♪ 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 in

at 9 o'clock today. in the first 45 minutes, your thoughts on using the hs fund to go tackle executive actions on immigration. you may agree with the efforts by the republicans or not. but you can call in on one of three lines this morning, 202-748-8000. democrats, 202-74888001. for republicans and for independent, 202-748-8002. you want to make your thoughts on one of our social media channels known on the republicans using the hs bill to stop immigration action. send us e-mail a lot journal@c-span.org. this effort with amendments voted and agreed on to yesterday scheduled for a vote was at a vote yesterday where john boehner talks about some of the reasons they are taking these actions on the chs bill and the efforts on executive action by the administration.

here is what he had to say. [video clip.] >> our goal is to fund the department of homeland security. our second goal is to stop the president's executive overreach. this is not the way our government was intended to work the the president said 22 times that he didn't have the authority to do what he eventually did. he knows -- he knows the truth here and so do the american people. our job is to listen to the american people and hold the president accountable. host: at story in "the hill newspaper" saying the vote not only in the house but also in the senate will test g.o.p. unity. talk about that in a little bit. on the phone jessica taylor of "the hill," their associate editor. >> good morning, medro host: can you walk us through this vote? >> it is a test of g.o.p. unity. what you have is two amendments,

one that would defund -- would roll back the deferred action for childhood arrivals which has been in place since 2012. and then also, would defund the president's executive action to be passed in november. and this could really be a test of, you know, the split between g.o.p. moderates and g.o.p. conservatives that are really pressing for this. this is sort of the only way that they could support this as the reauthorization and the funding for the ghs. the funding runs out in february back in december when the -- when we were trying to avoid a government shutdown. after president obama gave his executive order, this was the way that they could reach a compromise and say we will debate this newt congress. now, really, the hs funding, since it does run out next month

is becoming very kitcritical. you have conservatives pressing for these two amendments and mod rats that are being tested in this way. while we are expecting a vote along party lines on this, it's about a dozen or so centrists who represent very hispanic heavy districts that could break with them. several have them said if these amendments pats, they will not vote for the funding bill and the republicans have enough votes thanks to their g.o.p. majority to pass this still, but if enough mod rats sort of vote against this it could really become interesting to watch to see how many votes they need for this vote to pass. host: jessica taylor is the unity tested in the senate as well over this bill? guest: somewhat but we are not expecting. the bill once it arrives in the senate is pretty much dead on arrival.

in order to begin debate they will need 60 votes. republicans do not have those. so, you know, that's where it becomes a bigger question of, you know trying to get this through because if it does have these provisions that are rolled back on immigration, you know, democrats will not cross the aisle and will not vote for this. furthermore, president obama has said that he will veto any measure that would roll back these -- roll back his executive order host: jessica taylor if that happens, do we see another version of this bill but stripped of those amendments? caller: it's likely that the republican leadership would have to do this but it becomes an issue of conservatives, whether they would back this and the central issue at heart here is the fact that you have really sort of these moderate republicans very frustrated that they believe that republican leadership is adhering to the conservative bloc of the party.

maybe they can afford to lose this in the full vote because if they do a version of stripping this out, it's likely they would get democrat support as well. >> could be really the only way going forward to even -- to even continue funding department of homeland security, which i think as we get closer to the deadline for running out, i think will become even more critical because especially as we are, you know facing overseas threats and after what happened in paris and different things, too, the last department you want to run out of funding right now or have to shutter some things is the department of homeland security. host: as far as the money is concerned, what's the general amount? is this for operations? does this fund all the aspects much border patrol and things like that? guest: it would. i am not exactly sure the exact number but, you know, it would.

i think the border control is included in that. it it did target with the enforcement and things of immigration and things too. so, it's possible that they could, you know, pass another bill that would, you know, maybe just target the border or that could fund the measures of department of homeland security. >> that's one option we could see that going forward. host: jessica taylor an associate editor reference a story talking about the things that are planning to be happening with this vote on home land security. jessica taylor thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: you heard the guest spell out the amendments. you are may agree with these efforts or not. if you want to give us a call and talk to us about these efforts to pass this bill which would fund dhs but take action on the executive actions by the administration, here is your chance do so:

as you call those numbers, you may want to post on social media as well. c-span wj is the twitter address and facebook.com or c-span, a page on facebook and e-mail us to generally@c panama.org. derek on the indent line you are first up. caller: my first thought -- and thank you for accepting my call. but the typical rig amarole for them to couple something like immigration with homeland security oh, my god, this is a clear sign of what they do. their obstructionism. they can get along with things like this because they know that their base would believe if they said the moon was made of cheese and created it. they can get away with basically any talking point. >> that's like you played a

segment of him saying overreach. they can use that overreach talking points until their face turns blue because they know no other conservative will do the research to find out that republican presidents have done this well. so this is just another sign of their obstructionism. they are goingt trying to with al president who the will probably go down as the best president in the history despite obstructionism host: don, go ahead. you are next. caller: the reason we really got problems with immigration, a lot of other things is because the presidents between and before ronald reagan -- and the same problem. it wasn't addressed this. and this is because they haven't -- the president and the congress hasn't been doing their jobs. and they talk about the pipeline

pipeline. as far as we got streets and roads and bridges that need more attention than that pipeline. host: on the topic of immigration when you say the congress isn't doing the job, specifically what do you mean? caller: well, if you remember right, in '86, reagan went through this same thing, and nothing was done. there is laws on the records that said -- address did this immigration. and you can see it was never backed pup at all. and that's why we -- and the reason is is immigration, you could -- if you just put the businesses the people that run these businesses and hire these people, if you just put them in jail the way it should be i have that same problem happened down the road here nothing ever happened to these people. host: atlanta, georgia, crats

democrats line. hello. caller: hello. how you are you? host: i am well thanks. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to mention that there are republicans -- and this is just my opinion -- who will do anything to close down the government just to take the president down and his executive order. and their job is to legislate. and the president mentioned and said that if you want to countermanned the executive order, pass a bill. they should not be -- it should not be a bill for the purpose of taking down barack obama because he is not allowing amnesty. he has worked within the law, and there shouldn't be any more said about that other than for them to pass that homeland

security bill. period. >> that's all i have to say. host: we will here from jane. jane is in ohio. she is on ourian line, columbus ohio. hello, jane. caller: hi. good morning to all. i am completely against him taking that executive order the way he is doing on anything and everything he wants to do. i did vote for him but i didn't know that he was going to be doing things extreme like he's doing this second term. and i am for the gas line. i think it will protect us. host: when the it comes to immigration, though, do you agree with this idea of attaching these defunding efforts of executive orders through the homeland security bill that's going to be voted on today? caller: yes, sir. i am. yes. because i think that local stop a lot of this stuff that's going on that just happened in paris and stuff. yes, i do.

host: the guest -- our guest on the phone mentioning the attacks in paris. al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, taking credit for it this morning, a story this morning saying that this is part of the quote that was on the release saying for the blessed battle paris we the organization oft claim responsibility for the operation as ringence for the messenger of god, according to a generalior leader, said that the leader who waso also as that the group's yemeni branch, chose the target, laid out the plan, financed the operation. that was part of the statement that came out this morning. of course this goes on washington and capitol hill today as we vote on an almost $40 billion to fund the department of homeland security efforts there to top executive actions on deportations. again, we were asking your thoughts on the bill and those efforts and one of three lines this morning, 202748. for republicans:

joann is up next greensburg, pennsylvania democrats line. what do you think about this vote today? caller: hi, there. i think house republicans are putting party before country, placing partisan politics ahead of national security and they are continuing to push this identify to funneled our national security. the president has done everything possible to counter the violent triagesist tlefts, knelt summit with world leaders. the g.o.p. is totally irrational. they are still considering the nonsense of the last congress of all of the infighting all of the obstruction. they are busy jeopardizing national security in my opinion while the president is acting to keep americans safe. i just think they are outrageous. the contrast couldn't be more obvious. they clearly have played the same game the last six years.

host: let's hear from vincent opinion republican line from tulsa, oklahoma. caller: i think that will be a good thing to stop immigration because i was -- that will happen -- what happened in paris brought tears to my eyes. thank you. host: vincent in oklahoma. paper this morning on the senate side taking a look at the republicans' efforts to guantanamo bay being made. this is in the "washington post," an associated press story, saying thet newly empowered focreatesn republicans opposed restriction for the president to the transfer from guantanamo. now is not the time to empty guantanamo said kelly ayott. the lemlation they are pushing behind would bar transfers to yes, ma'amep for two years, sus spends the transfer of higher medium risk terrorism for the same period and repeel the current law that has allowed the

administration to transport prisoners. the bill also would prohibit terrorism of suspects to foreign countries if there is a confirmed case from which an individual is transferred from gaupt guantand engaged in any activity. back to our calls on today's vote on the dhs bill. barbara, hollywood, florida, democrats line. caller: yes, i feel the republicans are putting our country at risk like of. like always, they are only appeasing their base. it's terrible that flevent the president from doing everything. the republican party cot care less about america and its people and they are the poison party. host: when you say "putting the country at risk," what do you mean? caller: well not funding the dhs. the republicans had the opportunity to pass immigration reform. they refused only because it would have passed. but they are even preventing the

democrats in congress from voting. they nixed certain rules and regulations. they can't present bills or anything. they all vote "no." and you cannot tell me that every single one of them republicans, is either for or against it. and they are not a very diverse party. they are a detriment to our society. host: tim from auburn washington, republican line. you are next up. caller: hi. my name is term. i would like to suggest that our whole government is a travesty. i heard nancypel pelosi within the last 48 hours decrying this movement by the g.o.p. and this cry that we are unsafe because of it. we have been unsafe for over a decade. the president suspended or claimed a federal law was their prerogative to allow or not allow immigration. there is already a pathway to immigration, so what's being

asked for here is an exception above and beyond that. for a people who -- to a great extent dealing drugs, bringing in god knows what and who knows what but the people who are behind letting that happen from other southern border are up in arms crying "we are not safe" we will not be safe as long as this shared continues. hoecht. host: tim, what do you think about the efforts by republicans? specifically today on this bill? caller: i think it's the right thing because i think these monies should be used for what they are supposed to be for and they should not be allowed to use them false library they have been. i have heard both that we are a nation of law it is and that we are a nation of men. i would suggest that we are a nation of convenience, political convenience. and that is not working for the people. i thank you. host: let's hear from george in

knoxville terningsz. independent line. caller: yeah. thank you for taking my call. i fully agree with the posture by the current congress to somehow or other rein in some of the unlawful acts of this administration, and i think if they would work together, they could solve the problems of all of the illegal i am graftons in this country without hurting the families. my second comment is a very simple one. it seems to me that most of your democratic callers are reading from a script u probably prepared by the white house. i don't know if there is any way you can tell that but boy they all sound the same. barack obama is the greatest president we have ever had. >> that's got to be off-the-wall. host: you said you agreed with the posture of what was going on. what about the actual technique

of using this bill to stop these efforts? caller: well, it's like most of these other things that come down to the last minute. it's a good approach p eventually, the department of homeland security will be funded and if they can use this approach to get some resemblance of lawfulliness, i think that's a good idea. host: the attacks in paris have prompted leaders not only in france but other european countries take a look at what they could do online surveillance is a topic emerging in the "wall street journal," saying on monday the british prime minister said if his conservative party wins he would renew efforts to introduce controversial actions of it monitoring online communications. it remains unclear what the french law which is still being drafted, will include. supporters have said it would

provide an overall legal framework for all of france's intelligence services, the country's highest administrative court, which acts as an advisory panel to the government last fall recommended changing intelligence laws to require foreign companies doing business with france to turn over data directly to french authorities rather than forcing police to make international requests to the legal assistance treatings like those with the u.s. european privacy rules could frust straight politicians' hopes to greatly expand surveillance powers. last year for instance, the european court of justice struck down privacy -- on privacy grounds. penal rules ordering telecommunication companies to keep user data for use by law enforcement. the topic of israel came up yesterday. you remember and it may be saw on the network, president obama meeting with house republicans from the house and the senate that the white house yesterday, other leaders as well to talk about what's going forward necessary congress isis becoming a topic of that discussion saying the white

house at the time the president said no need to go to congress for its approval known as the authorization for the use of military force. >> drew criticism from members of both parties who called for mr. obama to be more forth come being his strategy but in november, mr. obama said he was really ready to engage congress on the issue. the president welcomes bi-partisan interest from members on a new isil targeted from congress that provides clear support for ongoing military operations against the group, according to a white house official speaking on an onlinimity. james, democrats line, thanks for holding on. go ahead. caller: yes. i just think it's absurd that they would try to put this bill in that will seems very disengineuous when a lot of people were respect the cas republicans, including myself just curious because i have a classmate from pennsylvania that's republican, and i was watching to see if they would actually get to work and they

haven't. congress host: fredericksburg, tennessee, on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking the call. everyone is so divided in our country, it is a horrible thing. hatred is he incredible between the republicans antd the democrats. and, you know if barack obama was your doctor i think that you might look at things a little differently, but the main thing is to enable an ability to stop congress from allowing individuals from other countries to come in and, and they will continue to come in. they will never stop, and they will come in more and more. but the greatest problem with our children. i will be okay. 59. i am going to be okay but our children are going to suffer beyond our wildest imaginations because of the 18-plus trillion dollar debt and illegal immigrants to come in and take the jobs from those children.

everyone says that doing jobs that americans won't do. well if americans had an opportunity to do those jobs and that was the only job that was available, they would take those jobs. thanks for taking my call. host: when it comes to the bill, karen off of twitter says i like to see the house pass stand-alone legislation without having poison-pill amendments. the dhs funding bill was bi-partisan. you may have thoughts on the dhs none of theed ing bill that would stop efforts by the administration on deportation. the line on the screen: the house comes in at 9:00 o'clock today to take up and take action on that bill. we will go to the house at 9:00 when they come in. let's go next to tommy from michigan independent line. hi, tommy. caller: howdy. i want to report some snake oil

with regard to illegal immigration. yesterday, there was an interview. one of the border patrol bosses. his name was michael fischer and somebody asked him the question about whether the terrorists were help to go blend in the people coming across the border. and i know for a fact two albanian young fellows that the way they get in to this country illegally is they go to mexico and they dress up like mexicans and walk across the border. if you've ever been near the border, there are thousands of people that walk across the border every day to go to their jobs, whatever kind of household jobs or whatever they have. and that's how these guys are coming in to the country. they are just blending right in with the mexicans. they are not climbing fences or

digging tunnels. they just walk right across the border. host: with those thoughts in play, your thoughts on today's bill, specifically because it deals with funding the department of homeland security, it includes these he efforts? caller: going to spend the money on a fence? >> ridiculous. they will cut the fence or climb the fence or dig under the fence. how are they going to handle it? host: mark, philadelphia, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am -- i voted for republicans in the past and, you know, i see something like this, pedro. this reminds me why i don't -- i don't vote republican anymore. my opinion is this has to be the dumbest thing to do. you know what? if you don't like the president's executive order on immigration, my suggestion to republicans is: win the 2016

presidential election and reverse it. thank you. host: owen from tennessee also on the democrats line. ellen. you are up next. hi. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: okay. first of all, with what all has took place in paris the people come in and kill other people. yes. homeland security, i am very concerned about it. my husband was in vietnam. i do not want to be killed or be took and done something with the way those people do. host: he will then tennessee joining us talking about today's vote on the house bill.

several stories this morning in the papers related to 2016 politics. just to give you a highlight of them, the front page of the "wall street journal" that highlights the current white house advisor, john pedesta taking a roll should hillary clinton decide to run for president. the journal story saying mr. mr. podesta served as chief of staff until bill clintonts searched term and has held a top role in the family's charitable association. he sat in andccording to people familiar with the matter. that's in the "wall street journal." a couple of highlights of this politics presidential politics in "the new york times" as well. chris christie coming up in the news. the headlines says he is likely to be forming a leadership packet soon saying it could be as early as this month. >> packet would help pay for

travel and provide fundraising vehicles for would-be donors and supporters involved in the issue. mr. christie a republican is unlikely to make a formal announcement of his campaign before the end of spring timing that would allow his team to evaluate any further follow-up federal investigation into his administration. his advisors and supporters said he is under little froesh hurry. three spoke okay anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his plan. also in "the new york times" this morning, a story, a follow-up story about reaction to to the possibility of mitt romney taking a third run to become president this morning. this story from the "new york times" saying nearly without fail, republicans call mr. romney a dietz event man and publiprefer to speak delicately about him but beyond the accolades, there is a weariness and in private, their criticism can be feared. his advisors dismiss the idea his time has passed bringing up an example that will is sure to

be repeated if that's the case, ronald rankon would never have become president. >> that's mr. bernstrom. if he does run, it will be -- he will run his strongest campaign yet. back to our calls on today's vote on funding of the department of home land security and what is attached to it. romney west virginia democrats line, go ahead please. caller: yes, sir. thank for taking my call this morning. i was watching the replay of the debate earlier. one thing that stuck out in my mind was one of the women from new york made the comment about the president's actions being constitutional, and then she stated the part of the constitution that says the president must faithfully

execute the laws enacted by congress and she stated that he has done so with his executive actions, which from my i guess point of view from watching what's happening, his executive actions did not faithfully execute any law. it actually host: what do you think about the response from the republicans and specifically with today's vote caller: they are doing a damn good job. host: why so? caller: they are voicing the concerns of the people who elected them. host: winston from west virginia republican line.

caller: what i wanted to say about the immigration bill that we are talking about right now was obama having the pen, i don't think the republicans are going to win on this because our president has over stepped his constitutional authority, and the congress is not going to work together with the president on any of this stuff. so just at a standstill and we are wasting money on this immigration because i was 21 years in the military. i was in germany and czechoslavakia when the wall and the sovietun union was soviet brock. we ran along that trace. now we are bringing troops back from afghanistan, third armored calf vary regiment. why don't we use resources we have with troops coming back that we have experience in border, you know duties and border security. why don't we use those troops

that are coming back to the united states to have a real world mission along our borders? we don't have to have a bunch of weapons or anything like that. but we could show force that we are protecting our borders because some things are going to happen in the united states. it's going to come across that border places like el paso are going to get bombed. any close city is going to get bombed because we do have -- i am not going to say muslim terrorists or anything like that. i am going to say terrorists to keep everything in folk results. they are going to come across and we are going to pay for it because not just president obama, but presidents before him have not donal their job to protect the border. so we can't put all of this on obama. i am not a great fan of obama. don't get me wrong but in this case i can say it's not all his fault. but we are allowing people to come across, and like the gentleman said earlier, don't know who is coming across the border because it's not protected. we don't have a military prince and our border patrolmen, they have not the power to do their job because we are pulling funding from them anyway and not

allowing them to do their job. host: larry is in hastings oklahoma, independent line. you are up next. hello. caller: hello. i hope your viewers are open-minded enough this morning to possibly take a change of perspecttestified. i did last night. i have been all along opposed to illegal immigration. i think it's wrong. i have been in favor of deportations until last night, i thought of this weird scenario and as i am driving at an interstate highway at 100 miles an hour a state trooper follows me for a while does nothing and exits. at few other drivers see what i am doing, they speed up to 100. another state trooper pulls in behind us follows awhile does nothing and exits. this goes on for a couple of economists exits. we have over 100 dryers now, 100 miles an hour, and all the sudden a state trooper stops all of us and writes us tickets for speeding reckless driving.

how far would that be after ignoring our illegal activity for hours for them to stop us and cite all of us for those kinds of things? our leaders in washington, not just the president, but congress as well has been doing this with illegal immigration for decades. they have taken every opportunity they have had to fix this problem and turn their backs on it and now all of the sudden, they jump up and say we want to deport everybody? now, those that are breaking the law in our country absolutely throw the book at them. those that have been here in the shadows for decades, ignored by our leaders, and those that have come across because of that thinking, well, it's okay in america. we have sentence the signal. it's okay. come on in.

now, we want to punish them? i can't believe my -- my perspective, totally changed just thinking of that scenario last night host: that's larry in oklahoma talking about his perspective on immigration. talking about the funding of the department of homeland security a vote that takes place today. the house comes in at 9:00. part of that feeling and ways to defund efforts by the administration to stop their executive actions to deportation. we will continue on those calls. call one of those lines. federal authorities according to the washington times have charged an ohio man with trying to poison the house speaker john boehner. this took place at a country club in ohio saying that it was a plot to poison him by putting something in his drink, blaming the top republican for thespread of ebola and various other problems. the bar tender, mikechael hoyt told authorities he was jesus mr. boehner was the devil and he blamed the congressman for getting them fired before he had

a chance to poison the speaker. he told police he planned to shoot mr. boehner and reported evil people were going to chop him up investigators said. they had him committed to a hospital where he gave more details offor his plot and the reasons behind him. bill lubbock, texas. go ahead. caller: i stand in strong support of what the republicans are doing with these amendments to the spending bill. the reason i stand in support of it there is no reason they are trying to defund homeland security. they are trying to strip a piece of lemminglation threw in there that was unlawful. if you look at what they are doing, mr. obama, himself h said over 22 times he did not have the authority to do it. and then at the last second, right before the vote, right before the big vote there he wanted that latino boost.

the latino boost there for the democratic party. it didn't work because there are a lot of latinos that are nots really impressed with illegal immigration. i live in texas. i know all about illegal immigration. some of these callers, if you they are calling in they have no idea what the impact is that the don't live along the border states. they have no they have no idea of the impact of illegal immigration. host: you are still supportive of the effort even though it's probably not going to pass in the senate and if it did the white house would veto it anyway? caller: here is the deal: if they let the republicans go through with it, the american people are not stupid. they are going see who defunds the budget. it's not going to be the republicans. if it doesn't pass the senate, it will be killed by the democrats, not the republicans. >> that's bottom line and the american people is going to see that. the american people are not stupid anymore. they are going to see who

actually killed the bill because they are trying to protect their little president. thank you. host: that's bill's thoughts. you can watch all of those proceedings as they take place today at 9:00 o'clock we will go to the house of representatives and you can watch them debate and find out more unless. you cannot only see results of today but also the highlights and according to raefrlthsd to this topic as well on our website at c-span.org. new york is up next. that's where john is democrats line. john from new york go ahead. caller: i've got two questions i am always hearing some republicans. if in the -- i am just going to suppose something. let's say if -- let's say they pass that bill say it went through and something happened when they passed that bill they will blame the democrats.

they will blame obama for every little stupid thing that happens. about they are the one that put it in. it's not right. it's not right. let's hear from louisiana t slaughter, louisiana. this is nancy. independent line. caller: this is slydell, louisiana. host: my apologies. go ahead. caller: for a long time in new orleans, the work is usually in the winter so i would have to save all of my money and go to mexico or guantanamo and live cheaply, and never once was i able to find a job at all, dish washing or anything else because they have laws that keep their employers from hiring outsiders. now, we have those same laws. but why are they able to invite

illegal it is and hire them? if you don't, they will pack their bags and gol home on their own. you don't have to deport them. you don't have to deport them. it's inhuman t i know, blet poor people realize there are no jobs for him. they will go home host: with that in mind, with today's efforts by the republicans, with a do you think of that? caller: i really don't understand republicans. but i know one thing. as long as corporations and people hire them, of course they are going to come. why not? host: the drop in prices has started a debate. it's a story you will find in the "wall street journal" this morning. this deals with future vehicles

saying that the mileage target known as corporate average fuel economy or cafe standards call for auto makers to perform light duty cars and trucks averaging 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. >> the story continues on this morning saying that with regulators, they would have a hard discussing about letting anyone off of the hook that mark rosekind, the regulator of the national highway traffic safety

administration says the folk sus going to be on fuel efficiency notwithstanding sways in the price of oil. kennedy from hampton, texas. caller: how are you doing? host: fine thanks. caller: i agree with the republicans. this is what i have got to say. here i seen the president of the united states take inauguration & says we need to turn the constitution on his head. >> that's treason. he said i need to turn the constitution on its head. host: keep going, kenny. keep going. caller: the republicans are doing the right thing balancing the powers out which he thinks he is the king or something. host: you mayson from dayton ohio democrats line. caller: good morning.

how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i think it's kind of insane they are people calling in saying the republicans should defund the department of homeland security we are in a volatile world. we have had terror attacks across the world globally and they will come home and if we defund the department of homeland security for political gains, that just puts americans and the country at risk. speaker boehner asked president obama to give the he republican majority time to reform immigration. they have the manhattan. they have the time. >> that's the responsible way to address the you will executive action and president obama because what they do on immigration reform will nullify that presidential action and we won't need it. >> that's the responsible way to do it. >> that's the responsible way to go. not try to play games with the department of homeland security funds that we need to make sure that we are safe.

and anybody who advocates for defunding the department of homeland security as a way to address immigration is simply insane. >> that's just insane and irresponsible. >> that's not the way our congress should be acting. host: mason this morning talk with others about today's house vote on the funding of the department of homeland security. one more story to show you representative randy weber. the caller had mentioned the fact that the incidents in paris. a lot of skrichlts about the white house not sending a high level official. randy weber september out a tweet saying adolph hitler thought it more important to obama to get to paris for all of the wrong reasons. obama couldn't do it for the right reasons. weber's comparison according to the story in the washington post followed an apologies for not certainlied to go someone with a higher profile. the tweet from weber's verified account went live before 9:30 p.m. on monday tracting pretty much instant attention and

ridicule. vote trans of the twitter outrage cycle were not surprised to see the et tweet deeted. another tweet followed from his verified website that said i need to apologize for those offended by my tweet. it was not my intention to compare the president to adolf hitler. imagine if he was here to represent the face of evil. i realize the et use of hitle invoke pain and emotion trauma for those affected by the atrotsties of the holocaust and victims of hate. two legislators joining us first by scott perry, republican of pennsylvania. we will talk about that homeland security vote, especially as he sits on the homeland security committee. he will join us in a few moments. later in the program, we will talk about the same vote especially on the immigration portions of it with freshman representative rubin gallego, ag

member est hispanic caucus whip. you may know that president obama on tuesday, in case you missed it, traveled to the national cyber security and communications integration center to discuss cyber security. his administration wants to see more rules and efforts made on this front. here is a little bit from that event on tuesday. [video clip.] >> we are more prepared to defend against cyber attacks but every day or our adversaries are getting more determined and more plentiful. every day, we have to keep upping our game at the same time. we have to stay ahead of those who are trying to do us harm. the problem is is that government and the private sector are still not always working as closely together as we should. sometimes, it's still too hard for government to share threat information with companies. sometimes, it's still too hard for companies to share information about cyber threats

with the government. there are legal issues involved liability issues. sometimes companies are reluctant to reveal vulnerability did or admit public delithey have been hacked. at the same time, the american people have a legitimate interest in making sure the government is not abusing information its received from the private sector. awe all of us, government and industry are going to have to keep doing better. the new legislation and proposals i put forward yesterday will help especially for a strong single standard for notifying americans when their information has been breached. today, i want to announce some additional steps. first, we are proposing new cyber security legislation to greater information we need between government and the private sector. this bill improves upon the legislation we have put forward in the past. it reflects years of extensive discussions with industry.

it includes liability protection for companies that share information on cyber threats. it includes potential safeguards to ensure the government protects civil liberties as we are doing our job of safe guarding america's critical information networks. i raise this issue again and the lead with congressional leaders this morning including speaker boehner and leader mcconnell. we all agreed this is a threat that has to be addressed. i am confident we should be able to craft bi-partisan legislation soon to put these systems in place. we are going to keep working with congress to get this done and, in the meantime, we are going to do everything we can with our existing authorities to make sure industry gets the information it needs to better defend itself. >> if you want to see more of that event especially more about the president's remarks, go to our website. again, our video library is available to you at c-span.org.

joining us now, representative scott perry republican of pennsylvania, serbs on the homeland security committee and also is a member of the foreign affairs committee good morning. guest: pleased to be here. call host: where do you stand on the homeland security bill. guest: in the greater context, i think it's in the right direction. we want to fund homeland security. there is a fair amount of indecreases there because we understand we are in a troubled world. at the same time, we mutt get to and that people demand we get to the constitution, the extra constitutional foray as many see it. this does that as much -- and it is going to be touted to be about immigration, going to be touted to be about homeland security. as much as it's that, it's about the instruction book and you either accept this or you don't accept it. you don't pick out the parts you like and throw out the parts you don't like.

>> that's what many of us and myself sigh as what has happened. >> we need to remedy that. this is the opportunity. host: you started by saying it's not perfect. what did you mean by that? guest: some republicans will vote against tu and i imagine there will be democrats that vote against it for the same reason. everyone understands we must fund our agencies t understanding there is waste excesses and abuses there. >> that's what i mean by on its not perfect. you try to get to everything in due course and time but you have to move forward because the world keeps moving forward. we work within the context that we can with the time frame we know, but everything is not exactly way you would do it if you had everything under your purview. >> you said not palatable because of the amendments on the efforts on deportation efforts? guest: for some, that will be unpalatable. host: for you? guest: we have to do something for the young people. they didn't have any choice with

the matter. they are here illegally. the bigger issue is the constitution. to me, that is the issue: the constitution. if we don't uphold the senate -- we each took an oath a week and a half ago to uphold an defend the constitution. if you are not willing to do that. there are a lot of issues. the president, to me this issue was chosen maybe selected by the president but it could have been any issue. it could have been taxes, a whole host of issues to do an extra constitutional foray. this one was chosen and this is the one we have to deal with. but that doesn't mean that because it's this issue that we shouldn't deal with it. it is really to me about the constitution more than anything else. host: those amendments deal well dreamers and everything else that you said you had maybe some sympathy with. that was hard to put those two things together? guest: these are difficult decisions. we are paid. if it was easy everybody would be do ing it. but again, it's i am perfect, but you know, you have to look at the total sum and say: is it better than it's worse.

if we disregard the constitution, it doesn't matter at some point what the issue is. so, the constitution is where it comes down for me. host: you probably have a sense of where this would go if it hits the senate aespecially if others are expressing criticism. det guest: they have their job to do as well. as a member of the house and the house n particular needs to do its work and not be so concerned with what the senate might do or say. we need to do the best we can and send it to them. if they can improve it if they can make it better, that's great, you know. god bless them. host: if it end on the speaker's decksk and has to be submitted without the amendment, how would you stand? would you be okay with that guest: i don't think i would because it doesn't deal with what many people and myself see as the president's extra constitutional action. we must deal with that somehow. i don't expect it to come back exactly the same. and, knowledge

and, you know, we have to wait and see what they do. they might add some things that they like and have to look at it in total host: what would you like? >> homeland tightened up. there are some excesses. i have become the subcommittee on hold lan, briefings on excesses and abuses there. i would like us to get into some of that stuff. we ralliedl really need to make sure that every dollar is spent most efficiently. i am not sure we are doing that in these cases. host: you heard the thoughts of our guest, representative scott perry on the homeland security committee. it's chairman of a sub knit. you may have thoughts on this vote today in the house at 9:00 o'clock, starting at 9:00 o'clock. you if you want to make ire thoughts on twitter known, @c-span wj. your party and others will take place in a retreat this weekend.

immigration is expected to be a big topic. do you expect a consensus to come forward as far as a plan forward when it comes to immigration? guest: there could be. it's different with the senate. i have gone to these forums before when it's just the house. it's hard to get consensus out of the house members. add the senate with a different view, it will add a different dynamic. it's an opportunity for all voices to be heard. we represent 700-some-odd-thousand constituents and have our didn't ideas based on our constitwains constitwainses and sometimes it feels like leadership doesn't hear those things. this is the opportunity not only for leadership bi for your colleagues to hear and for me as a colleague of other members to hear what the issues are in their district and why they think the way they do so when a comp prehencei package is put together or a series of bills that deal with an issue, you might not agree, but at least you can understand and articulate to ire constituent why you are a yes, why you are a no and the other issues that

surround it because oftentimes most times, none of these issues are monolithic. host: are those complied guide today's vote in the guest: absolutely. the narrative, there are going to be people who say this is about homeland. there are going to be people who say this is about immigration and people who say this is about the constitution. and to some extent while i think it's about the constitution, many people and some of the media will drive the narrative regardless of what we think we are voting for and then that colors everything that follows down the line. while i think this is about the constitution and to a certain extent, a great extent dealing with homeland funding, we avowed and we want to get to the other parts of immigration that desperately need our attention and we planto that but what's happened here and how it's seen might change the process host: what's the top priority for immigration guest: border security followed by the vetoesa program. it doesn't work for working

families. it doesn't work for businesses. it just doesn't work for our country. it hasn't really been modified to really change with the times, as times change for 22 few, 25 years. tore me, we need to get to that. host: our guest is the here port saint lucy bob with scott perry, republican of pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i just one of these people keep calling in saying obama is braking the law. he is doing everything wrong. we have laws here, and we have judges here we have a police department. why don't they call up have him arrested if he's breaking the law or shut up. guest: bob i appreciate your point. the issue is the constitution is the supreme law of the land but it's unfortunately in some cases kind of up for conjecture or review or opinion. and that has to go through the courts. while i think that the president

has kind of breached his constitutional authority, i believe it sounds like you believe that. we also have due process in this country. this is the due process. so we are going to try and make our claim and then i imagine we will go it through the court's portion. this will go through the courts at the same time. but this is a process by which we have to determine whether there has been kind of a law broken, if you want to say, or gone outside the constitutional authority and then seek the remedy at that point. host: robert, jonesville, louisiana. democrats line. hi. caller: yes, sir. host: robert, go ahead. you are on. caller: yes, sir. i would like to make a comment and ask a question and a comment, please. host: okay, robert. i am listening to you. caller: okay. what i don't understand is why the republicans try to block everything the president tries to do. they got -- he is like a bull in

a corner every time he tries to get something done for people they want to step in and try to kind of do something to block it it. as far as the -- as far as the homeland security i am glad they are voting on that. i hope it goes through. but as far as the deal about the immigrants, the i will real immigrants they call, the mexicans, i think that's wrong. host: tharpingdz robert. go ahead. guest: some people see it as blocking. some people say the republicans because i am a republican, the president is a democrat they say it is standing firm. you must stand for something and if you believe in the constitution and that the president has breached his constitutional authority that you are duty-bound. you have taken an oath and you have a duty to stand for something. so, it's not necessarily being against the president but he stands for one thing on this occasion and we stand for something else or at least i do. i better not speak for the whole

party but do i on this openings and so, i have a duty to my constituents, the people who elected me and said mr. perry, you are our representative. this is what we believe and we wish you would stand for something in this regard and so it's not necessarily opposing everything he does but standing for something and it happens to be different, a difference of opinion, then that must be worked out. host: springhill florida, independents line, chris. caller: hi. i agree with you congressman perry. you know as far as the blocking the president, whatever, you know, not voting along with him, you know gridslock only a bad thing if it's legislation that you like. if it's legislation like you are praying for grid lovenlth so that's just nonsense but anyway it goes to the heart of really what i say people have to understand that you as a

congressman and 434 other congressmen like you are representing united states as our proxy because we can't be there. and it also, the legislature who writes the law, not the president. don't people wonder why the president can just override 435 memories of congress and another 100 in the senate just by his pen? it's vague as far as executive order and how much you can go and what his powers are. but it's always been be unwritten understanding that this is not what execute order is for. you don't override the legislature. bush tried a long time to get the legislature to pass immigration reform. but he kept it with the legislature. he different take the legislature's power and override all of those people represented by all of the people across the

country. guest: gulf coast you are right. this is a frustrating process for americans and members of congress. i imagine it's frustrating for the president too. you are elected to solve problems to find solutions and there is this grinding against one another and this give and take that oftentimes, too many times, takes too long. at the same time, if you take an oath and you agree with the constitution, you must understand the framers set it up this way. it was supposed to be in my mind anyhow a deliberative process that is slow and ine fitter but we don't want to make knee-jerk decisions because they have consequences that oftentimes can't be seen. while it's fruststrating and aggravating and irritationng you can't provide a solution that looks so clear to you in your mind, we have a collaborative processes where all americans through this process have their voices heard and the most perfect thing comes out. i am not saying the perfect thick, but the most perfect

thing at that moment based on the constituency and the thoughts and desires of the constituency in the context of the constitution. >> that's what comes out if we follow the process. if we don't, we have this issue which is what we have now the president deciding one way, you know, and, you know quite literally, the congress saying hold on a second. it says right here in the operator's manual that's our job. so we are duty-bound to do something about it. host: our guest serves on the foreign affairs xhichlt your response to stories about al-qaeda nut arabian peninsula taking a responsibility for the terrorists attacks. guest: i don't think that's any surprise. we heard the shouts of some of the terrorists that they were affiliated with al-qaeda in yemen and one of the targets that was hit over there. so i don't think that that's necessarily any surprise. i think the american people really need to wrap their minds about -- -- wrap their minds about what this enemy is all about and the fact that we don't

deal with an enemy that has a linear border state-sponsored. this is an ideology that transcends borders and age and culture and this is going to have to be a different. warfare unfortunately that will while we would like to be disengage from we desperately want to disen game from they are bringing this to our doorstep. we deal with it or we suffer these consequences over and over and over. >> host: do they bring it into the united statesement do you think? guest: if left to their devices, they will. i have no doubt about it. i am surprised they haven't been more successful in the united states. that is a credit to law enforcement and the other law enforcement affiliated agencies that monitor and keep track and deter. host: including dhs? guest: yes. host: ? whatparts? guest: border pat tro and the secret service that protects the president and elected officials. these are all collaborative

agencies that work together. we saw after 9-11 that everybody was kind of stoved by different agencies an not talking to each other. the dhs was designed specifically to collaborate or to foster collaboration and cross talks so that the information was crossing agencies. the coast guard they are getting the information on somebody on the no-fly list which no-fly generally speaking means maybe you are not flying but we don't want you coming in on a cruise ship action, either. they are checking lists and so on and so forth. it's that collabberative nature that helps to keep all of us safe. i think it really works on some of the bigger plots so to speak where you have multiple people or agencies groups whatever you want to call them, al-qaeda-affiliated or boko haram, it stops, to thwart them. it's the individuals because if they are not communicating with anyone, these agencies, it's

difficult for their processes to work. host: host: what would you like to see for action items for the administration to keep them at the doorsteps, your words? guest: the visa waiver program in particular needs to be reviewed. while we have a strong program i think in the united states of which i think could be tightened up a bit. but i think some of our partner nations don't have such a tight program and when you look at in france this one suspect that they are looking for who was on the no-fly list. as a matter of fact, the two individuals who conducted the massacre, the two brothers were on the no-fly list but they traveled to yemen and the wife or the come patriot, the come panel condition union of the one gentlemen -- the individual that shot up the market his partner, his female partner traveled just days before throughtie and allegedly into syria. she is on the no-fly list.

how is that happening? those are things we need to work on with our western civilization partners. host: next to bernadette in new mexico, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning get gefrt hi bernadette. caller: you talk about the quote, unquote process. how much is this process going to cost us? what i see is that there is an old thing that says united we stand, divided we fall. the republicans are done everything flu their power to try to divide us with when the world sees our leader, the president of the united states, whether you like him or not see us divided, they see us a as weak. how much is this stuff going to cost? guest: the home land security bill the promotions $497,000,000,000 but i think you are talking in a larger context and with all due respect, there

is a lot of folks that believe the president is the actually the one who has been the most did i have vicive so i guess it is a matter of opinion. all of us want to be united as we look out at a time rest of the world and we want to have a united front but at the same time we must make decisions together on how to move forward. there are always disagreements but for the sake of moving together forward, you just don't throw out the baby with the bath water and accept things that are unacceptable to your constituents. constituents. it's a give and take, bernadette. in an imperfect world, we try to make it adds perfect as we can. host: someone on twitter asked why the republicans are playing politics with national security. guest: that's a fair question but if it is for republicans, how come it's fair for democrats and for the president? he has played politics with national security many would say with his policies and with what is essentially in many people's views an open border. so while i would agree to a

certain extent you could say but it's fair on the other side. we are in the same boat t host: you agree with his statement? guest: i agree it's could be perceived as such. if you perceive that as such you can't, i think if it's 50%, there is 50% on the other side as well. host: alana, brooklip new york. you are on with scott perry guest: okay. caller: yesterday i got cut off but talking being who would run for g.o.p. i personally think that al enemy west he loves america whether he is a democrat or a republican and he always seems to know what he is talking about as far as protecting america. and i think in the future we should look in to what he knows, how smart he is, and can he do the job? guest: listen alana. i can't alan, he is a good friend and a great american

patriot. he served his nation in combat. at the end of the day that's alan's decision to run and people will determine whether they agree with his philosophy and leadership style and vision for america. but it's strange to say we should look in to -- i think it's obvious where he stands on most issues. most people have a strong opinion of allen west. i think he would be a great candidate. i am with you host: mitt rom energy a third run pneumonia the presidency? guest: i think it adds to the conversation. i don't agree with him on everything, but i think it alleged to the conversation and really iskind of enhances our process. i don't know. i am not planning to run for president any time soon but i imagine the others would say come on in mitt. host: did you support him last time guest: after the primary can absolutely. host: brett is next independent line. caller: hi senator perry, how

are you doing today? guest: good morning. caller: i agree with let much everything you are bringing to the tame. the one point about immigration is ultimately we have a legal system to bring people into this country. those who break that are breaking the law and anyone who synpathuses with someone breaking the law whether that be to make life better for thoelsz or to make other gains, i don't have any sympathy for those people because there are people suffering all over the world. if they we want stealing and robbing to make life better for themselves is that correct acceptable? that doesn't make as soon as to me. these illegal immigrants coming in here and saying, it's okay because they are trying to make bet are for themselves. that's wrong. guest: brad, i appreciate your input. it is against the law, which is the problem. but i would say laws are in matters of degrees. you don't put killing someone on the same scale as shoplifting, especially if you are starving. i think that's where most americans are. i think most americans would

agree our immigration process, our system is broken and has been and needs review and reform and, you know, updating. >> having been said just because you don't like it and acknowledge it is broken does not give you cause whether you are the congress or the president for unilateral action. we also have a system by c our laws are changed. if we disregard on it that on this occasion why not disregard it on every single occasion. that is the concern, you know. depressed has ceded much of its authority over time to the executive branch in my opinion, both republicans and democrats, and on both occasions, should have kind of dug their heels in and said this is our authority by the constitution. it is not yours, mr. executive, and we need to retain it. at the same time let's be responsible and deal with tough votes. >> that's where we are today. we have been pushed into a corner, i think, to a certain extent. but if that's what it takes to get things done that's what it

takes. host: why isn't congress deliberatebrading immigration? give us the quick and dirty guest: i think we will. we just got sworn in. we know we had until the 27th of february to get the department of home land security appropriations taken care of. and this process takes time even legislative process takes time. i think once we get this done we have heard from our leadership and members that we want to get in to immigration and produce legislation and get it to the president's desk. i think the american people can expect that very shortly, but i don't think they probably will be able to expect one comprehensive bill. you see maybe one on visa reform, maybe one on boarder security. different components but coming rapidly. it is a time taking process of hearings and information and collaboration so that the american people can see transparent what we are doing and why we are doing it and say i agree or disagree and that produces the best product over time. host: what's the likelihood funding for dhs won't happen

guest: i don't know if the senate is going to pass it quickly or easily or if the president is going to sign it or if there is going to be some stops along the way there but sooner or late, it's going to happen. understand even if there is a partial shutdown the laws, the vast majority of dhs will occur. saw say there is going to be a shutdown, understand the post guard is not going to be part of that. it's really just going to be a very small portion which deals with what many people consider the illegal immigrants that are coming across. >> component of it. >> would be the only component that's not working. the rest would be fully if you would ed and operational. it's just the small part. host: hot you don't feel shutdown callgulf coastget maybe a partial shut downhill. the vast majority of dhs will continue to operate because it is on what we call autopilot. it has to be funded anyhow and has to remain open. >> doesn't mean that the political narrative and the

demagoging won't say the department of homeland security is shut down because if 1% or a 10th of a percent of it is time eked, some people will make political hay out of that and say the whole thing is and we have about a 7-second attention span in america. >> that's what people will hear and think even hoe it's not true. host: wildcat scott perry of pennsylvania, a member of the home land security committee and a member of thephon affairs to talk to you to 8:30. jim if from lyford texas on the republican life. guest: get morning, jim. caller: good morning, i feel you guys are doing a really good job in the republican party so far. you need time to get all of this done. but i've got one thing to on say. these democrats that are calling are saying that -- they are not informed about this homeland security bill waythe way it's got to be not funned. you remember what happened with

obamacare where gruber said six or seven times on video about those people that supported that act, the obamacare act, i think it's coming to face right now again. as far as the immigration reform these people that are calling and saying it's okay. >>, they just don't have an idea. i live down here in the south texas area, the fraud, the fraud to our social security system to our disability benefits to everything that's going on with benefits as far as federal come down here. those people need this kind of atmosphere in their area so they can understand immigration reform that they are trying to help support obama. i think obama, 22 times, he mentioned that he would not -- he didn't have the power to go unilateral. you know what it was? it was all about the latino vote. somebody said it real clear earlier. it was about the latino vote. >> that's what it was. i am not a supporter of obama. i never would be a democrat.

i am a republican by heart. i send my military in good faith, with honor and i tell you what. you guys keep the good work up. guest: false thank you for your service. to remind everybody, members of congress we represent both democrats and republicans and i wonder about the 20-something times the president said he could not do this and then he decided to do it anyhow. i wonder about the timing as well. i am a person my mother is columbian, so i understand maybe some of these issues but at the end day this is about the cover constitution. if you are going to take the oath to uphold the con sfitstitution, the constitution states clearly who's job it is to letn legislate, especially on immigration, you have a duty to do something about that. we represent all views as best we can, and it's immaterial perfect, but we are going to get

somewhere on this thing. host: your mother is columbian? guest: yes. host: what does she think? call guest: growing up she speeksz spanish fluently and she didn't teach us spanish. she believes in being an american is what she believes. that's her heritage but she is an american through and through and she expected her sons and her daughter to be americans as well. she expects all americans to be the same. host: rav eke, independent florida line. good morning caller: good morning, mr. scott. how are you doinging? guest: i am doing well sir. how are you? caller: pretty good. wurnl of the thing is i understand congress has a tremendous job to do but here is my problem: my problem is that you know, we saw a divided government and when the democrats had the congress we

hope kept hearing they didn't get things done but in a sense the accurate had the right to block all of these bills. the bills never get a chance to come up. so now the democrats. here is my question to you very simple a very simple question as a congressman. guest: yes. caller: please answer to us, as somebody would have military in my family i would like to know what part of the constitution did the president break that we are giving the security money into question with this bill? explain to us what part of the home land security bill is connected to this president breaking the law? guest: okay. raphy eke specifically article 1, section viii and article 2

did he have rav eke bot says that the congress the legislature deals with emgration laws specifically and article 2 the president's guilt-faith close to uphold the constitution in the laws. those two things in tandem or actually individually are what most americans that degree with his actions are butted tressing their claim o they hold up the constitution and say it says right here in black acted white that this is the purview of the congress and that the president will faithfully execute the lauds. those are the two items. that's where the foundation of the argument exists. host: the president met with congressional leaders we white house and he talked about where he could work with republicans, talked being a variety of areas. i want to play a little bit of what he says where you might find agreement. guest: okay. individual [video clip"? >> i think there will be opportunities to work together on trade. i think there will be opportunities to work together

on simplifying the tax system and making sure very paying their fair share. there are going to be opportunities for us to streamline government so it's more responsive. ol each of these reasons, i am going to be listening to everybody around this table and i am hopeful with a spirit of cooperation, putting america first, we can be at a position at the end of the year we can say we are that much better off than we were when we started the year. >> any areas of agreement you found there? guest: i think trade and trade promotion authority is something that the president is the discussing in particular and it's something that his party, he's actually kind of working cross-current from his party. >> that's interesting. i think there might be some opportunities there certainly on taxes. we have a tax system that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. now, when he says he is willing to work with us on it i think both democrats and republicans in the last congress senate and

house, really wanted to get the tax -- to tax reform. it was my understanding the president wanted about a trillion dollars in new ref newts to the federal go. to is it agree to something. if that stands, it's going to be difficult. everybody acknowledges that our tax system is broken. i am concerned when he says that everybody needs to pay their fair share because i kind of hear that as code for, you know, somebody that's doing well that's been successful that's worked hard, let's pay for just more just because they have been successful i think it needs to be fair, period. but that's kind of in the eye of the beholder. certainly with reform and excesses. i think there are places all of us can agree there are excessss in government and we can wok together to fort worth, texas those things. host: because you sit at on /* te head of a committee that the looks at those what would you want to target? guest: we understand as taxpayers that the government needs money to do the things that they need to do and we agree with and homeland security provides for the security and

the protection of the homeland. but when we see some of the excesses of spinned, for instance, there is a contractual agreement -- agreements with the construction of a place called saint elizabeth's, which is the new headquarters for home land security. the amount of money that's being spent on that billions of dollars and some of the things that have been done there, being done there problems with the contracting so on and so forth, taxpayers don't appreciate those kind of things. the contractor is willing to do whatever they are told to do and they will take the money, but it doesn't need to be so opulent and it doesn't need to take so lon and it doesn't need to cost so much. that's where i think most americans would say, look. we need a headquarters that is appropriate for this at see that fosters collaboration and efficient see but that's not what we are seeing here we are seeing a pile of money going to a few folks and the taxpayers are being fleeced over a long period of time. >> needs to be fixed.

that's 1 thing in particular that actually happened over the last two years, the prior chairman, mr. duncan took a look at that. we are going to continue down that path because there are some gains to be made there. host: you do you know when your first term will take place and what the topic will be guest: the next hearing under my purview will take place next month and it will be reorganization. so what right now we are looking at is a list of top offics some we are focused on fraud, waste and abuse in that agency and then go from there. host: charleston south caroline a up next representative scott perry. caller: hey account, robert. hey, mr. perry. i see this all the time. they are wrong. they are wrong. they are bronc. this is wrong. but what i don't see is this is what i would do. they able to got the you know what to come out and say: in this what i would do.

it's real easy to point fingers and say this person is wrong. this person is wrong. but having enough move 0 to say this is what i would do and this is how i would do not just that. here is my second point, and this is one that really bugs me about immigration because nobody up there in washington wants to admit that we give away 50,000 shiptsz a year under a lottery guest: okay. listen, again, i tend to agree with you. you can't just be against everything. you've got to say what usual for and if you want to discuss immigration, robert, that's a big topic. so, i am not sure exactly what question you have for me to answer to that, but for me citizenship is very important. it should be valuable and it should be earned and i am concerned when we hand it away. i am also kemped when people work towards it like my grandmother and great

grandmother who came to this country with literally the shirts on their back and earned their shipts and learned eng accomplish spanish and became proud americans when we put people that just either come across the border or stay -- come in legally and over stay their visa and just stay meanwhile, other people are going through the process, child say it takes too long. it's too expensive, too burfordensom and they are going through the process legally and we have put the people who have come in illegally in front of them. >> that's just a simple -- that's as simple as butting in line and you know that's incorrect from elementary school. you don't need to be a grown up. it doesn't need to be as complicated as immigration reform to understand that that's not right. so those are things i think most americans, myself included want to solve host: from newport news virginia. judy next caller: hi mer perry. how are you.

caller: my question is about sequestration an the gutting of our military. guest: right. caller: benefits that our active members receive such as bhh or tri-care. i am a military mom of four. i am a military wife, and i am really concerned about our retirement. you know, that is my question. caller: first of all thank you for your service. when a member of your family serbs, a husband or a wife, you serve right along with them and a mother or a father and i have i proudly served my nation as well. i understand. >> my concern is the same as yours. the only thing it seems that this administration is willing to say that there are sectionses in and willing to cut is our military. i would say as a tliej member of

the military, started out as an enlisted officer and i have seen excesses as well. it's a big organization and there are excesses and they are -- it's appropriate to be scrutinizing of those and make changes, but at the same time, you have to wonder: what's too much too fast for such a large organization is the one thing in the constitution where it says we are duty-bound to defend the nation there should be other things that are looked at as well. i am not saying that the military is not due it's look. there should be other things looked at as well. unfortunately, i think many of the commanders and many the top leadership in the military has been put into a very difficult sink because they answer to the president. you have to make it work. they are in the position of trying to protect the nation's interest with diminishing resources. where those would be cut and on maybe, not many occasions, they had come to the depressed and

said we don't want to come from here. if that's the only thing the president will accept we need to understand and recognize that this is our constitutional the duty a dangerous role. our military for texas and people make a commitment to serve and give up their lives if nos and there is another side of that deal of that agreement that. side of the agreement is that we will take care and then pay for them and once you make that agreement, you can't change it. maybe for the future but not for the ones who have made the agreement and you signed on to your end of the bargain. host: scott perry of pennsylvania, a member of the home land security committee and the foreign affairs committee joining us to talk about today's vote. representative perry, thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much host: we will here another perspective from a freshman republican from a democrat. he will join us to talk about immigration efforts, today's vote and other related issues.

>> as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> the c-span cities tour takes book t.v. and american history t.v. on the road travel to go u.s. collect cities to learn about their history and lit rarely life. wepert ped with comcast to wheeling west virginia? >> i wrote these books, the wheeling family. they are two volumes. the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is that wheeling transformed into an industry city in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century and, and it's kind of uncommon in west virginia in that it drew a lot of immigrants from various parts of europe here in search of jobs

and opportunity that i am graipings, that i ammmigrant jepings 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's an important part our history. most people stepped to focus on the frontier history, a warhit those periods are important of equal importance in my mind the industrial immigration at wheeling had. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on the frontier. >> river was the western extent of the united states. in 1770. the first project funded by the federal government or road production was the national road that extended from cumberland maryland, to wheeling village and when it comes here to

wheeling that will give this community the real spurt it needs for growth. over the next 20 to 25 years, the population of wheeling will almost triple. saturday at noon eastern, on c-span book's t.v. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history on c-span 3. washington "washington journal" continues continuescontinues host: i want to introduce you to ruben galleyo, the whip of the congregalt hispanic caucus. good morning guest: thank you for having me host: host: a former marine guest: no former marines, i was returning from war.

i got involved in veterans issues because we were very much being left behind. there are a lot of problems you see now hear now that used to be worse back in the day. a lot of us came back and became more politically active and it dove tailed off of a lot of problems in arizona with sp 1070. eventually somebody gave me the badge to run for office and i took it and ran for state rep. i was there for four years and loved the job i did and place opened up for congress. i took the opportunity to run. i felt it was an opportunity for me to serve arizona in a grander scheme host: here you are and you are a member of the armed services committee. guest: we have four big bases in arizona. they are important to the economy of arizona. i am happy to be on that committee. host: one of the first votes you are going to take is the issue of homeland security but immigration. give us a sense of the bill

being voted on today. guest: this is really a bill that is entirely based and aimed at placating the tea party base of the republican party. there is no caution that this bill is going to go anywhere beyond congress. there is, you know, we don't know if there are any votes in the senate for it even to pass with the amendment that they want which he will strip a lot of funding away from any type of deferred action program or dapa, a new program, executive action that the president just recommended. these are times it should be serious about homeland security funding and we have a small element of the right who really are taking hostage the home land security bill for purely political purposes which is not go to go anywhere. at the end of the day, i think it just slows down the wheels of government and it's real sfofrpt that's going to happen in the first few days of congress when the big talk was about working

in a bi-partisan manner. host: the last guest house speaker says these are reactions to the president's overreach as it were on these kind of issues. you don't see that? guest: they are temper tantrums. because they are reactions doesn't mean you have to listen to them. at the same time, you know, i think a lot of people have to realize that the reactions that the president -- action the president has taken are entirely because the congress never moved on the comprehensive immigration bill that was passed by a bi-partisan group of senators. what i amming at least from arizona -- what i know at least from arizona and i have friends under deferred if they received their paper work they have obtained jobs, paying taxes, going school. some have started businesses. this is good for america. soldier, now the new executive action program for a party that values themselves as a party of family values, they are saying we will actively go after families and separate them,

separate fathers from their children and that is i can lus or mother from the children. if you are the party of family values, you at this point, you are speaking pure hypocracy. host: from the state you are at and you mentioned the friends you have. what do you home hope to bring toe this graimings debate in the guest: what i hope to bring to the national immigration debate is to personalize the lives of a lot of these immigrants and daka and dapa recipients. they are american in everything but the fence that they came here their parents brought them here without that their knowledge. one of my field managers who is a recipient didn't know until he went to try to join the marchines

new york hello.

as my

guest: we need border enforcement. we need a good program that is picking up people in this country illegally that are dangerous, especially people that have zero connection to this country. no one here is advocating open borders. what we are saying is that people that have some kind of connection to this country people that have daughters or sons that are u.s. citizens or were brought here without there will should have an opportunity to make themselves right with the government so they can stay here and be productive members of our society. i understand that there are some companies that make money off of what i would say is russian double programs best questionable programs -- questionable programs. the government is here to be judicious and to integrate a

huge section of this population. we have not been able to stabilize it with full right to citizenship. host: don, from oklahoma. caller: i have a question and a comment. i watched the house yesterday. democrats would call the immigrants illegal. under that scenario, if people break into your house, they are not illegal. if people break into your house, and set up house, is it ok? is that legal? guest: no. this is a country, not a house. this is a country that has constitutional rights and we

have due process. for us to automatically call people illegal without any due process or understanding the true nature of what they crossed is, i think, emotional and reactionary. i do not do that. i'm sorry that you feel congress should be doing that. host: what is the best approach for people who are here illegally in the united states? guest: the best approach is -- they should talk to an immigration lawyer and start bringing themselves right with the law. i know that process is extremely long. we, as government, should make the process for immigration reform to be fully funded as much as possible. if you are eligible for dhaka or top a -- or dapa, start paying taxes in being an everyday american.

i insured -- i encourage them to go to the process and i think it is tedious and i hope to be able to make it more efficient for everybody. a lot do not have that option because they are so far behind and they are just trying to make sure they make ends meet as many of them have kids, young american citizens as children. they want to make sure they are getting a better life. a lot of the countries they belong to are not safe to go back to. host: for those who do not go under, what makes you think they will put themselves in the process? guest: if you are in this country without papers, you are at a disadvantage in terms of getting jobs legally. you will be exploited. at some point, you're just looking over your shoulder at some point. we have not updated the process for people to become residents.

in the meantime, i'm courage them to do it anyway. host: paul, from virginia. caller: i consider myself an independent although i am a registered democrat. the john f. kennedy democrat says ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. my comment and question. we have so many americans in this country that are out of work and cannot get jobs. why in the hell do we have to have these illegals come up here and do the jobs? these americans are sitting at home, some of them not getting no money. it don't make sense that you bring these people up here and let them do jobs and obama is giving a $3000 incentive program for businesses to hire these people?

this is america. you need to take care of american people first. guest: first about your $3000 comment. it is wrong. that does not exist. secondly, the premise that all immigration is coming from mexico is also wrong. we had immigration coming from all over the world. lastly, immigrants do not take jobs in the sense that every time we hire an immigrant in america loses a job. many the jobs they are doing are quite difficult. if you look at the agricultural work, this is backbreaking work. a lot of times, those jobs go unfulfilled if they do not get immigrant -- migrant immigrant workers coming up from central america or mexico. these are the jobs that pay nine dollars per hour. studies have shown that immigrants are entrepreneurial. they start a lot of businesses in higher a lot of people.

i do not think it is a net negative to this country to have immigration. something that is really important, in this country, we have social security funding issue. the population that is coming out as immigrants are paying into social security and not taking out. that is good for our economy because social security could go bust. that is still a big issue. they are paying taxes. host: ontario, california. ryan, democrats lined. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i do not have a problem with illegal immigration but, i feel like they know they are here illegally and every time i did something illegally and got in trouble for it, i was punished. i went to jail. i lost my social security. i feel like they are taking

advantage of our system. we have to take the basque -- have to take the back seat to these people. i heard one people tell me go back to my own country. i was born here in america. i hope we can fix the immigration problem. guest: thank you very much. i'm not saying you should be without any penalty if you did come to this country in an unauthorized manner. we are saying you should pay a fan -- a penalty, a fine. we are not trying to punish anyone versus anyone else. we want to make everybody right. if you are here in this country without papers, we ask that you live by the law. even in the immigration reform bill we have a penalty phase to recognize the fact that someone crossed without permission. host: bonnie, west virginia,

republican line. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. i would like to say one thing. i have been watching tv, c-span for years and years. i lived in washington, d.c. and was politically active. my question would be, what i see now is here are these people coming in from another country that have no idea about our government. because we are a democracy, why is it that you think you can gain votes or get other people in the country to accept immigrants when you stand up there saying, those are republicans and you are pitting -- people think there is one party of hate and one party that loves you.

you cannot pick people who do not know anything about this country -- one democrat against a republican. these people do not know acids from elephants and we need to teach them. the elephant is the party of this and the democrat is the party of that. guest: it has been simple to educate them that the democratic party is for edge of -- immigration reform. sp 1070 took away and started a lot of the racial profiling problems that occur in arizona. as a party person, the republican party did it by their actions. we introduced this bill this year to defund homeland security in order to take away status from millions of young men and women that are currently paying

taxes and being good members of society. that was the republican party. if they did not do that, i would not have to say it. i have to educate people. many people in the united states are in mixed families. some of them will be here legally and some will not be here legally. some are married to citizens. they care about their families and their neighbors. when i tell that these people are taking away their status, their papers after being here in this country for two years and paying taxes, they care. host: do you think there is an approach that democrats and republicans can work together? guest: it is called comprehensive immigration. it was passed by the senate and a group of republicans and senators. let's discuss that bill. it was discussed in the senate. there is no reason why we should not bring it to the congressional floor. there has never been an approach

to comprehensive immigration reform. host: because of that, you hear the term amnesty. guest: i think it is a buzzword. we are not asking for amnesty. the people that receive daka or dapa will have a background check. they're going to have temporary status until we get copperheads of immigration reform. host: glenn, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to talk about displacing 30 million american workers with illegal immigrant population that is here right now. where are they getting their tax id numbers? social security office? it is hard to go to the social security office nowadays or the hospital because of illegal immigrant population. all this money that is being

spent on the illegal population. they have their own countries all over the world and they are overstaying visas where they are documented. in california, they are giving out licenses to undocumented people with no driving tests. we have got to get control of our country. we have children that were brought here when they were young. yes, they do need a place in this country. guest: a couple things. tax id does come from the social security department. it is different from your normal secure -- social security number so they can identify you as a recipient. that means you are paying taxes. the assumption that when you go to the social security office and the hospital that those people are "illegal" is wrong. that is your view because they are probably a different skin

color from you. i've heard the statement before. most of the people there are probably citizens. from what i understand, in california, they still have to do a driving test. and abide by the law to get car insurance. host: our guest serves the seventh district of arizona. what have you learned in your first week of washington? guest: it gets cold here. host: as far as the process in the house. guest: i respect a lot of the men and women that serve. both sides want to do their best for the country and their community. more i see the time commitment, you have to have more respect. a lot of us are traveling from very far from washington d.c. i am lucky i have a direct flight but there are some members that have to get back and fourth to their state and

families. it is hard work for them. it shows how dedicated both sides are to make this country better. host: your described as a millennial of sorts. guest: it is awesome to sit down and talk to them. the history they will tell you. it will surprise you. i've been able to talk to john lewis a lot. i talked to nancy pelosi. the history where they tell you about other members and what have seen. it is inspiring. for some but he that grew up reading a lot about politics to be here is a great joy. it is great to be an american. host: at your swearing in ceremony, you invited a librarian and a former boss. guest: my school librarian, i invited because in order for me to afford college, i needed to study a lot to make sure i passed my acps and sats.

my school library and would let me into the school library a lot and study all the time with these books that i could not afford to buy. i had a boss when i worked at a restaurant, i was a line cook. he was a good guy. he taught me a lot about hard work. while working, he would let me fill out my college and financial aid applications. i wanted him to see -- i wanted them to see all the did for me is the reason i'm here. host: randy, democrats line. caller: congressman, my mother has eight boys, seven went through the vietnam war at the same time. all of us went to the service for economic reasons. i feel like i do not need nobody

to thank me for my service because it was something i had to do at the time. now, i feel like we are fighting a civil war all over again. nobody ever talks about the other countries coming into this country, having babies, going back to their countries just so their babies can have citizenship. everything is focused on these hispanics. i used to own a convenient store and i saw all kinds of people. irishmen telling me they are not citizens. you, as a congressman -- can you elaborate on the problems of other countries? guest: i do not quite get what he was axing -- what he was asking. as a marine, i think it is important that there are a lot

of men and women that are the sons or daughters of undocumented people in this country that are serving. some have died overseas. what we're talking about military families, we need to recognize that a lot of military families are mixed marriages or situations with a lot of these undocumented communities. especially in terms of our border states, a lot of military forces there archer on from a big population of people. host: from red oak, texas. richard. republican line. caller: good morning. i'm 54 years old. i've been in the construction trade for 35 years. you can no longer get a job in the construction trade because all it is is hispanics. i do not know if they are illegal or what.

all they do is speak spanish, stick with one another. i feel like an illegal in my own country now. i have got a felony from back when i was 17 years old so i rely on the construction trade. now, at 54 years old, i working for $10 per hour because i'm having to compete with these undocumented workers. they are not undocumented, they have work permits. they work for nothing. we do not have 11 million immigrants picking our crops. they are taking our jobs. guest: when it comes -- with the copperheads of immigration reform bill comes through, part of that is understanding we need to have a balance. we do not want our u.s. companies using -- you do not know if they are here illegally or not, but they are hispanic so

the assumption is that they are. i encourage you to join a union. as the family of union workers $10 working construction is ridiculous. you are killing your body. my family grew up in construction and are part of the carpenters union. their average salary is $30 per hour and there's more protection. host: what are your issues specific to armed services? guest: with sequestration happening, there seems to be a movement to cut benefits for military personnel. there needs to be a thorough understanding of what we will do if we start cutting benefits. there are a lot of people that are relying on this for the rest of their lives. they were promised this. we either have to become adults and and sequestration -- and and sequestration or go through the

pentagon budget and look at all of the glut that exists. cutting military benefits is not acceptable. host: he is a freshman democrat from arizona. ruben gallego. he serves as the hispanic congressional caucus whip. joining us for the first time. >> don't forget, today is the debate and vote on the homeland security vote. you can find out more information on the bill if you go to our website. it has all of that information. we will take you to the house. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day.

we pray that your spirit will be upon the members of this people's house, giving them the richness of their wisdom. bless the members of the majority party as they gather these next days. may they with those who accompany them travel safely and meet in peace. bless also, the minority party as they prepare for their own gathering. may these days be filled with hopeful anticipation. may the power of your truth and our faith in your providence give them all the confidence they must have to do the good work required for service to our nation. give all members the strength, the purpose and clarity of mind to do those things that bring justice and mercy to people and maintain freedom and liberty for our land. may all that is done this day

be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the houss approthe. pursuant to clause 1 of le ern sndapov. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. mr. ellison: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? mr. poliquin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. poliquin: mr. speaker, compared to last summer, hardworking maine families are saving $20 with every fillup of

their vehicles. the $1,000 annual savings is buying almost two months of groceries for a family of four. this winter, many of our families are saving an additional $1,000 because the cost of heating oil has plummeted. that's another two months of groceries. last week i was proud to join house republicans and democrats to finally approve the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. our families will have more money, have more jobs and enjoy more freedom when america increases the production and transportation of all forms of domestic energy and do it in an environmentally sensitive way. increased production and drive down price. now, the house has done its job to approve the keystone pipeline. i respectfully ask the senate to do the same. then, together we must ask the president to do his part. it's the right thing to do for more jobs fatter paychecks and

more security. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: thank you mr. speaker. i come to the floor today to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are about to cast votes on a bill that i believe will make wall street little fiscal year, to make risky bets for a few more years. where were we six years ago? well, let me just give you a blast from the past with some headlines. from "the wall street journal," january 7, 2009 a.d.p. reports 693,000 private sector jobs lost. cnn, january 9, 2009, worst year for jobs since 1945. bloomberg, january 8 2009 december's job loss was bad,

but how bad? in "the new york times," february 14 2009, job losses pose threat to stability worldwide. president obama hadn't been in office. this was other stuff, mistakes that had happened in the past connected to deregulation of wall street. we were staring down the worst recession since the great depression. today we're about to embark back down that path to deregulate wall street again. don't do it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. westmoreland: mr. speaker, i come before you today to honor my friend, lifetime fayetteville resident and entrepreneur robert jordan who passed away on december 16 2014. in 1952, robert got his first

job in retail at the age of 17 at the old travis hardware store in downtown fayetteville. during his visits to various warehouses downtown, robert saw items seemingly not for sale and placed off to the side. he realized he could cheaply buy those discarded items, take them to downtown fayetteville and sell them for a profit while offering his customers a good deal. robert was given full-time attention to buying and selling salvage merchandise and became well-known for his wheeling and dealing. if you wanted to know anything about the community in fayette county or if you wanted to win an election, you went to see robert jordan. robert was the guy to go to. jordan sales and salvage became popular and profitable and it's a fine example of what american entrepreneurship is all about. the way robert ran his business and treated customers as his friends is a true statement of the compassionate and faith

involved in all the aspects of his daily life especially the big love for his family joany and i send our condolences and prayers to his family especially his wife of 60 years during this difficult time and i'm thankful to have met robert and visited his store from time to time. but i'm especially lucky to call him my friend. robert, until we meet again, we miss you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask one minute to address the house, unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to stand against the tactics for the republicans' partisan fights. i find it unconscionable that the house republicans would threaten the funding of the department of homeland security over the president's executive action on immigration. we just saw what happened to our friends in france, and now

they're going to play games with our national security and threaten its funding. this executive action isn't an election strategy or a scheme to grow the federal government. it's a moral imperative. the president acted because this house refused to even vote on the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill. it was widely respected that a vote on that bill would have succeeded. our broken immigration system has forced millions to live their lifes in fear. the president's action is the right thing to do is the humane thing to do. i oppose the defunding of this executive action mr. speaker, and i oppose the threatening of the funding of the department of homeland security and by extension our national security. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revisan extend theeremre withouobctn, the gentleman is recognized e

minut mr. thompso mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize penn state university's world campus on being ranked number one in the nation for the best online bachelor's programs in the country. the recognition was given by the u.s. news and world report's 2015 best online programs and marks the highest ever ranking for the university. further, penn state ranks in the top 10 for the online graduate programs in business engineering, education and computer information technology. the assessment criteria included student engagement, faculty credentials, training, peer reputation, student services and technology. penn state world campus, which provides high-quality online education to meet the needs of busy adults who want to advance their careers, currently has 10,805 students enrolled in 119 degree and certificate programs. the third year that u.s. news and world report has ranked online degree programs, almost 300 institutions are included in the rankings.

mr. speaker, i commend my alma mater for this esteemed recognition including the talented staff and the innovative educators at penn state university. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: mr. speaker today i rise in support of our nation's continued safety and national security. recent world events vividly remind us of the importance of supporting and maintaining a strong and robust homeland security policy. well, today we're going to vote on h.r. 240 the department of homeland security appropriations act, and it provides for critical important funding to the department, including vital support for essential law enforcement activities and programs. however, i had hoped that my republican colleagues would bring this bill a clean bill to the floor. instead we have more politics

as usual. a bill that would actually be signed into law by the president is what this country needs. however what we have is not that case today. it is unfortunate and extremely upsetting that the republicans are now threatening to shut down the department of homeland security, endangering the security of all of our country and appeasing the most extreme anti-immigration reform fringes of their party. this is simply politics over country and should not be a part of the debate surrounding our critically important appropriations bills for homeland security. the five amendments that the republicans plan to attach to the bipartisan homeland security bill represents some of the most extreme anti-immigration legislation. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject niece amendments, reject -- reject these amendments, reject this gamesmanship and call on the majority to vote on and pass the original version of h.r. 240. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania

seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to rax my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker last week the wind chill in buffalo new york was 20 below zero. dead of hypothermia was ronald hunter, he was 21 and had untrited schizophrenia. mr. murphy: a third of the homeless are so severely mentally ill they cannot take care of themselves. they starve, they freeze, they live in their own squaller. had ronald had some other brain disease like alzheimer's he might very well be alive today, but because he had a mental illness, the system refused to help. ronald's father told "the buffalo news," quote, when he was living with us i found hum curled up in a ball in the corner and said what's wrong, baby? he said, i'm hearing voices telling me to kill myself. ronald's parents called crisis

services but as his step mom said, quote, because he was 18 it was up to him if he wanted help. in other words, we let him die with his rights on. don't you understand, america? that this is a brain disease? it is not a choice. i will soon be reintroducing the helping families of mental health crisis act and i invite all members to join us in fixing the broken mental health system so we can have treatment before there is tragedy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without obi the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker in 2014 the american economy had the strongest job growth it's had since 1997. that's 15 years ago. we have had -- added private sector jobs growth for 50

straight months. that's the longest stretch on record, and our economy has once again become the envy of the world. inflation is tame, gas prices are low, the deficit is falling and the stock market is up. consumers' sentiment is now at the highest level since the early years of 2007. the economic outlook looks good but it could and should be better. this success has been the -- based on sound public policy. if we stop the politicking and work together we can make our growing economy work for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guenta: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: i rise in opposition to the president's continued use of executive

action to bypass congress and the american people in order to move forward with his own agenda. we believe deeply in the rule of law and in the separation of powers. the president's abuse of executive authority runs counter to these principles. the united states is a very generous country to those who come here seeking a better life for themselves and their family. every year countless seeks solace on our shores in search of economic and political freedom. unfortunately, our laws have not kept up with our needs. our current economic system is broken. instead of encouraging legal immigration, streamlining the process and reforming our visa system the president has intentionally refused to enforce the laws already on the books. the president's daca order has encouraged thousands of children to take perilous journey, ripping them from their families and placing their well-being with those who seek to exploit them.

our nation cannot send a signal that we won't enforce our laws or hold those responsible for breaking them. our immigration system can be better. compassion for people and care to faithfully execute our laws are not mutually exclusive and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days toeve d extend tirem including extraneous material on further consideration of h.r. 240, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. prsuent to the house resolution 27 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 240.

will the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 240, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, january 13 2015, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-2. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read shall be debatable for the time

specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> thank you for recognizing me. i want to thank the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. carter, for his leadership in putting a great bill comprehensive bill before us this morning. the chair: the gentleman offer an amendment? mr. aderholt: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: ame number 1, printed in part b of house report number 114-2, offered by mr. aderholt of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentleman from alabama, mr. ater hold, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama.

>> mr. chairman. i would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman will be recognized. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned i want to first of all thank the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. carter, for his leadership and putting a very comprehensive bill before us today that deals with protecting the homeland. i'm presenting today along with my distinguished colleagues, in particular from south carolina, mr. mulvaney and also mr. barletta from pennsylvania an amendment that defunds the president's unconstitutional actions on illegal immigration. as it's been noted here last night and this morning, back in december the house voted to fund the federal government for this fiscal year, f.y. 15. we kept funding for the department of homeland security on a continuing resolution. by doing so we were making a promise to the american people. it was a promise once we had a republican senate we would work

together as a congress to ensure the president's unconstitutional and unilateral actions would not go unchecked. and today with this promise that has been kept. with this amendment before us today. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one meant. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment. executive action of november 20 2014, and the marton memos of 2011-2012 are direct contravention of congressional intent and have no standing in current law and must be dismantled. apparently the president learned nothing from the devastating results of his previous executive amnesty. deferred action for childhood arrival, daca, which led to

nearly 70,000 children arriving on our southern border last summer at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the american taxpayer. this amendment turns back the president's shortsighted executive overreach. for that reason i strongly support its passage. we will also consider four additional amendments today. all of them seek to correct many of the dangerous actions the president has taken on this issue and restore the rule of law. i plan to support all of these amendments and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. price: mr. chairman i rise in strong opposition to this poison pill amendment which is a laundry list of attacks on anything the executive branch has done to improve immigration and border security policy. it caters to every whim of the republican conference most extreme elements. it would defund the secretary's

southern border campaign designed to unify border security efforts. it would defund the policies to improve employment-based immigration and bring highly skilled workers into our country. it would defund the policy to parole in place family members of citizens or lawful permanent residents who seek to enlist in the u.s. military. a policy supported by the department of defense. incredibly, it would defund the department's provision of temporary relief to individuals who are brought to this country illegally as children. those covered by the dream act. and to the parents of u.s. citizens who meet certain criteria. it would defund the secretary's policy of immigration enforcement priorities. every prosecutor in this country exercises some level of discretion to make the most of limited resources. we want our police to pursue murderers over traffic violators. we also should want d.h.s. to focus enforcement efforts on

illegal immigrants who pose a threat to our communities. it would be preferable as the president is the first to acknowledge to pass comprehensive immigration reform to address our country's festering immigration challenges. but in the face of house republicans' failure to act, the president has taken well considered steps, each of them well-grounded, in his legal authority. if the republican majority wishes to change the law in some way to deny him such authority they should introduce legislation to do so. but adoption of this amendment would sabotage the homeland security funding bill and undermine our nation's security at a time of great danger. i urge colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you mr. chairman. i'd like at this point to recognize the majority leader of the house of representatives and thank him for his leadership. yield him one minute to speak. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. speaker, when the president was asked about his deportation policy early in 2013, mr. speaker, president obama said, quote i'm the president of the united states of america. i'm not the emperor of the united states. my job is to execute laws that are passed. a few days earlier, he said, mr. speaker and i quote, i'm not a king. i'm the head of the executive branch of government. i'm required to follow the law. 22 times mr. speaker, the president said he couldn't ignore immigration law and create new laws by himself. but now, mr. speaker, president obama has done exactly what he said he could not do. what changed between then and now? nothing. le it our constitution is exactly the same.

-- our constitution is exactly the same. and congress retains the sole power to legislate. mr. speaker presidents do not have the right to rewrite any law in any instance. the fact is explicit and clear in regards to immigration, actually when it comes to immigration, the supreme court stated, i quote, over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of congress more complete. this is not a battle between democrats and republicans. or a battle between pro-immigration and anti-immigration. it doesn't matter whether mr. speaker, we like the results of what the president did or not. this is about resisting the assault on democratic government and protecting the constitutional separation of powers. let me be clear, this bill funds the entire department of homeland security. so that is not an issue here. when we vote today there is

only one question to ask, do we weaken our constitution by allowing the executive to legislate? or do we defend the most fundamental laws of our democracy? there is no middle ground. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, our ranking member on appropriations, mrs. lowey. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you mr. chairman. the 114th congress started one week ago with republican leadership saying they wanted to work together. while it only took a week for republican leadership to fold to its right wing instead of compromise we see confrontation. make no mistake. the amendments being debated this morning would stop the bill, would kill the bill, hurt

those who are brought here as children, and know no other country than the united states prevent the department of homeland security from prioritizing the deportation of national security threats and dangerous felons, and a little more than a collection of political sound bites. if you don't agree with the president's enforcement actions, which are legal and similar to steps taken by several republican presidents then let us have a serious debate about comprehensive immigration reform then bring an immigration bill to the floor. the president's executive actions will grow the economy by le $90 billion to $210 billion over the next 10 years, raise average wages for u.s.-born workers by 170 a year.

the house republican proposal would not only eradicate these gains, but harm numerous security initiatives. after the tragic events in paris, it is appalling that some would jeopardize our national security by adding these irresponsible amendments. let's vote against these poison bills and move forward with a solid bipartisan homeland security bill supported by democrats republicans and the house and the senate. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from aba is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, the chairman of the house judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. i urge my colleagues to support the aderholt-mulvaney-barletta

amendment. the amendment will completely defund president obama's unconstitutional power grab, granting deferred action status and work authorization to over four million unlawful aliens. this policy threatens the separation of powers between congress and the executive branch. and violates president obama's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. in addition to barring the use of appropriated funds to carry out this policy the amendment will also bar president obama from using immigration user fees to accomplish his executive fiat. the amendment also defunds the obama administration's so-called prosecutorial suppression memo that have gutted immigration enforcement within the united states and the amendment defunds the ability of aliens to receive any federal benefit based on these policies. finally, the amendment makes clear that the defunded programs have no statutory or constitutional basis and therefore have no legal effect. i again urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, the chairman of the immigration task force of the congressional hispanic caucus. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. gue tear rest: -- mr. gutierrez: mr. gutierrez: wow. time flies when you're playing politics with people's lives. just a year ago as the republican majority was rushing off to their retreat, they had a very different story. here it is. house immigration reform 2013, goodlatte, cantor working to give legal stat to us kids.

house majority has status for undocumented. republicans see the light on immigration reform. and what are the headlines today? behold, the republican immigration strategy mass deportation. one year ago. this is the difference in the headlines that your parties, public policy on immigration have caused. but wait. let's see what you said in your principles. it is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own. those who no -- know no other place as home. we cheered on and one year later you want to take away from 600,000 dreamers their right to live in this country and to live legally. you want to deport them all. what happened? the chair: the ware would

remind the gentleman to direct their remarks to the chair and not to other members. mr. gutierrez: well then let me say this. i just think if that's what happened in one year what are you going to come up with next year? what's your game plan for next year? if this is the kind of position you've taken from one year to the next. let me say this, the action you take today i know you believe will cause fear and confusion and consternation in the immigrant community throughout this nation so thereby causing the failure of the president's executive order because no one will sign up. but let me tell you something. the fruits of your action today will cause only anger and outrage and the mobilization of an immigrant community throughout this nation that will be the death nail to the future of your party as a national institution. that is what you will reap today with this. tonight, i will be with

congressman cicilline and i will be there standing with the archdiocese, catholic archdiocese evangelicals in providence, rhode island. where will the republican party be? telling them we can't do any better. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the co-sponsor of this amendment and who has been helpful in crafting this amendment and at this time i'd like to recognize mr. barletta. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. barletta: mr. speaker i rise in support of this amendment which i co-authored with my colleagues. its purpose is simple. we defund president obama's unlawful executive amnesty program for illegal immigrants. as we know, the president announced that only two months ago but we also know that's not when this executive amnesty truly began. it began in 2011 with the

morton memos. those memos told officials not to pursue certain broad categories of illegal immigrants. our amendment defunds the enforcement of those memos and that goes to the heart of the amnesty program. in short, these memos told immigration officers to view the law the way president obama wished it had been written rather than how congress actually wrote it. that's the crux of this. in the united states, we still have a legislative branch of government, and our amendment defends it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, the chair of the congressional hispanic caucus. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak against h.r. 240, the venomous and

dangerous republican appropriations bill for the department of homeland security. this bill and its amendments pandor to those in the republican party who are unhappy with president obama's executive action on immigration. it's malicious and foolishly puts our country at risk. republicans brought this legislation under the guise of defending the constitution, but the president's actions are constitutional. the obstruction and political games that republicans are playing are the true behaviors that need to be condemned. republicans aren't interested in offering solutions or working to tackle the most pressing issues facing our country. how do i know? because instead of offering a long-term solution to fix our broken immigration system, republicans have opted to hold hostage funding for one of the most critical agencies in our government. and as they peddle their mall otts about immigrants, to pander to their base, they put our national security at risk. we should be doing everything

we can to provide our security agencies with the support and the resources they need to prevent attacks like the ones that occurred in france last week. instead, republicans are willing to withhold funding our national security in order to send a message to the president. and as if that weren't juvenile enough, this bill also attacks the most vulnerable in our society. republican amendments seek to revictimize those who have suffered domestic violence. picking on one of the groups least able to defend themselves. you know, when i was a kid we just called that bullying. republicans are consciously targeting millions of families who work hard, who contribute to their communities and are just trying to give their children a chance at the american dream. you know that same dream that many of our parents and grandparents had when they came to this country? mr. speaker, with this bill, republicans are not just abandoning basic humanity,

they're also turning their backs on the economic benefits that come with bringing these people out of the shadows. we could grow our economy anywhere from $90 billion to $210 billion over the next 10 years if we allow workers a chance to participate in the formal economy. mr. speaker, this is a new congress and a new opportunity to work together. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. sanchez: as a country we are better than that and shame on you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina who not only is a co-sponsor of this amendment, but who is very instrumental in this amendment taking place so at this time i'd like to yield to mr. mulvane eave south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, i want to implore my colleagues across the aisle to please, please, please support this amendment. let's take away for at least one day the r or the d from

behind the president's name. let's take away the r and the d from behind our names and look at this for what it is. a president doing something for something he cannot do -- make law. using the excuse of this body cannot act so that he can? that's not how the system works and it is wrong and i'm here today to tell you that if in the future a republican president does the same thing, i will be the first to be here with you to stand against that to fight back. but today i implore you, please, support the amendment even if you are voting against the bill in order to send the message that law is not made in the white house. law is not made because congress fails to act. law is made in this room when we do act, and every single time that any president violates that he violates all of this institution. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized.

mr. price: mr. chairman may i inquire as to the remaining time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama has four minutes remaining. mr. price: i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. our nation's constitution is clear -- congress holds the power of the purse. there are no exceptions, there's no asterisks and there's no fine print. the founders in order to prevent these exact these circumstances, a president who ignores the law, intends to govern unilaterally. it's the responsibility of every member of this house to support this amendment to maintain our representative government and to uphold the framework of our republic. our immigration system isn't broken. it's just not being used.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: i'd like to inquire how many speakers are on the minority side. mr. price: mr. chairman, we have no further speakers. that's why i'm reserving. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. price: i intend to close. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, who is joining us from the birmingham and is a new member to the house of representatives and i'd like to recognize him for 130ekds. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. palmer: i thank you mr. speaker. president obama has created a constitutional crisis by taking action that in his own words changes the law. that power is not vested in the president. it's vested in congress, along with the power of the purse, as has been mentioned, to take action when the executive branch overreaches.

this isn't about immigration policy. it's about defending and upholding the constitution. this amendment defunds the president's action and i'm prow to -- i'm proud to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of hisim the gentn rv the gelen omor cara reserves. the gentleman is recognized from alabama. mr. aderholt: oh, at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. he is not available right now. at this time let me yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. sensenbrenne mr. chairman eight days ago members of this house said the following -- i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic that i will bear true faith and

allegiance to the same, that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which i am about to enter, so help me god. this is a question of whether this house and its members fulfill that oath. we have a choice here. we can either agree with what the president did or defend the constitution. vote aye. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, again, a new member to this body and, again, i yield him 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. westerman: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i rise in support of this amendment. mr. speaker, many of my constituents are much like me. we are ready for a government that works like the one we

studied in civics class, one with co-equal branches of power. winston churchill once stated that the price of greatness is responsibility. as members of the legislative branch voting yes for this amendment is a responsible step in the right direction. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina has two minutes remaining. mr. price: mr. chairman, i would like to close so i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama has two minutes remaining. and is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. again, let me just say before the gentleman closes, the amendment here before us today prevents any funds appropriated or user fees collected by any federal agency to be used to carry out executive actions that were announced on november 20 2014, which would grant

deferred action to an estimated four million people in the country illegally and unlawfully. again, this goes back to the promise made back by the republican congress -- republican house of representatives back at the end of last year and we addressed this issue saying that we would work on this issue, make a commitment to address this issue of the president's action when this bill came before the floor and that's fulfilling this promise today. so, again, i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i want to close by, again, thanking colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the good work done on the underlying bill, which is a bipartisan, bicameral negotiated agreement on homeland security. it's really a shame that we're faced here today with an

amendment that has the potential to wreck this bill and to damage the homeland security department so badly. now, i don't say that lightly. i think members know i don't interject terms like poison pill into debates lightly. but believe me, that term applies to this amendment we're considering right now. . this amendment caters to every whim of the most extreme elements of the republican conference. it doesn't just roll back the president's recent executive action action i which by the way, is thoroughly grounded in law and precedent. it goes beyond that. it rolls back in its entirety the progress that's been made over many years on prioritizing dangerous criminals for deportation and bring common sense to our deportation policy. it's a political vendetta.

and in pursuing this political vendetta, republicans are putting at risk a full-year funding bill, worked out months ago, for the department of homeland security and they are doing that at a time of heightened alert. mr. chairman, this is an egregious abuse probably the worst i have ever seen, of the appropriations process. more than that it's a reprehensible reckless tactic which will compromise, has already compromised the full and effective functioning of our homeland security department and puts the security of our country at risk. this amendment richly deserves our rejection. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. price: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report number 114-2 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. it the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentlelady from tennessee mrs. blackburn, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady fromtown tfpblet mrs. blackburn: thank you.

-- fromtown tfpblet mrs. blackburn: thank you. i rise in support of my amendment to for -- unlawfully created by executive memo of june 15, 2012. my amendment prohibits federal funding fees and resources from being used to consider or adjudicate any new renewal, or previously denied application for any alien requesting consideration for deferred action. article 1 section 8, clause 4 states, that the congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. congress not the executive. president obama has circumvented congress and unilaterally rewritten immigration law from the oval office. a federal judge in pennsylvania said president obama's amnesty is unconstitutional and i quote number one inaction by congress

does not make unconstitutional executive action constitutional, and number two, executive action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion. it is legislation. that is the reason we bring the amendment. at this time i yield one minute to the chairman of the house judiciary committee, chairman goodlatte. the chair: the gentlelady yields one minute to the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i strongly support her amendment to h.r. 240 which prohibits federal funding or resources from being used to adjudicate any new, renewal, or previously denied application for the president's deferred action for childhood arrivals program. it is that simple. the president's daca program announced by the president and the secretary of the department of homeland security on june 15, 2015 violates the laws congress

has written and is a user patient of plenary authority over immigration law that article 1, section 8 clause 4 of the united states constitution confers upon the legislative branch. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment to defund daca. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. conyers: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you very much. i am very disturbed by the nature of this it it blackburn amendment because it would prevent the use of federal funds or resources to consider

adjudicate, renewal of any previously denied application for deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca. or any subsequently similar program. this amendment is similar to the same blackburn bill that passed the house in august of 2014. this amendment clearly terminates the daca program, the dreamers, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues. the amendment prevents new persons from applying for daca and explicitly prohibits further efforts to renew deferred action under this amendment. hundreds of thousands of young people who came forward past background checks obtained daca and have since followed the law

would be deportable at the end of their two-year deferred action period. this is serious, it's dangerous. and the amendment is anti-immigrant and anti-family. this is a vote to deport dreamers. this application -- applicants have applied for positive impacts on job growth and economy. the amendment would lead daca applicants without work authorization and with exposed -- would exposed many of them to deportation to a country that they don't even know. we should be passing legislation to keep daca recipients in our country because they have a net impact on our communities.

the amendment is one more of the same anti-immigrant type rhetoric that has dominated conservatives and is further evidence that the majority is not interested in fixing our broken immigration system but is only interested in penalizing members of our community who seek to work, go to school, and remain with their family. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield one minute to mr. marino from pennsylvania. he's one of our members who had truly a significant career as a prosecutor before coming to this chamber. at this time i yield to mr. marino. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one nu. mr. marino: mr. speaker, i rise

in support of the blackburn amendment today. the amendment prevents funding from going towards the deferred action for children -- for childhood arrival programs known as daca. make no mistake about it. this program has become a magnet for drawing children from central america further putting thousands of children's lives at risk as they embark on a very dangerous journey which not only includes unsafe conditions, but also vulnerable to abuse along the way. this program must be shut down. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not telling the american people that homeland security is fully funded. it's funded more than $1 billion than the president asked for and more than $400 million from last year. in homeland security gets shut down it's because the president vetoes the budget, because he cannot get his way on illegal aliens. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized.

mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i am going tole give the balance of our time to the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has two minutes. mr. gutierrez: thank you so much. congressman conyers, leader conyers. i just want to go back one moment so that we can be very clear about this. because i think we need to understand the difference between the rhetoric of today and the rhetoric of one year ago. this is one year ago. one of the greatest founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. i didn't write this. no one on our side of the aisle wrote this. i wish i would have. i'm sure we would have all been proud to have been co-authors or co-sponsors of that statement. what happened? what happened?

one year later you're saying to those -- what happened to that principle? you just gave it up? doesn't mean anything to you anymore? don't care about children? you think children should be held responsible for the actions of their parents because that is precisely what you are saying today. because 600,000 young people came forward and did exactly this. then wait a minute. it gets better because you said and we were so happy because we thought we were moving forward, because we thought the republican party was finally turning a page, you said, it is time to provide an opportunity for legal residents and citizenship for those who are brought to this country as children. what happened? at this want one of you to deny that this isn't one of the principles you took into your conference last year. it is what you took. what happened one year later? well you know here's what

happened, i think. you guys always say the same thing. oh, it's that king from iowa, he tricks us at the last second. he brings in one of these poisonest things and there's nothing we can do about it. what excuse do you have today when you did it with all the premeditation and thoughtfulness and viciousness to bring this amendment forward with the support of your complete caucus? this is not a surprise. you sought this out. where are you going to move the country forward to? let me tell you about one number. yeah, there's 600,000, there's 270 the electoral college. the number it takes to elect the president of the united states. you're out of reach there. the chair: the chair would ask they direct your remarks to the chair. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: two minutes for the gentlelady and their time has expired. mrs. blackburn: their time has expired. thank you madam chairman.

let's talk about a couple of these things. the democrats like to say, madam chairman, that this is radical. let me ask you a question. let me ask my colleagues a question. is it radical to support the rule of law? is it radical to fight for american workers who are going to lose their jobs to illegal aliens? is it radical to prioritize to prioritize legal immigrants that are coming to this country? is it radical to try to protect children that are in this program via the office of refugee resettlement? democrats are over there saying that republicans are playing politics with national security. let me ask you another question. why were they saying nothing this summer when the southern border was being overrun and all sorts of trafficking, human

trafficking sex trafficking, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking. here are the facts. daca became effective august 15 2012. in fiscal year 2014, the office of refugee released 53,518 unaccompanied children here in the u.s. it is a magnet. 75% of all americans reject the obama executive amnesty. 80% of the americans don't want foreign workers taking jobs from americans. those are the facts, madam chairman. and to my colleagues, that is why we are here. we have two choices. we are either a nation of laws or we are lawless. president obama is turning every state into a border state, every town into a border town. and unfortunately the lawless amnesty has taken democrats from the party of yes we can to

acting like the party of because we can. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. . mrs. blackburn: madam chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be pod. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. desantis: mr. speaker i'd like to offer an