical bill. apparently, i have run out of time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: thank you mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to representative roskam.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the chairman for yielding. i look at this from an entirely different perspective. this is the house of representatives asserting its will and speaking out and saying we aren't going to be silent in the movement of the president of the united states. if we had done nothing mr. chairman then the subsequent argument in weeks to come would be you did nothing. you were silent, you waived your right to assert yourself and you had the power of the purse. clearly we are taking it up. and here it is, we are coming together and we are saying we don't believe the president has the authority. we are asserting that. but at the underlying level there is something incredibly significant and very bright that is happening regardless of what side of the aisle you are on,

because you know what we are talking about? we are talking about defending a country that we all hold dear. there was a story i heard from an exchange student, mr. chairman, who came to visit the united states and she was asked about her time here. this was a young college student and said what made the biggest impression upon you? and she said this. the number of people who came up to me and said, what do you hope to do for a living? and it was totally different for this girl, and the culture she was coming from was different but there was a freshness to it and found it dynamic. that's what we are fighting for. we are fighting for a nation and to defend a great nation and to celebrate a great nation, and that is worth taking up.

so look, there are very deep differences in this house. there are very deep differences in this house -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. roskam: we all need to recognize that. mr. carter: yield another minute. the chair: another additional minute. mr. roskam: i respect my colleague and his differences, and i respect the other side and their differences, thomas jefferson said this. jefferson wrote a letter in 1790 to a guy named charles clay and said the ground of liberty is to be gained by inches and we must be content what we get from time to time and pressed forward for what it is to get for our own good. this is a game of inches. we need to prevail and move forward and i yield back. mrs. lowey: i yield another 30

seconds to the distinguished minority whip, our leader. mr. hoyer: i want to say to my friend as i observed, i think there is a legitimate question here. no one wants to see you silenced and you have the right to bring up this issue. what we urge you not to do is put at risk the passing of a homeland security bill, which gives funding for a year's period so there will be stability and ability to manage the national security of our country while at the same time raising legitimate questions that you want to take. no one wants to den i eye. and i the gentlelady. the chair: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. mr. carter: i believe it is my time -- i will yield to the

minority leader. not my time, but your time. mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentlewoman from from california, ms. pelosi, the house minority leader. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i join my colleagues on the fine work they have done under difficult circumstances on the homeland security bill. it had been our hope that their fine work would have been rewarded by its passage in december, but the republican leadership in the house decided that we would not pass the bill then to give some certainty to how homeland security would be funded in this year and instead toss it over until the new year. we have -- we take an oath to protect and defend american people.

their safety is essential to everything else and homeland security is a place where we have a very big component for protecting and defending the american people. that's why we were so disappointed that of all bills, the republicans would pull that one bill out of the pack and say we are just doing that for a matter of weeks. it cam with a promise that after the first of the year we would pass a homeland security bill. that was december. december, the republicans said, we don't want to have that certainty not just yet. and then, along came january. paris. je suis charlie. whether you were present there or not everyone was present in the time since of support of protecting people throughout the world from terrorism. it seems like it affected

everybody but it didn't penetrate the walls of this chamber because here we are once again putting off by other distractions how we would pass as quickly as possible a homeland security bill. and what's interesting to me is that our colleagues are using immigration, some of our colleagues are using immigration as the excuse. but what further is interesting, they are saying it is not about immigration, which of course it has been about passing the immigration bill they are saying it's about the constitution. i don't remember and i have been here since president reagan was president, i don't remember anybody calling up the constitution when president reagan used his executive authority in the family fairness executive action. i don't remember anybody bringing up the constitution

when president george herbert walker bush further extended protections in our country. president clinton. this is interesting to hear it. but i do want to put this into perspective and will take a little time. there is a strong and legal precedent. we are talking about deferred action here for a broad category of people who have strong equities to our country. the immigration and nationality act and the judicial precedent make clear that the justify maintains broad discretion to determine how immigration laws are to be enforced. such discretion extends to decisions about whether to defer to categories of people whether they are defined by nationality or some other common characteristic that makes them particularly deserving.

this legal authority has existed since the immigration and nationalization act was first enacted in 19 2 and exercised in various ways and under various ways over the past 62 years. based upon the administration's vast prosecutorial authority, the president could extend deferred action for persons who could be under section 744 which passed in june 27, 2013. the president could establish a deferred action for persons for agriculture and our agricultural industry and millions of jobs that are largely dependent on the labor of unauthorized workers as for the parents of the young people that received deferred action. when congress first passed the

immigration and naturalization act in 1952, it charged the attorney general with administration and enforcement of immigration laws and authorized the attorney general to perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this act. courts have relied upon this delegation of authority to support the principle that the act, quote, commits enforcement of the i.n.a. to the attorney general's discretion. with the creation of d.h.s. and homeland security act of 2002, which many of us were here for, congress entrusted the newly created secretary of homeland security to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. in doing so, congress acknowledged the inherit authority of the enforcement agencies to decide whom to detain, charge and prosecute under the law.

the supreme court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce whether through civil or criminal process is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. that's the court decision. if you want me to read the further authorities on that, i will, but in the interest of time, courts have consistently had this in the context and deferred action and in arizona versus united states, the supreme court relied upon the broad discretion exercised by the federal immigration officials including, quote, whether it makes sense to remove all, and strike down all of arizona's sweeping immigration law. because it could result in harassment of sole aliens, that's their term for example, a veteran, a college student or

someone assisting in a criminal investigation, should not be removed, the law, quote violates of the the principle that the removal process is entrusted at the federal government. the idea that the enforcement efforts should be focused on high priority targets. and immigration context have been issued as far back as 1976 under president george w. bush the customs enforcement i.c.e. reafirmedeprrl -- prosecutorial discretion to use discretion in identifying responding to health-related cases. indeed 15 years ago democratic and republican members of congress joined together to the then

attorney general urging her to issue guidelines that would provide specific instructions to agency personnel in order to alleviate some of the hardship caused by our immigration laws. the letter accepted the premise, democrats and republicans signed it, the letter accepted the premise that, quote, the principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established and asked the i.n.s. to explain why it removal cases -- why it would remove cases rather than prioritizing efforts against more serious cases. although the program announced got years ago provides the most recent example of temporary relief for removal being offered to a substantial class of persons it is the family fairness program adopted by president ronald reagan and presidents -- president george herbert walker bush, that proves to be the most strong -- the strongest precedent for building upon daca and offering deferred action to a larger

class of persons who meet the criteria. this is very interesting, i think, my colleagues. because in 1986 congress passed and president reagan signed into law the immigration reform and control act of 1986. the law provided a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants. but provided no relief to the children and spouses of such persons who were not themselves able to meet the requirements for legalization. indeed when the senate judiciary committee reported the bill to the floor, it wrote, quote it is the intent of the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. they will be required to wait in line in the same manner as immediate family members of other new residents. but on october 26, 1987, less than one year after it was

enacted into law, president reagan made the decision to defer enforcement against some of the close family members of persons who obtained legal status. this is president reagan acting -- president obama's acting in the absence of congressional action. president reagan is acting in the presence of congressional action and saying you didn't go far enough. under the family fairness program issued then by the i.n.s. commissioner under the -- the reagan administration offered indefinite volunteer departure along with the opportunity to reapply for employment to undocumented children residing with their parents. spouses of persons who obtained a lawful status could also be granted indefinite voluntary departure and work authorization by demonstrating the existence of certain compelling or -- would you be suing president reagan for

doing that? as some of you are against president, as you are using the constitution as your argument here today. in response to continuing concerns that the family fairness program was too narrowly defined, president george herbert walker bush went further three years later expanded the program to apply to all spouses and all children of persons who were legalized, provided they met certain requirements. the memorandum issued by then i.n.s. commissioner collarified that voluntary departure and employment authorization would be granted to such persons for a one-year period and would be subject to extensions without limit. the reagan administration. would you be taking the president to court, would you be arguing that he acted unconstitutionally on the floor of the house? people didn't then. the i.n.s. developed a new form declaration of ineligible

family member of legalized alien precisely for letting undocumented persons who did not qualify for legalization to request relief from the threat of deportation and authorization to work lawfully. according to a report at the time, the i.n.s. commissioner contemplated that the program could have affected as many as 1.5 million undocumented immigrants. explaining the rationale for expanding the earlier program he stated, it is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. however, we can enforce the law humanely. to split families encourages further violations of the law as they are. in the end, only a fraction of people eligible for relief under the family fairness program attained such protection. but that is only because the immigration act of 1990 was enacted less than one year after the program was expanded by president bush section 301 of that bill contained a family unity program that largely

codified the executive actions taken by president reagan and president bush. the parallels between the bush -- the reagan-bush family fairness program to what is being proposed at the present time is uncanny. they are several lessons that can be drawn from this past president. first, the authority to provide temporary relief to a large percentage of undocumented population has long existed and past presidents have exercised such authority. second, such authority existed even when the executive authority would seem to be at its weakest, when congress specifically declined to legislatively provide the relief granted administratively. the president is now being asked to take administration action in the face of historic intransigence on the part of house republicans as the senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill buoyed by popular support. overwhelmingly supported in a

bipartisan way in the senate. but nothing happening in the house. by contrast, the reagan administration adopted the family fairness program less than one year after congress enacted the last comprehensive immigration reform bill that contained specific criteria for legalization. and knowingly excluded from protection the very people affected by thed a administration. just as i said before, even when congress acted, president reagan said, we can do better. nobody argued the constitution at the time. well if they did, history does not recall. third, the scope of the administration's releaf now being considered by the administration is entirely consistent with the family fairness program after it was expanded by president george herbert walker bush. according to demographic work performed by the pew research center, there were an estimated 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the u.s. in 1990, by extending the family fairness program to cover 1.5 million unauthorized

immigrants at the beginning of that year, president bush used executive authority to protect an overwhelming 42.9% of the undocumented population from removal and to offer them work authorization. i don't remember any outroar in the congress. we were all -- many of us of were here at the time. earlier this year the pew research center estimated that there are 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the united states as of march, 2012. the administration takes steps to protect five million undocumented immigrants from removal as a recent argue suggests that would extend temporary relief to 42.7%, a lower percentage, than president bush protected. of the undocumented population now in the country. finally, the most important lesson that can be learned from the family fairness program is that bold executive action can sometimes help change the legislative dynamic, helping to break the gridlock and pave the way to legislative reform.

the only reason the reagan-bush family fairness program did not provide indefinite voluntary departure and employment authorization for many years without legislative approval, essentially a grant of deferred action, is that congress did act and take steps, following the lead of the president to largely codify the president's program and provide such relief for removal and employment authorization itself. at the time the bush administration expanded family fairness, legislation to extend similar protections were stuck in congress having passed the senate in 1989, but having seen no legislative action in the house. less than eight months after the administration's action, the house passed its version of the bill. a conference committee was convened and it was quickly enacted into law. the same pattern can be observed in many other cases described in which the administration granted extended voluntary departure, deferred and forced departure and

deferred action to a broad number of people, defined by compelling characteristics. and congress subsequently enacted legislation to protect such people from -- to obtain lawful permanent residence. i hope that will happen. the president has executive orders, hopefully congress will codify that. the reagan-bush family fairness program is just one of the many examples of past presidents decidingsing to defer removal efforts -- deciding to defer removal efforts to clarge classes of people. in 1960 the kennedy administration granted extended voluntary departure to many cubans who otherwise would have been subject to deportation. over the next 20 years, the i.n.s. granted similar protections to nationals of more than a dozen other countries, such grants have sometimes but not always resulted in special legislation permitting extended voluntary departure beneficiaries to adjust their status to that of legal -- lawful permanent residents.

in 1966, congress enacted such legislation. again, president kennedy acted in 1966, congress enacted such legislation for cubans granted extended voluntary departure. congress did the same in 1977 for the vietnamese looans and cambodians, permitted to remain in the country on extended voluntary departure. and again in 1987 for recipients from poland, afghanistan, ethiopia and uganda. i have personal experience on the next initiative. after tiananmen square, there were concerns that chinese nationals residing in the united states, primary as scholars and students would face repression if forced to return home. congress passed the bill to allow these chinese nationals to remain, which president george herbert walker bush vetoed. this is my bill. then in 1990 it passed the house, it passed the senate

went to his desk, he vetoed it. had strong bipartisan support. we could uphold the veto we could fight the veto in the house, but in the senate at the moment of truth, the senate upheld the veto. because president bush promised that he would offer -- he would issue an executive order extending deferred enforced departure or d.e.d., to an estimated 80,000 chinese nationals. and while the president did not want it to be an act of congress for fear of the insult it might be to the chinese government if they were crushing people in the streets in tiananmen square and arresting people, he did promise to do an executive order which he did. following president bush's executive order, congress acted quickly to permit chinese nationals granted protection from removal and employment authorization to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents in 1991.

president bush extended that to approximately 2,000 persian gulf evack he woulds of various -- evacuees of various national nationalities. the persons were whosen because they had children who were u.s. citizens or because they provided protection to u.s. citizens during the iraqi invasion of kuwait. in 2000 congress enacted a private immigration law to permit those who had not already become permanent residents by other means to attain permanent residents. in 1992 president bush also extended d.e.d. deferred enforced departure, to presidenty 200,000 -- approximately 200000 salvadorans who fled civil war and had been protected from removal. president bill clinton later provided d.e.d. to haitians in 1997 president bush extended d.e.d. to liberians in 2007. .

there are broad categories of people. first in 2009. u.s. citizens and immigration service created a process which surviving spouses and qualifying children could apply for deferred action. the process was created because the department of homeland security said no relief was available protecting survivors and action was needed to address humanitarian concerns. the daca program presented a second deferred action program created under this administration as of june 30, 2014, over 580,000 persons have had deferred action. the use of presidential parole power is one of the oldest authority. parole was first used to allow

entry of refugees who would be excluded by national organizins. presidential parole was codified in 1952 i.n.a. act, which authorized the use of authority for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest. in 1956 president eisenhower used this authority to allow orphans into the country and later 30,000 hungarians. this marks the first of many mass administrations. they have collectively allowed 600,000 cubans to be paroled into the country and presidents ford and carter allowed people from cambodia, vietnam and laos.

to allow persons not covered by international refugee laws, congress enacted the act which amend the the i.n.a. the act limited the administration's ability. but left untouched. nevertheless, several presidents used parole authority to allow persons that are considered refugee. president bush in 1989 created a program that allowed individuals to enter the country if they were able to pre-pay their travel expenses and in 1996 and in 2006 president bush created a program in the united states to parole certain professionals

who were allowed to study in the united states. in 1996, congress once more amend the the statutory parole authority to apply to only a case by case basis, but in terms not defined by the statute they are open to interpretation by the administration. the parole authority was used by president presidents demonstrated that it can serve humanity goals. the parole program instituted in 1988 granted parole whose claims were denied but had reunification concerns. there was a cuban program and reunification program so they might get together with their

family members. in 2007, president bush created a program to authorize the parole of certain refugees derivative family members who could not be eligible. given the administration's authority, the back logs that exist and humanitarian interests and benefits that would attach to the unification of families, the president could make parole available to them who face a separation of a year or more in the case when there is a hardship. this would not permit families or members to skip the line but would allow them to wait in the united states. authority for parole in place already is present in the country. the legal parole was recognized in 1998 and was endorsed the

final year and the bush administration d.h.s. counsel under president bush. it grants discretion to apply parole and include an alien who is present in the united states who has not been admitted. as a result, parole can be grant todd persons who are present in the country without previously being admitted to the country. the list goes on and on and i have so much more that i want to tell our colleagues, but what i'm saying to you is there is legal authority for the president to take action under the law. there is presidential precedent bipartisan since president eisenhower to do so. so to all of a sudden say, we are having a debate now about

the constitution when we are supposed to be passing a law to protect and defend that constitution and instead we are taking an exception to the interpretation of it. as i said president eisenhower every president, president kennedy, president nixon, the list goes on and on, all the presidents since president eisenhower and certainly since president reagan both president bushes all acted in this way. many of us were members of congress. none of us -- if someone wants to come forward, he what was a voice in the darkness but nothing came forward to challenge the constitutionality of what the presidents did. why now? especially now? december. we aren't going to protect and

defend by extending this bill with certainty with homeland security. paris the hole world is galvanized by wanting to stop terrorism and do everything in our power to do so. and we in this house, we in this house are hesitating to do that. if we want to take up an immigration bill and argue that the president doesn't have the authority to do what he has done but with the intention to do, that would be appropriate. but to hold up the homeland security bill which chairman rogers and ranking member lowey and the subcommittee chairs, and we are very proud of david price on our side of that and i'm sure the republicans are proud of their members, because they came up with under difficult circumstances. get on with it and debate what

authority the president has. debate the merits of what he did and pass some of that into law, but to say he doesn't have the authority to do it and this is about the constitution really raises some questions, serious questions. and again we should be talking about how we are creating good-paying jobs in our country. let's just pass this bill. get it done and get on to how we invest in better infrastructure, better paychecks to the american people. lifting the economy and lifting the power of our american workers, where immigration and other humanitarian initiatives are better received. i took the time tonight because i was listening to this debate and how people were saying that the president was acting outside the scope of the constitution,

that he had overreached. and i asked my colleagues, what are you thinking that you would hold up the homeland security bill and that you would not question the authority of republican presidents or even democratic presidents when they have done this but you are questioning the constitutionality of the action taken by president obama. time is right for us to pay an immigration bill and pass a clean -- tomorrow morning -- reject these amendments, reject these amendments and pass a homeland security bill and get on with that and have a clear debate about immigration. i want to thank the staff of the judiciary committee of the important work they have done. ranking member onconyers, and the work they have done and it's

a recent history. i thank them for their leadership and their service. and i ask our colleagues to reject these amendments. disabuse yourselves of any notion that the president is acting in an unconstitutional way. let's get on with our work. when we say je suis charlie we are identifying with the entire effort to protect people from terrorism. that's what thm legislation will fund. let's remove all doubt that we are go to go do all doubt. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. members are reminded to direct

their remarks to the chair. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time, i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the c.j.s. subcommittee, mr. culberson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: we have heard tonight, the president has taken this action and because of the inaction of congress in order to fix the broken immigration system, president bush would have been in his rightful authority to fix a broken economy to refuse to collect the capital gains tax. do not collect the capital gains tax. it is zero. i also point out to my colleagues in the minority that the examples that we have heard

tonight of previous presidents taken action are under the broad authority under the -- under his authorities of commander in chief. the president is the sole organ in the government of international relations. the authority to take these actions have done it as in the area of foreign affairs. the new republican majority are listening to the voters and responding to the overwhelming rejection of president obama's policies by the american people two short months ago when barack obama said his policies were on the ballot and they said no. and elected the biggest majority to stop president obama from dismantling the america we know and love, to stop president obama and we in the house are

using our authority over to be good stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars. it gives us that authority to prevent our quints' from being spent for illegal purposes. the first amendment we are taking up tonight. this bill tonight, we are taking up amendments as to keep our word. the first amendment is one based on a bill i'm proud to co-author that dismantles the memos and further taken action to have the highest number of border patrol agents we have had. 34,000 beds for the purpose of enforcing the law. the second crilt call part of this bill is the republican house is enforcing the law. this is a law enforcement issue because we understand in texas

better than any part of the nation, can't have good schools, safe streets, safe economy without law enforcement. we know that our economy on the rio grande it's fundamental that the law be enforced to keep out the smugglers and gun runners and criminals, no one has a stronger interests than those folks that live along the southern border. president obama has got this responsibility and refused to fulfill his constitutional responsibility as commander in chief to execute the laws faithfully. and we are honoringing our word to the american people to protect and defend the people we love. the chair: the chair will remind members to engage in personalities toward the president. .

the chair: the gentlewoman from california has 3 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 32 snaff minutes -- 32 1/2 minutes. >> madam chairwoman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, mrs. delauro -- ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker with this bill the majority place a dangerous game with our national security. we all know why they are doing this. they want to tie the president's hands on immigration because they do not agree with him there. but by acting in this way, the majority has torn up what should be a fundamental rule of american politics. that we do not play politics with the security of our nation. the fact that the majority chooses to gamble with homeland security, of all budgets, is

trumming -- troubling to say the least, at a time when we face a higher terrorist threat these tactics are potentially deadly. let us recall that the department of homeland security was born out of the attacks on this nation. september 11, 2001 we created it to protect our country against further atrocities 3,000 people died. we have seen what our enemies are capable of, we saw it in the boston marathon bombing last year. we saw it again over the past week in a shocking series of terrorist murders in paris. funding for national security programs should be sacrosanct. republicans and democrats could so easily have come together to pass a full-year funding bill. instead the majority chooses tactics that put the security of american families at risk. they have allowed three

nongermane amendments and the american people know about this nongermaneness. they've added that to this bill that seeks only to make life harder for immigrant families. i remember 2007, when chairman rogers, the chair of the appropriations committee, said on this floor and i quote there is no more important chore that the congress has than to protect the country as best we can from its enemies and from natural disasters. that is what this bill is all about. well, his party should take his advice now. these games are dangerous. they are disgraceful, they are wrong. i will vote against this bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to congressman dent from pennsylvania.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. dent: thank you madam speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 240, the department of homeland security appropriations act, which judge carter, mr. price myself and others helped draft in the subcommittee. the promingses -- the appropriations committee on homeland security. this bill, despite what you may have heard, is a product of bipartisan compromise. it provides $47. billion to fund the agencies -- $47.8 billion to fund agencies through the fiscal year 2018. it includes $7 billion for emergency disaster relief to assist those suffering the effects of severe winter snowstorms that have hit the northern united states, wildfires that have ravaged the west, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters. the bill also provides $213 million for the overseas contingency operations of the coast guard. as they continue to play a vie toll role in the -- vital role in the support of our military

abroad. our deliberations on this bill, the committee took very seriously the crisis that has unfolded on our southwestern border, as we experienced a surge of unaccompanied minors, pry aim -- primarily from central american countries of honduras, guatemala and el salvador. the bill also allows certain fema grants to be used to reimburse state and local governments for the excessive costs associated with humanely detaining and processing these unaccompanied minors. in response to the influx of families that have crossed the southwest border, it allocates an additional 36 -- $362 million for detention capability and capacity. including 3,732 new family detention beds. this legislation fully funds c.b.p., customs and border protection, and its 21370

agents who not only provide security at our borders but our many ports of entry. in light of the recent security incidents at the white house, the bill included funding to approve security at the white house and vice presidents' residents -- residences. it also directs resources for the secret service to begin preparations for the presidential candidate protection ahead of the 2016 presidential election. we've all seen the recent events in the news that demonstrate the importance of being proactive on security in the cyberrealm. just yesterday social media accounts of u.s. central command were hacked by isis or their sympathizers. last month a major cyberattack allegedly perpetrated by north korea compromised sensitive data belonging to the sony company. this legislation provides an increase in funding for the national protection and

programs detect rate, to support infrastructure protection, information security and cybersecurity. we cannot afford to take a passive approach to protecting critical networks communications. this bill also funds construction in the national bio and agri defense security to ensure the security of our nation's food supply, something i think all too often we've taken for granted. this facility will strengthen our agency's capabilities to prepare and respond against diseases that could seriously threaten our crops and livestock. finally, this fiscally responsible appropriations bill reduces administration overhead costs at the department of homeland security by $6 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. i'd like to thank chairman carter, mr. price and the staff of both sides of the aisle that worked really hard to get this legislation to the point where it is. the underlying bill is a good bill, notwithstanding any of the amendments that are going to be considered tomorrow, this

bill should be supported on its merits. it has strong bipartisan support. i urge a yes vote. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the committee will rise informial to receive a message. -- informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker. a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h.con.res. 7 providing for a joint session of congress to receive a message from the president. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will

be in order. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> madam chairwoman, i want to make it clear that i support the original bipartisan homeland security bill and oppose the majority's radical antiim-- anti-immigrant amendments. these amendments pollute the bipartisan bill both republicans and democrats have carefully crafted to protect the american people. our clean homeland security bill provides the funds needed to protect our country. ms. roybal-allard: it invests in border security and prioritizes the detention and deportation of dangerous criminals. the clean bipartisan homeland security bill provides funds for new grants to state and local first responders who are our first line of defense against homegrown terrorism. it invisits in the coast guard's eight national security

cutter and additional fast response cutters to help protect our ports. the bill also provides critical funds to hire new secret service agents and to make essential security improvements at the white house. these are just a few examples of why this bill is so important. unfortunately instead of bringing the clean bipartisan bill for a vote, the majority is proposing several poison pill amendments that will jeopardize the bill's ability to become law. it is unconscionable to put our nation's security at risk simply for the purpose of appeasing those who want to undermine president obama's reasonable and lawful executive action to fix our broken immigration system in light of the fact that congress or this house has not acted. current funding for d.h.s. is

set to run out at the end of february. the recent horrors in paris are the latest reminder of why america needs congress to pass the negotiated bipartisan homeland security bill that can become law and defeat the anti-immigrant poison pill amendments being proposed by the majority. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendments and to vote yes on the original bill to protect the homeland. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. ms. roybal-allard: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: thank you. i'd like to represent -- i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. fleshman of tennessee, a member of our subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. fleischmann: madam speaker, i rise in support of the 2015

department of homeland security appropriations act. our subcommittee has worked diligently on this legislation and want to thank chairman carter and the entire staff for countless hours they have put in crafting the bill before us today. this legislation provider advertises our national security and strengthens border security. while addressing numerous issues that have arisen in the past year. last year tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children entered the united states illegally while the administration sat on its hands. rather than deal with the crisis, the president further exacerbated the problem and encouraged more people to try to bypass the legal immigration process when he granted executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. today the house has the opportunity to correct these mistakes, by passing this legislation. in addition to the responsible and deliberate funding levels

laid out in the bill, house republicans are offering key amendments to completely defund the president's executive actions and restore order to the legal administration process by ensuring that those who came here illegally will not be allowed to bypass those who sought to come here through the right and legal way. i urge my colleagues to vote for the provisions and the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: madam chairwoman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california mr. had farr. the chair: the gentleman from california -- mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minus -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. farr: thank you. i rise to thank my colleagues on the appropriations committee. i am a ranking member also. and i know what type of work it takes to put together a 39 -- $

39.7 billion expenditure to protect all the entities of domestic homeland security. it's a good bill. it was worked out last year for all the new members coming, i'm shocked that they have to go through this learning process about how we take a good thing and screw it up. this bill is bipartisan supported, i think if we voted on it tonight, the underlying bill, it would pass overwhelmingly. i don't even know if there would be a negative vote. but tomorrow morning on this floor amendments are going to be made to this bill and i understand the other side already has them. i wish the people who were thinking about voting for those amendments, and those that are proposing them, had listened to the people who we are funding in homeland security. the last thing they would tell you is that america's going to be less secure with those amendments. there isn't going to be a college campus or university that isn't going to be in revolt when you try to deport the students who are there. there aren't going to be

domestic -- you're wives, your -- your wives, your families aren't going to be upset when you try to deport your gardner, somebody taking care of your house. our faith-based communities are going to be hiding these people from deportation. you're coming in and creating this ugly government that's going to go around and round up people who have caused no crime, they haven't committed a crime, and deport them. that doesn't make america more security. in fact, it makes us ugly all over the world. so i can't for the life of me, when we go through such hard work to get such a great balanced bill to spend $39.7 billion on the department of homeland security, then want to make sure that it doesn't work. the president has said he'll veto it. he's going to veto it because you're mad at him because he provided leadership. thank you, mr. president. for providing that leadership. the house should have joined with the senate and adopted a comprehensive immigration bill, but we didn't. we sat on that for two years, did absolutely nothing, and now

we're attacking you. shame shame on the house, defeat those amendments. . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise to support this as well as the amendments that will be offered to put the brakes on president obama's executive overreach. my constituents are dependingen us to -- depending on us to send a message that this is an afront to the rules that served our nation well for 200 years the reason people are fleeing south to north is because on this side of the border wf the rule of

law, not men. i want to chang chairman carter chairman rogers and the rest of my colleagues on the appropriations committee for putting together a responsible bill that provides funds for homeland security personnel and the need to carry out their mission. specifically the bill provides significant funding for our border patrol, immigration customs enforcement, to ensure both agencies have the ability to stem large flows of immigration like we witnessed last summer in texas. another important tool is tackling illegal immigration is the increationed use of e-verify, which remains the only and best way to confirm that employees they hire are in the united states legally. the underlying bill contains full funding for the e-verify program and will allow employers to continue to use this program in a free and efficient manner. when it comes to patrolling our land air, and sea, homeland security officials consistently rely on the awareness and

insights provided by the air marine operation center, amoc. amoc is the nation's only federal law enforcement to interdict threats in the western hemisphere. i want to thank judge carter for his leadership and i encourage my colleagues to vote for f.y. 2015 appropriations bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to the f.y. 2015 homeland security appropriations act because house republicans are littering the bill with provisions that have nothing to do with homeland security but have everything to do with harming families and

keeping our immigration system dysfunctional, risking our national security in the process. i too serve as ranking member on the appropriation committees and craft a bill and work in a bipartisan spirit and had an opportunity to work in a bipartisan spirit on this bill as well. so it is truly unfortunate that this bill is being poisoned by amendments that are really going to jeopardize our national security. i reluctantly stand in opposition because the overall bill must pass legislation -- is must-pass legislation and includes important measures to bolster national security including funding i've fought for and secured to protect children from online predators. many of my colleagues are in the same situation. too many poison pills are being slipped in to make this acceptable. republicans are forcing us in a situation that jeopardizes security at home to punish young people who have known no other country other than this

one and separate families in the process. how did we get here? because the extreme elements of the g.o.p. became apoplectic when the president announce head would move ahead with his legal executive action to fix our broken immigration system. and everyone will recall of course, that he did so due to this body's repeated unwillingness to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. now as we debated the so-called krom knee bus legislation last year -- cromnibus legislation last year, they put their cards on the table. with this bill being debated today they're ready to gamble with our nation's security to satisfy their right-wing base. this is not governing in good faith at the outset of a new congress with the opportunity we have to set aside differences and work together for the betterment of the country. this isn't just politics as usual from the other side of the aisle. some of it is alarmingly personal and targeted. part of the president's executive action is intended to

keep families together and support the educational and employment aspirations of millions of undocumented individuals. some of the legislation in this bill would tear families apart, including thousands of so-called dreamers, and revictimizing women subjected to domestic violence by targeting them for removal. where is the sense of reality? though he's flip-flopped several times on the issue, even former governor jeb bush from my home state of florida said as far back as 10 years ago said a policy that ignore thers here is a policy of denial. where is the thoughtful policy making our constituents sent us to washington to engage in? and where is the compassion? i've healed numerous events in south florida and to say we're past due for immigration reform is a gross understatement. i have met so many workers and students who made meaningful contributions to our community but live to a state of uncertainty about their future,

ranging from questions about schooling and job, to fearing deportation. a high school valedictorian. maria, a mother of dreamers who formed a support group for people in a similar situation. and a father seeking a permanent work permit to provide for his young daughter who is a citizen. these are real people with real stories an our actions and inactions in washington have real consequences for them. madam chair it's not too late to engage in bipartisan comprehensive reform. we can reintroduce and redebate the legislation passed in 2013 that was supported by diverse business and other groups across the nation. that's the most effective way to legally and morally respond to the need for immigration reform. it is practical, wide ranging and speaks to our values as a nation. or we could sit down together and come up with a new bill but this is immoral and wrong and we should reject it so we can come

together and do something that is reflective of the values of this country. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to anymy good friend and colleague from texas, mr. ted poe, colleague not only of this house but the judiciary prior to that time. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, america is a nation of laws. which means i as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. i don't have a choice about that. that is parking lot of my job. with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to

enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. those are the words of the former constitutional law professor and now president on march 28, 2011. those very words condemn executive amnesty. united states is ruled by law, not by one person. united states is not a monarchy if it were, we would have kept king george iii. the executive amnesty is not only unconstitutional, madam chairman, it is at cross purposes to security. the department of homeland security cannot secure the u.s. border no matter how many programs and how much money we spend on homeland security, as long as the executive undermines law and security by unilaterally

ignoring those very security laws. we give all the money we want to to the department of homeland security. that doesn't do any good if we do not make sure the law is enforced. madam speaker we'll use this example that's already been used by my friend mr. culberson. we have tax laws in this country. god knows we have too many tax laws in this country. but if the executives would have made the decision, i'm just going to ignore these tax laws for a certain group of people, none of us would like that. the executive doesn't have that authority to just ignore law for whatever reason, even if it's a good reason because that does not establish the constitutional power of who the executive is. madam speaker, those of us in texas have a vested interest with homeland security. the united states border with mexico is almost 2,000 miles. 60% of the border is in texas.

45% of the entire border is in one member's district, mr. hurd. the texas border with mexico is as long as new york to washington. failure to enforce the rule of law affects people on the border. it affects american citizens. it affects legal immigrants. a will the has been said about immigration. i'm for immigration. we do need some changes in immigration. the united states allows a million people a year legally to come into the united states. but when laws are enforced there's order. when law is not enforced there's chaos. mr. carter: i yield another minute. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. when laws are not enforced there's chaos, especially if security laws are not enforced. madam chair, as the president said, i am obligated to enforce the law. because, madam speaker, madam chairman, the constitution is not a mere suggestion. whether the other side likes it

or not. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> madam chairwoman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. serrano: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. serrano: thank you. this is one of those moments -- moments where the best you can do is scratch your head and say, what the heck are they thinking? we have a bipartisan bill a homeland security bill. that if it was put up for a vote would pass almost unanimously, if not unanimously. but no, they couldn't help themselves. they had to take one more shot at the president and a bigger shot at immigrants. so the bill is loaded down with attacks on immigrants. mostly latino immigrants, i must say, would be affected, and that's personal to me. what this bill now would say if

it gets all these amendments on it and by the way, i want to say that i'm opposed to the bill with the amendments and not opposed to the bill in its clean fashion. and i think that's the way most members think. what this bill now says is that for instance, if you're in the military, serving our country, your spouse can be deported while you're away. that's really sad and insulting. we're going to have now new bumper stickers on the other side on their cars that say, support our troops and deport their spouses. it will be sad and it will be horrible and what we're doing now. our opportunity here is to defeat these amendments. our opportunity here is to understand that if we have a gripe with the president using his constitutional power, deal with that. but don't take it out on every immigrant in the nation. and incidentally, nothing that the president did is outside the law. we have a constitution.

what he did is constitutional. it is within his powers as our chief executive in this nation. this president waited and waited and waited for the majority party to do something about immigration. he refuse -- they refused to do something. you're upset he took action on immigration his action was due to your inaction on immigration. that's why we have this situation. these two days will probably go down in history as two of the saddest days in this house and i've been here 25 years starting this january. because we will go after a group of people and we will say to the dreamers, you can't dream anymore. and we'll say to the pouses -- spouses, you're in danger of being deported. we'll say to those who serve our country, we don't respect you anymore. we'll say to the whole world, we're not the nation of immigrants we're the nation that doesn't want any more immigrants. this is sad. this is not the way to go. we should really rethink this before we take a final vote.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: may i ask how much time is left on both sides please. the chair: 1 minutes for -- 1 minutes from -- 21 minutes for the gentleman from texas and 25 for the gentlewoman from california. mr. carter: at this time i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. babin one of our new members of the class of the 14th congress. we welcome him for what he has to say. mr. babin: thank you, judge. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the united states is a nation of immigrants. it is also a nation of laws. and our nation's leaders have sworn duty to abide by those laws. on countless occasions,

president obama said he lacked the authority to grant broad amnesty. however, in november, he reversed his course and unilaterally declared amnesty. i rise in strong opposition to his executive amnesty and in strong support of legislation to defund his unlawful and unconstitutional actions. . changes in any law rest with the legislative branch of the government, the united states congress. granting amnesty through unilateral executive action makes a mockery of our laws. and congress must rein it in. i'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 191, the repeal executive amnesty act. key provisions of this bill will be offered as amendments to this appropriations bill. we will deny the administration funding to implement his amnesty. as a past mayor hospital staff member of many years, and local school board member i know

firsthand how this administration's plan is taxing the budgets of our local governments, including our schools, our hospitals and our jails. this massive unfunded mandate must be repealed. amnesty also undermines our national security by perpetuating open borders, making americans less safe. and finally it leaves behind millions of american citizens who are unemployed at this time, making it even harder for them to find a good-paying job. to make the united states stronger, we must rein in this president. we must repeal unilateral amnesty and we must return to the rule of law and i call on my colleagues to support h.r. 240 and the aderholt amendment and pass the underlying legislation. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: mr.

chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of a clean homeland security appropriations bill. with just a week into the new congress, the republicans are already back to their old games. but this time they're playing politics with the security and safety of the nation. we get it. they are frustrated with the president's executive order, which attempts to reunite families and bring a rational priority-based approach to our immigration system. given the constitution, the laws and the legal precedence, the president's actions are clearly well within his executive powers. they don't like it they can pass an immigration bill which would clearly supersede the actions of the president. but they won't even try. and that's what this is all about. it's about making false statements about the president demonizing immigrants and their families, and trying to score political points back home.

that's a disgrace. but it gets even worse. not only are the republicans stalling on immigration reform and leaving millions of families in limbo, they're holding up funding for the entire homeland security department. they're threatening the safety of americans at our airports they are making our borders less secure and potentially leaving us more vulnerable to attack. this is particularly shocking given the tragic events in paris last week. holding the security of the -- of the american peoples who tanl to the demands of the anti-immigration fringe of their party is totally irresponsible. thls not the time for political -- this is not the time for political games. we live in a dangerous world and the security of the nation is serious business. reject this political stunt pass a clean homeland security bill that we all agree on, and then if you want to pass an immigration bill that would supersede what the president has done. but don't give us all this nonsense about black hailing -- blackmailing the country by threatening our safety, by

saying unless we get the immigration provisions we want, which which know the president won't sign, there -- which we know the president won't sign, there will be no homeland security bill and potentially no homeland security department funding and no guards at our borders. that is absurd. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i would like to yield two minutes to another member of the 114th congress, mr. hurt of texas, the man who probably has more -- herd of texas, the man who probably has more of the southern border of the united states than any other member of our congress. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurd: mr. speaker, thank you. i have taken an oath of office to uphold our constitution twice. the first time at a -- as an undercover officer in the c.i.a. and just last week i took that oath again as i was sworn in as a member of this body. this bill is about upholding our constitution and protecting it from expecttive overreach.

but we can't forget that immigration and legal immigrants are an asset to our nation, not a liability. everyone knows that our immigration system is broken. an executive action that incentivizes illegal immigration just makes it worse. we need a long-term solution that protects american workers and fosters economic growth. our nation has for many decades benefited from the brain drain from other countries and we need to make sure that continues. and i also want our nation to benefit from a hardworking dream too. so if you are going to be a productive member of our society, let's keep you here and get you here. but we must do it legally. there is a long-term solution to our immigration problems. i'm ready to work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and the president to find it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas,

ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady and i thank the speaker. and i believe it's important for us to focus on what we are discussing here today. paris, 17 dead. canada australia, boko haram 2,000 dead. a 10-year-old suicide bomber, and of course 9/11. this is the homeland security appropriation. i've had the privilege of serving on the authorizing committee since its creation. and every day we go to that committee, we know that the commitment is to secure the american people. this is not a form to battle one's agreements or disagreements, but the

constitution and the president's exicktve -- of the constitution or the president's executive authority, or to battle your disagreements with the idea of deporting felons or families. that debate can be had. but tonight we are wrongly jeopardizing the national security of the american people. and we do it on the basis, our republican friends of failing to even read the constitution. s for it is clear that the president -- for it is clear that the president stated in the constitution can have the authority shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed . and in essence he has the right to make sure that we are treating persons fairly and that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in a fair manner. nothing that is in the executive actions of the president violates any law. but what it does do, as we are

debating today with the poison pill amendments is it takes the inhumanity of some view points and throws it against people who have come to this country by no means, no fault of their own, who have come to this country to do us not harm but good, who have come to this country to work hard and to help build this great nation. i am saddened by the fact that because of this debate, the coast guard will suffer, the secret service will service, the airport aviation security will suffer. why? because we will not have a bill. and i believe that this challenge for all of us is to raise the question of whether our republican friends have come here to govern. the only thing i see is that they're using this homeland security bill for extreme positions that they want to foster over security. why would they want to defund daca? why would they want to capture

the basic infrastructure of the funding of homeland security? it's worked other the years -- over the years. the fees that have supported both the border petroleum agents, customs and border protection trngs security and yet they want to -- transportation security, and yet they want to cripple homeland security. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: as we move forward into the election year. mr. chairman, let me say this -- if -- one minute? ms. roybal-allard: i yield an additional one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman may proceed for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you. homeland security department has been entrusted by the united states congress and the american people to give guidance to the security and the protection of their families. it is not families who by chance are considered undocumented, it's all families. and what the president did in his executive action is to define for america who is here in this country. not only that, he gave an economic engine by providing

for fines and fees in order to get in regular order. by the way, mr. chairman, these individuals are not getting in front of those who have been standing in line through the legal immigration process. they have a separate process that simply gives them status. not immigration status he's not bestowing upon them immigration status. but i ask as i close, is there any heart and warmth to those who are debating these questions? first, do we understand family and do we understand we are a nation of immigrants and what has been established is an infrastructure of law to help them be established in regular order? but what we're doing is we're undermining the national security of this nation to cast against those who are innocent. i ask my colleagues to defeat these amendments and to vote for a clean homeland security bill. let's support the national security of americans. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield two minutes to my distinguished

colleague from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, this is plaster county sheriff's deputy michael davis jr. you may have heard of him. he was gunned down on october 24 last year in one of the most shocking murder rampages in the history of that county. he was murdered on the 26th anniversary of the day that he had lost his father a riveside county sheriff's deputy in the line of duty. the suspect who also killed a sacramento sheriff's deputy and wounded an innocent bystander should never have been here. he was a convicted felon who had entered our country illegally from mexico. he had been twice deported for his crimes only to re-enter time and again over our unsecure border. i met with michael davis'

grieving family this weekend, including his remarkable mother, debby, and his sole surviving brother, jason, who also serves as a plaster county sheriff's deputy. the message they asked me to convey today is that this is not about immigration. in fact, jason spends his free time working with at-risk latino children, many from immigrant families. rather this is about the rule of law. including respect for our immigration laws for which this family has sacrificed so much. we pride ourselves on being a nation of laws and not of men. that means the president's sworn to enforce the laws, not make them. he doesn't get to change or repeal laws by decree or decide who must obey the law and bho gets to live above -- and who gets to live above it. yet that's precisely what he's done. and in so doing he's placed the public safety and the nation's security at great risk. this measure begins to walk back these unconstitutional

orders secure our borders repair our nation's sovereignty, and recover the rule of law. michael davis died for these principles. the least we can do is vote to restore them. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, some claim the president's actions are unconstitutionalle. that's not true. and i ask -- unconstitutional. that's not true. and i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter signed by 135 law professors and confirmed by four former chief counsels for immigration about why his action was lawful. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. lofgren: i note also that a lawsuit is currently pending to challenge the constitutionality. why don't republicans just wait and see what the judicial branch has to say, what they decide? but the amendments being offered are poison pills and should be defeated.

the first amendment is meant to block all but one of the president's actions on immigration. this includes a temporary protection from deportation for parents of u.s. citizens, an expansion of temporary relief for people brought to the country as kids. this would break apart families, hurt more communities deport parents of u.s. citizens, and send thousands of american children into foster care. but the amendment does more damage. in the interest of time i'll touch on just a few. it prevents improving the provisional waiver of the three and 10-year unlawful presence bars created by congress in 1996 to prevent u.s. citizens from experiencing extreme hardship. ironically the changes the administration intends would actually make the waiver align more closely to what congress enacted. it would stop actions to help capitalize on the innovation of job creating entrepreneurs and increase job opportunities that, it would block initiatives to promote immigration of immigrants and

promote citizenship. the only action not blocked is a pay raise for i.c.e. eakts. the second amendment would block implementation of the 2012 daca memo and any additional efforts to save dream act kids from deportation. in the past there was confusion about what amendments did, but this one is very clear. it's a straight up or down vote on whether to deport hundreds of thousands of young people who came forward, passed background checks, received daca and followed the rules. it would deport the dreamers. . the third amendment looks reasonable at first as it says that those convicted of -- that sex offendesters and criminals being the priority. but the president's measure already does this. and it endangered victims of domestic violence. how? it overturns d.h.s. policy of

inquiry into whether persons convicted of demeanor domestic violence are actually victim, not the perpetrator or they have crime. this amendment is opposed by the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, the american immigration lawyers association, and law enforcement. i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record a letter from 14 sheriffs and police chiefs asking that we oppose the desantis amendment. finally, the -- the chair: the gentlewoman's request is covered under general leave. ms. lofgren: the remaining two amendments also create problems. it says that petitions filed by people of unlawful status should be deferred to those who are filed by those in lawful status but that is too broad. there are many petitions filed by people in an unlawful status

we would not want to delay. green cards for the wives and husbands of american citizens. request review visas by victims of human trafficking. these are all people who would be harmed by the amendment. i would note that the amendment the fourth amendment is based on the falsehood that the president's immigration actions created an incentive for employers to defer to hiring deferred action recipients instead of american workers is simply not true. now we need to have a serious conversation about immigration policy in the house. but threatening to shut down the department of homeland security is not the way to do that. these amendments are foolish and a step in the backwards but not funding d.h. as much: -- d.h.s. is dumb and dangerous. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i yield two minutes to mr. rothfus for the state of new york. pennsylvania, sorry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rothfus: this important legislation fulfills our promise to the american people to responsibly fund the homeland security department while also stopping president obama's unconstitutional actions. this is the clear will of the american people which was expressed this past november. sadly, the president is ignoring the results of that election with administration officials saying he will veto any bill we pass out of congress that would end his illegal amnesty order and hold him accountable. consider that threat. a president would shut down the department of homeland security, whose mission is to protect the american people, just to continue implementing a policy he admitted on more than 20

occasions he did not have the legal authority to do? i seriously hopey he will not. continuing to defend his unthorsed and unconstitutional order by vetoing this bill would be more than reckless. it would confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that president obama believes he's above the law. i hope the senate will join the house and not abdicate on the shared responsibility we have to preserve congress' prerogatives to defend the constitution and to stop the abuse of power happening under this president. let's get this amended bill to the president's desk immediately and see whether he is capable of putting the will of the american people and the constitution ahead of his own self-serving agenda. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i yield two minutes from

california. the chair: the chair reminds members to refrain from engaging in character with the president. the gentleman from california. mr. ruiz: the republican party has chosen to pay political games with our security by putting poison pill amendments in this bill. they have chosen to advance an extreme agenda instead of doing what needs to be done to protect americans. this bill is a farce that puts scoring political points above safeguarding our communities. this is precisely the type of political gimmick people in the valley and across the country are sick of. the terrorist attacks in paris last week demonstrate how critical it is that the men and women of our law enforcement agencies have the fundings necessary to do their jobs and keep us safe.

that is why i urge house republican leadership to allow a vote on a clean, bipartisan homeland security bill that ensures law enforcement, the coast guard and the secret service have the resources they node to protect our communities. it's time to end the political bickering and work toward sensible, pragmatic solutions to keep our homeland security. -- homeland secure. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i would like to yield, mr. chairman, two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pittinger: thank you, mr. chairman thank you for your tremendous leadership in this important legislation. thank you also for yielding me this time. tonight i'm reminded of thomas jefferson who once said, experience has shown that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with

power have in time and by slow operations perverted it. mr. chairman we have heard repeatedly from our leader, our president, that he said he is not king. he is not emperor. that his powers as president are restricted. but his actions speak louder than words. republicans are committed to holding the president accountable for his overreaching executive actions. we've achieved remarkable success in this country because we are a nation governed by the rule of law, not by the decrees of monarchs. as recent events around the world have tragically reminded us, there are those still committed to destroying our way of life. homeland security appropriations bill we are debating tonight supports the needs of the brave men and women who protect us each day and meets the

requirements to keep us safe. the amendments accompanying this legislation ensure we continue to be a nation governed by laws and prevents any funds from being used to implement the president's constitutional decrees of amnesty while it prevents further implementation of daca which led to the crisis at the border last summer. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to protect our great nation and supporting the amendments to protect the rule of law. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california california is recognized. >> i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i yield one minute to mr. marino of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman yields one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. carter: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. marino: i rise in support of h.r. 240 and the amendments that go with it. i'm going to ask that there be unanimous consent that my entire statement be put in the record but i'm only going to talk about a couple of phrases from this. last week i introduced the defunding amnesty act to ensure this type of change and i applaud the leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor to put an end to the president's overreaching through his executive order on amnesty. i encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for h.r. 240 and the amendment. let's get to the facts. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle conveniently leave these facts out. first of all this has nothing to do with shutting down homeland security. second of all, the total budget for homeland security is $39.7 billion.

that is $1.3 billion over the president's request. that is $400 million over last year. our amendments prevent the president from using any moneys, no matter from where, on amnesty. there is no reason to shut down homeland security. if homeland security is shut down it is due to the blame of the democrats and president barack obama because he has more money for homeland security than he asked for. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would like to be very clear,

this debate is not about immigration. this debate is about something much more important than that. this is a generational conflict over something that is very clear, it's not about presidential prerogative or presidential arrogance. as a military officer for 14 years, i have the honor of serving my country. prior to doing that, i took a sacred oath of office which is very similar to the oath that all of us took last week, to defend the constitution of the united states. that's what this legislation is about. that's why this piece of legislation is so important. it seeks to restore the balance of powers. it seeks to conform that vision that our founding fathers had, that miracle that was created in philadelphia that summer, it seeks to conform and preserve the principles that so many people have died for. the president is not a king. congress is tasked to create the

law. that's what this legislation is about. that's why it's so important that we support it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from california. ms. roybal-allard: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: at this time i would like to recognize mr. barr of kentucky for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. barr: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of h.r. 240 providing appropriations for the department of homeland security for the remainder of this fiscal year. this legislation provides funding necessary to ensure that all the department's critical missions have the resources necessary to be dutyfully executed. -- dutifully executed. but i also rides in support of the amendments to this legislation. when considering the amendments made in order, i am reminded of the feelings of pride and patriotism that i expert witness when i attend naturalization

ceremonies in my district. when new citizens raise their right hand and recite the oath of allegiance, the aura of achievement and opportunity is palpable. these immigrants turned citizens have come to the country the right way. they have followed the rules. and they have earned a feeling of achievement. but it is america that benefits. these immigrants embody and have displayed the values we hold most dear. hard work, integrity perseverance and a commitment to being a contributing member of the american society. i strongly support these amendments because we are expressing the sense of congress in these amendments. that we respect naturalized citizens. honor their hard work and dedication. to the legal immigration and naturalization process. we should hold these new citizens up as models for how to immigrate to the country the right way. we should not punish them by using their very processing fees that they pay to accommodate illegal immigrants holding -- hiding from the rule of law.

that's why the president's unilateral executive action is so destructive. so i proudly join my colleagues not only in voting to defend the -- defund the president's unconstitutional execive action but also to call on his administration and the u.s. citizenship and immigration services to stop putting the interests of unlawful immigrants ahead of legal immigrants. let's reward those who come to this country the right way, not those who have broken the law. so in conclusion mr. speaker, i want to again thank the appropriations committee and the chairman for this important work vindicating legal immigration. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. ms. roybal-allard: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: the security of the united states and the american people must be our top priority. i urge the majority to defeat

the poison pill amendments that will prevent this bill from becoming law and to support a clean homeland security bill that will provide the resources that are needed to provide our great nation with the protections that they need. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. carter: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i would like to clarify a few things. nobody is going to lose a paycheck. no agency is going to go broke, as we have this constitutional discussion and this debate that is taking place today and will probably take place tomorrow when the amendments will be before this august body a determination of whether they will be included or not included

in this bill. there has been some confusion that i think some may think these things are already here. we will follow the regular process on the amendments that have been made in order. but no one is trying to put the security of the united states at risk in this bill. and we will have a normal debate, as we do here. and what better body to address constitutional issues in the >> coming up, a discussion on the physician-patient sunshine act. 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. at 10:15, tom donohue gets his estate of the american business and economy address. live on cspan2.

>> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and u.s. history to the -- we partnered with comcast. >> i wrote with -- these books. the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is because wheeling transformed into an industrial city in the latter part of the 19th century. it drew immigrants from various parts of europe in search of jobs and opportunities. that immigrant generation is pretty much gone. i thought it was important to record their stories. to get the memories of the

immigrant generation and the ethnic neighborhoods they formed. it is an important part of our history. most people tend to focus on the frontier history, the civil war history. those periods are important but equal importance is the industrial period and immigration wheeling had. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on the frontier. that river was the western extent of the u.s. in. the 1770's. the first project funded by the federal government for road production was the national road that extended from cumberland, maryland to wheeling, virginia. when it comes here, that will give this community, which about that time is 50 years old, the r eal spurt it needs for growth.

over the next 20-25 years, the population of wheeling will almost trivial. >> saturday at noon eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv. .

♪ good morning. it's the "washington journal" a senior leader for al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula said it was their organization behind the attacks in paris lasted week. the branch said it laid out the plan and financed the cooperation adding there would be more tragedies and terror. in washington voting on funding homeland security and efforts by the obama administration to stop executive actions on deportation of illegal aliens. see that when the house comes i