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 amendment. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-2 offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague from alabama mrs. roby. mrs. roby: i thank the gentleman, madam chair. i rise today in support of h.r. 240, the homeland security appropriations act, and to offer this amendment alongside my colleague mr. desantis of florida. if we're going to fix a broken immigration law, the way to do it is to uphold the rule of law, not undermine it. president obama has offered amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and that not only undermines the rule of law it threatens american jobs. it is dangerous and irresponsible. i am proud to have worked

alongside my colleagues, including mr. aderholt from alabama, to get this bill to the floor today so that we can responsibly fund the department of homeland security but also defund the president's unlawful executive amnesty. madam chair, you want a great example of why the president, acting ube laterally to -- unilaterally to circumvent congress, this amendment we're offering today demonstrates that. right now illegal immigrants convicted of child abuse sexual offenders and domestic abusers are not a top priority for deportation in this country. this amendment simply makes them a priority for deportation. this is the example as to why the president circumventing congress is not only a bad idea but undermines the law.

i ask my colleagues to not only support this very important amendment but also to support the underlying bill that uses the power of the purse congress' responsibility to defund the unlawful, unconstitutional acts of this president and his executive amnesty. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: this amendment is unlawful and harmful. the memorandum by the department of homeland security already makes these crimes -- these people convicted of these crimes inyou will jeble for deferred action and already -- ineligible for deferred action and already makes them available for deportation. at best, this amendment is

duplicative but it does something else. in the demmum, it provides, in whether the offense is a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, careful consideration should be given to see whether the alien is a victim of domestic violence. if so it is a mitigating factor. this amendment leaves that out. that's why so many supporters of services of domestic violence is opposing this amendment, and that includes the national task force to end domestic and sexual violence, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, leo, the law enforcements group. they oppose this because they say it will make victims of domestic violence less able to seek help, also willing to call the police and more likely to remain victims of domestic

violence. let me make it clear. people who are convicted of aggravated felonies, which includes child molestation, it includes child pornography, rape any crime of violence or -- they are a top priority for deportation. they are excluded from relief under what the president did. as are significant misdemeanors, which includes convictions of domestic violence. so this is really much simpler than it looks. this is trying to correct a problem that does not exist but also creates a problem for domestic violence victims in the solution to a nonproblem. and i would yield to the gentleman from texas for a unanimous consent request. mr. green: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a statement supporting the clean homeland security appropriations bill that has bipartisan support and

opposing the republican amendments. the chair: without objection. mr. green: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the chairman of the house judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from ohio -- virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for the work of himself and mrs. roby on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. this amendment simply requires the department of homeland security to treat any alien convicted of any offense involving domestic violence sexual abuse child molestation or child abuse or exploitation as a top priority for immigration enforcement. unfortunately, the current priorities created by the obama administration on november 20, 2014 treats certain aliens convibblingted -- convicted of domestic violence convicted of sexual abuse or convicted of exploitation as a secondary priority.

while aliens convicted of a significant misdemeanor, such as domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation are deemed a secondary priority for removal, they can stay in the united states in controvention of duly inactive law. this amendment corrects the irresponsible policies of the obama administration and ensures that criminal aliens convicted of domestic violence and sexual abuse are treated as top priority for removal. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: madam chairman i would yield to the leader -- the democratic leader, nancy pelosi one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank her for her exceptional leadership and that of the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers, and the work of your staff to

bring the facts to the floor on this subject. i rise in opposition to all of these amendments for reasons that i spelled out for half an hour last night. not to go into them again. but i want to just say how disconcerting it is after we've seen the president act with authority in the law -- under the law and also according to precedent of every president, democratic and republican, since president eisenhower. that's why it's very disturbing to see the speaker of the house by saying that president obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness. legacy of lawlessness. that's just simply not -- president reagan lawless was president george herbert walker bush lawless was president bush lawless? i never heard about any executive action taken by them. i want to speak specifically to

the desantis amendment, opposition contained in the letter of the national conference of catholic bishops. on behalf of the bishops they write to ask that we oppose immigration-related amendments in the bill. specifically, to desantis they say that representative desantis' amendment, the bishops say, would prevent the department of homeland security from implementing the memoranda several setting immigrant enforcement priorities. while presented as a measure that helps domestic violence victims, we fear that it actually would discourage many such victims from reporting abuse. immigrants face on tackles of reporting crimes that have been perpetrated against them. this amendment would perpetuate this problem. so i urge our colleagues to vote no on all of the amendments call to their attention the letter from the bishops urging a no vote on the amendments and submit it for the record.

and, again, say that what is disturbing about this -- we have a difference of opinion about immigration or this or that, but to describe the president as lawlessness, to use the constitution as the basis for this debate when in fact the courts have upheld the rights of our presidents to act -- take executive action in relationship to protecting immigrants in our country. every president, democratic and republican from president eisenhower to the president. i urge a no vote on all of the amendments particularly in this case the desantis amendment and submit the bishops' letter for the record in opposition to those amendments. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: madam speaker, i recognize myself for the remaining time. the president likes to say that he wants to focus all of our

resources are on the criminals and yet over the last two years , by d.h.s.'s own figures, this administration has released 66,000 individuals who have been criminally convicted in our country and who are illegally in our country. and the number of crimes and the quality of crimes is stunning. some homicides, some rape, some drug trafficking, and so i think you've seen a record developed over the last several years that has put the public safety at risk. and so i'm per plucksed why someone would oppose this amendment. if someone is convicted of molesting a child, maybe it doesn't qualify under the highest priority. the administration wants to dismiss it as a significant misdemeanor. why would we have any tolerance for child molesters? if you get convicted of an offense like that, you should be gone. we shouldn't be discussing it. and the fact of the matter is, as a prosecutor you have to

make some tough decisions. you may not be able to put a young child victim on the stand. you may have problems with evidence and you may have to do a plea to a lesser charge because of the family's concerns and because what that could do to a victim. that perpetrator is no less dangerous to the community and to our society. so i think the people are going to vote no on this are basically saying we don't want a zero tolerance policy against child molesters and sexual offenders. i don't care what offense it is. you touch a child, you're here illegally, you're gone. i urge people to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chair, i'd yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you madam chair, and thank you to the gentlelady for yielding the time. i'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the national task force to

end sexual and domestic violence against women opposing the desantis-roby amendment. the chair: does the lady request -- the request will be covered by general leave. ms. edwards: thank you. and thank you, again. as a founder and former executive director of the national network to end domestic violence, i join the network of every state domestic violence coalition and the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women in opposing this amendment. this issue is really very simple. often, too often of cases of domestic violence law enforcement show up at a home, they can't figure out what happened, both parties are arrested and down the line both plea to misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. it happens all the time all around the country. for the victim it may be because she just wants to get it out of the way or get it behind her or get back to her children or she's been threatened with further violence by her abuser or with her immigration status held over her head. whatever the reason it turns out that in too many of these circumstances no one, not law

enforcement or prosecutors or judges or even her attorney, if she's fortunate to have one, no one tells her that by pleading to the misdemeanor her immigration status is threatened and she faces deportation. so this is not about fault. it just means that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to domestic violence. it's why we re-authorized the violence against women act in the last congress. and here's the harm. this amendment would prevent immigration authorities from looking beneath the surface in circumstances only of domestic violence offenses to make absolutely certain that we're not victimizing the victim twice by subjecting her to deportation. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous amendment that could result in additional violence and undoing what successful congresses, republicans and democrats have done for over 20 years, provide protection for vulnerable immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. and so let's get the facts straight. this is not about shielding

perpetrators, it's about protecting victims. our immigration authorities deserve to take a second look when it comes to domestic violence. and i urge my colleagues to vote no, to do no harm and vote no on the desantis-roby amendment. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida mr. desantis. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. lofgren: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. . it is now in order to - amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 presented in part b of house report number 114-2. offered by mr. salmon of

arizona. the the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27 the gentleman from arizona mr. salmon, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. salmon: thank you madam chairman. first i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania co-author of this amendment mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you for yielding. thank you to the chairman. my colleague from arizona, congressman salmon for your work on this legislation and this amendment. i rise in support of thal mon-thompson -- of the salmon-thompson amendment. daca protects a large number of unlawfully resident aliens from deportation. in addition to constitutional concerns and national security implications madam chair, the action poses a range of unintended consequences. case in point the president's policy creates a incentive to hire illegal immigrants over lawfully present workers. illegal aliens who are granted

deferred action are exempt from being counted under the 2010 health care law's employer mandate. which requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance or pay a penalty. essentially the president's create add situation where employers face a penalty for hiring americans over illegal aliens. madam chairman, the president's current deferred action expansion promotes the hiring of individuals who have broken the law. over the men and women who have come through legal channels worked hard, and played by the rules. congressman salmon and i are proud to offer this commonsense amendment. the amendment merely states it is the sense of congress that this administration should not pursue any actions to put the actions of illegal immigrants and illegal workers -- illegal immigrants before u.s. workers. i encourage all my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote yes on the salmon-thompson amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: madam speaker, the barbaric killing in paris last week of 17 innocent human beings, including two police officers, is a stark reminder of the high price we sometimes pay to exercise our freedoms. including our freedom of speech. here in this house we exercise that freedom every day on this floor. but that freedom comes with the responsibility. we are all entitled to our own opinions and we can express them here. but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. this sense of congress fails in that responsibility. first, it misappropriates the facts but worse it misrepresents the facts. the affordable care act prohibits the precise activity and conduct by employers that

this sense of congress says it's trying to prohibit. in fact, the affordable care act has explicit language, and i will for the record, submit -- ask unanimous consent to submit section 29 u.s. code section 218-c, protections for employees, which specifically prohibits an employer from discriminating against an american citizen who works for that employer for the purposes of hiring someone who doesn't have a right to work and therefore will not get insurance. the worst part of this sense of congress -- try to mislead the american people to think something's going on that isn't. if it is going on, in the time the gentleman has to push his amendment, i urge him to name the name of an employer who is doing this to an american citizen who should be allowed to work w that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the request made by the gentleman will be held by general leave. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: i yield one minute

to the chairman of the full committee on judiciary and the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one min . goodlatte: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment by representative salmon and thompson. the amendment expresses the sense of congress that u.s. workers should not be harmed by president obama's unilateral executive action program. these programs have certainly given american employers a financial incentive to hire unlawful aliens over american citizens and legal immigrants. the fact is in many cases a business now has a $3,000 incentive to hire an unlawful immigrant who benefited from the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. this is because under obamacare, many businesses face a $3,000 per employee penalty if they do not provide health insurance to their workers. however unlawful immigrants granted daca relief and most likely most benefiting from president obama's new deferred action program are not eligible for obamacare.

thus, in many cases employers will not have to pay this penalty if they hire deferred action recipients rather than legal workers. it is simply indefensible public policy for the obama administration to give unlawful aliens a leg up over legal workers. yet that is the result of the president's unilateral executive action. i urge my colleagues to support this good amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman on the ways and means committee, from in nnl, mr. pascrell. -- from new jersey, mr. prasskell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one -- mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minut the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: i want to report to the other side that you are already on retreat. as a mart you have retreated from our -- as a party you have retreated from our solemn oaths, camouflaged by highest

anti-pieric acclamations of patriotism and liberty. these are not sick people you're talking about. -- stick people you're talking about. these are real people. they are not despots, they are not money changers, they are not felons they are human equals to you and me. you have a bumper sticker mentality without the bumper. for years and years all we heard is read the bill. well, we have read the bill and in fact i helped write the a.c.a., i'm proud of that. there is nothing in the a.c.a. where the president's executive order that treats people on temporary status under the a.c.a. differently than u.s. citizens for the purposes of triggering the employer mandate. the whole purpose of this amendment is to play into fears that by allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows and work legally and pay taxes you're undermining american workers. that is a lie. admit it. nothing in this a.c.a.

incentivizes employers to hire undocumented immigrants over american citizens. in fact, just the opposite as you heard the speaker before me. specifically prohibits employers from firing a citizen employee because they receive a premium tax credit. read the bill. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to obscure what the president did here with this executive order, provide responsible solutions to prevent families from -- being torn apart even further. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and have a nice retreat. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself so much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you. madam chairman, they say sunlight's the best disinfectant. we are trying to shed sunlight

on some of the problems with the president's unconstitutional and illegal executive order of last year. i'm incredulous that the leader of the opposition has now encouraged the members of the opposition to vote en bloc against all these commonsense amendments. defending the american worker, protecting the american worker. and cracking down on the plesters -- molesters and sex offenders and making sure they don't have a haven here in america. and making sure that those that want legal immigration are the first and foremost that we consider in this process and that those that cheated the system have to get behind those folks that are doing it legally before their paperwork can be processed. it's incredulous that the other side would oppose such commonsense measures that i

believe most of america is crying for. people are hurting out there. maybe they haven't gotten the memo, but i think most of us have. the other thing that's incredulous is that when you hear a lot of squealing, you know when you hit a raw nerve, you know there's some truth to what's being spoken. this amendment is simply a sense of congress that we don't give a $3,000 benefit to those that have cheated the system. that we don't give $3,000 advantage to them over hardworking, tax paying american citizens that have been out of work for quite some time. as we know, president obama recently issued a series of memos that would essentially grant legal status to millions of people residing illegally within the borders of the united states. unfortunately, this is not the first time that such action's been taken by this administration. and history has a habit of repeating itself. under deferred action for

childhood arrivals, daca, up to 1.7 million individuals were granted legal status and were allowed to cut in line, being given preferential treatment over those who respected our laws and waited patiently for their immigration cases to be processed. furthermore while those individuals who were given legal status under daca were initially required to purchase health insurance under obamacare. they were later exempted from that requirement. with this exemption those given legal status under daca are not required to purchase insurance. we just don't want that to happen again. i would urge the other side to stand up for the american worker. that's why we are here. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. it the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: madam leader, at this stage i would like to yield one minute to the vice chairman of the house democratic caucus and member from new york, mr. crowley, one minute. the chair: before recognizing the gentleman from new york, the chair will remind members to refrain from improper references

to the president. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: madam chair i think my republican colleagues take the american people for fools. madam chair, i lost too many constituents and friends on 9/11. i lost people who i loved on 9/11. in the years since then, new york city has been the focus of attempted terrorist plots, too numerous to name. homeland security funding is something that i take very seriously because it is so -- so much a part of a new yorker's life. frankly, i respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take it as seriously as well. for this is not a serious effort by any stretch of the imagination. you know what's good for our national security? bringing people out of the shadows so they -- so that we know who is in our country. focusing our limited enforcement resources on true threats to our country. and not holding up needed funding for security and law enforcement programs to make a

political point. it's a political point they are trying to make. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle genuinely think our immigration system should deport parents instead of true criminals, if you want to destroy all our economic gains and throw a sucker punch to our economy by deporting 11 million people you know what? bring a bill up on the floor and let's have a real debate on all those issues. don't walk in here and tell me and the american people that this garbage belongs in the homeland security funding bill. don't tell the american people that. they are not suckers and they are not fools. they know what you're doing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would ask members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from california is recognized. for 30 seconds. mr. becerra: i thank the chair woman.

i ask if the proponents would name the name of an american who has been discriminated against. the name of an employer who has discriminated against an american worker. they gave none. this is all anecdotal, these are all stories. they don't have anything to do with the fact we need to pass the homeland security bill because we are jeopardizing the funding for our security. are people tone deaf to what happened in paris they would do these amendments at a time when we need to support our men and women who protect us through homeland security? this is wrong and that is why we oppose this senseless sense of congress amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona mr. salmon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. salmon: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schock: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designatehe amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report number 114-2, offered by mr. schock of illinois. . the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: thank you, madam speaker. there are currently 4.4 million people ready to enter this country through legal channels. many of them have been waiting for years. they've saved their money. they've filled out all the proper forms. they've paid their fees. this amendment is about doing right by them and their families. it's about making sure the men and women who play by the rules

receive the fair treatment they were promised. congress must send a clear message to the administration and the american people -- we are committed to fixing what is broken about our immigration system but not at the expense of law-abiding immigrants. in recent weeks, i worked with the heritage foundation to identify seven failing programs at usgis that are at most need of improvements. one of the most egregious example is $792 million that they spent between 2008 and 2012 to create an online system for applicants to file forms and pay fees. after $700 million spent and four years of time, only two forms out of 100 and one out of 73 different fees can be processed online. the administration's repeated

inability to build a website that works, well documented as is by now, is compounded by its eagerness to bypass the constitution and break the law. had the president wished to show real leadership on immigration reform, he could have used his executive authority to promote greater efficiency and cost-saving measures within the system. and had he done so, i suspect there would have been overwhelming support in this congress. but regrettably, that is not the course he chose, and it's why this congress must act. we have a responsibility to american taxpayers and to millions of immigrants to establish spending priorities at usdis and eliminating wasteful spending in the immigration system is an important components of our responsibility and a first great step in achieving comprehensive reform. ensuring that fees paid by lawful applicants are not used to fast track those who break

the law strikes at the heart of our oath of office. during my time in congress, the 18th district of illinois has welcomed more than 2,600 new stents many of whom faced a long road to get here. but there are still thousands more who are waiting. and not because their paperwork isn't in order, not because they have something in their record and not because of anything other than a broken system. take charles from peoria. he's been trying to get his fiancee to join him in the united states since january of 2012. for more than two years charles has waited. he's struggled with the financial support requirements. he's been unable to travel to see her. he had his application postponed time and time again. why? because charles is a quadriplegic on disability. take danny from jacksonville, illinois. works two shifts at a meatpacking facility.

he applied and paid for his green card on october 4 2013. his green card was mailed to the wrong address. even though it was properly done on his paperwork and it was in order. danny lost his job because he couldn't show his green card to his employer and after many months of lost wages uscis admitted to my office and to danny that they screwed up and made a mistake. now more than a year later, danny finally receives his green card and went back to work. but not before our broken system cost him a year's worth of wages. madam speaker, these stories could be repeated hundreds of times in my congressional office alone, tens of thousands of times across this body in republican and democrat districts alike. the system is failing our constituents. their families, their loved ones. it's failing businesses in our districts. it's failing daycare facilities and major manufacturers. so yes, mr. president, the

system is broken, but the way to fix a broken system is not to overload the system by fast tracking five million more people. madam speaker, as if these hardworking taxpayers, these hardworking people are sitting at a toll booth -- >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. schock: yes, sir, i will. how much time is remaining? mr. carter: how much time is remaining? the chair: seconds. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognion ms. lofen: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: this amendment is premised on a mistake and understanding of how uscis actually works. here's a fact that some people may not know. the uscis is funded, not by the

taxpayers, it's funded by the fees of the applicants. and so the amendment seems to assume that the -- if you are out of status somehow somebody else is paying for you, the taxpayers or some other applicant. that's not the case. each applicant pays the money of processing their own fees. it does not delay others. what this amendment would do would not just deal with daca applicants. it wyoming pact people who i don't think want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. for example, people who are victims of torture can come to the united states and make a case, plea for political asylum. they file a petition to do that. this amendment would say their petitions can't be heard. people who are victims of domestic violence, we created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to

petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. that would -- those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a visa, that's something we created in law. according to this amendment, people who -- sex trafficking victims would not be eligible to have their petitions processed in a timely manner. and here's something else. most of the petitions that are adjudicated are family-based. so if you have your american citizen daughter marries somebody from another country, she can petition so that her husband can become a legal resident of the united states. if that husband is out of status, that petition would not be petitioned. i don't think we want to do what this amendment suggests we should do and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves?

mr. schock: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i'd yield for unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to place my statement in opposition to this amendment and others that play politics with the security and safety of america. i ask unanimous consent to place it in the record. the chair: without objection. ms. lofgren: i yield to my colleague and compatriot on the judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas, 1.5 minutes, a minute and a half. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you madam chair. and the ranking member for his leadership. this is a full force assault on immigrants. it is an assault on the integrity of this nation that was built upon the investment and the love of this country by immigrants from all over the world. and as i look to the landscape of what we now confront 2,000

dead in nigeria by boko haram, little girls dressed with suicide bombs and homeland security being held hostage by the assault on immigration. let me say to you that the constitution has given the president the authority under the take care provision. and so this assault of amendments trying to chip away at these executive actions is a false premise in order to attack the ideas and the values of this nation. in my home state, if the actions of the president are in place we'll gain $8.2 billion in gross domestic product and $19.2 over a 10-year decade. do you think we need the underlying amendment or amendments, plural? pastors and religious leaders the episcopal bishops have indicated that they support the executive action. the cast lick bishops supports the executive action. the aderholt amendment wants to attack those young dreamers who

want to invest in young soldiers. the blackburn amendment wants to take away, if you will, the childhood arrivals. and desantis wants to misrepresent to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. and mr. salmon and his amendment wants to suggest that workers are being hired over american workers. and mr. schock wants to ignore the investment of this particular language into this nation. let me end by saying this is an attack on immigrants. let's vote against all of these. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois reserves? mr. schock: we reserve. ms. lofgren: i believe we have the right to close so we would reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has the right to close. he has 15 seconds remaining. ms. lofgren: all right. then at this point i'd yield the balance of our time to the ranking member of our full committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers.

the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam chair. members of the committee i oppose the schock amendment for many of the numerous reasons that have already been stated by our colleagues. but i want to make sure that we're all perfectly clear on what is occurring on the house floor today. the majority is unfortunately playing politics with the lives, safety and security of the american people. the ideologues are holding funding for homeland security department hostage here today. that is not right. and they would rather deport dreamers, the kids and their parents rather than fund the

department of homeland security. in the wake of the recent paris tragedy we need to remain vigilant with smart enforcement policies that protect americans. the department of homeland security plays a central role in our fight against terror, and we must fully fund their efforts as soon as possible. we should not be attaching poison pill amendments to this important legislation. and so i urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to really join us and govern with a sense of far more responsibility. i yield back the balance of my time. choim the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for5 cd mr. schock: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to my friend and distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr.

boehner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. and let me thank all of my colleagues who've worked to put this bill together. today i rise and the house rises to support and defend our constitution. we do not take this action lightly but simply there is no alternative. this is not a dispute between the parties or even between the branches of our government. this executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the constitution itself. i appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since i'm one of them. what we're dealing with is a president who's ignored the people who's ignored the

constitution and even his own past statements. in fact, on at least 22 occasions he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done. before he became president on march 31, 2008, the president said, and i quote i take the constitution very seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with a president trying to not go through congress at all and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president. on may 19, 2008 the president said, and i quote i believe in the constitution and i will obey the constitution of the united states. after he was president on may 5 2010, the president said, and i quote anybody who tells you that i can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.

on july 1, 2010, the president said, and i quote, there are those who have argued passionately that we should at least ignore the laws on the books. i believe such an indiscriminant approach would be both unwise and unfair. . on october 14, 2010rk the president said, and i quote, i do have an obligation to make sure that i'm following some of the rules. i can't simply ignore the laws that are out there. on october 25, 2010, the president said, and i quote, i am president i am not king, i can't do these things just by myself. i can't just make up the laws by myself. on march 28 2011, the president said, and i quote, america is a nation of laws which means that i as president am obligated to

enforce the law. on april 20 2011, the president said, and i quote, i can't solve this problem by myself. i just can't do it by myself. on april 29, 2011, the president said, and i quote, some here wish i could just bypass congress and change the law myself. but that's not how democracy works. on may 10 2011, the president said, and quote they wish i could just bypass congress and chiang the law myself, but that's not how democracy works. on july 25 2011 the president said, and i quote, the identify deef doing these things on my own is very tempting, but that's not how our system works. that's not how how our democracy functions. that's not how our constitution is written.

on september 28 2011, the president said and i quote, we live in a democracy. we have to pass bills through the legislature, then i can sign them. on september 20, 2012, the president said, and i quote what i have always said is that, as head of the executive branch there's a limit to what i can do. on october 16, 2012 the president said, and i quote, we are a nation of laws and i have done everything i can on my own. on january 30, 2013, the president said, and i quote, i am not a king. i'm head of the executive branch. i'm required to follow the law. january 30, 2013, the president also said, and i quote, i'm not a king.

you know my job as head of the executive branch is ultimately to carry out the law. february 14 2013, the president said, and i quote, the problem is that i'm the president of the united states, i'm not the emperor of the united states. july 16 2013, the president said and i quote i think it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. september 17, 2013, the president said and i quote, my job in the geckive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. but if we start broadening that then essentially i would be ignoring the law. on november 25 2013, the president said, and i quote, the

easy way out is to try to yell and pretend can i do something by violating our laws. that's not our tradition. on march 6 2014 the president said, and i quote, i cannot ignore those laws any more than i could ignore any other of the laws on our books. and on august 6 2014, the president said, and i quote, i am bound by the constitution. i am bound by the separations of powers. to think that the president of the united states actually studied constitutional law is one thing. he didn't just teach or learn constitutional law, he taught it as well. but now his actions suggest that he's forgotten what these words even mean. enough is enough.

by their votes last november the people made clear they wanted more accountability from this president. and by our votes here today we will heed their will and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. it in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. conyers: madam chair, i ask for a record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 114-2 on which further proceedings were

postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. aderholt of alabama. amendment number 2 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. amendment number 3 by mr. desantis of florida. amendment number 4 by mr. salmon of arizona. and amendment number 5 by mr. schock of illinois. the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic vote on amendment number 2 and will reduce to two minutes the minimum for any electronic vote on the remaining amendments. the unfinished business is requested for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b-of house report 114-2 by the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt n on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vow. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report number 114-2 offered by mr. aderholt of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote being

requested, those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this will be a 15-minute vote. national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.].

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 189.

on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 190. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-2 by the the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn on which the proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report number 114-2, offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united stat hse of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibit be u. hsef representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 218. the nays are 209. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 presented in part b of house report 114-2, by the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 114-2, offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this wilbe-mvo. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 278, the nays are 140, the amendment is adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote printed in part b of house report 114-2 by the gentleman from arizona, in salmon, on which proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 114-2 offered by mr. salmon of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 253, the nays are 171. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-2 by

the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-2 offered by mr. schock of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 5 sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be awoine te. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

choi on this vote the yeas are 260, the nays 167. the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the

union -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 240 and pursuant to house resolution 27 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them in gross. the -- will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: bill making appropriations for the department of homeland securitiers in fiscal year ending september 30 2015, and for other purposes. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> annapolis i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. israel of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. 240 to the me on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 2, line 10, strike the dollar amount and insert $1, 500. page 7, line 22, strike the dollar am and insert $5,327,000. page three, strike the dollar amount. strike all after section 578 before the short title. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. israel: thank you, madam speaker. this is the final amendment to

the bill, it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, last week terror struck france reminding us every day we must be vigilant and prepared. i retcht long island, new york. hundreds of my constituents were killed on 9/11. almost every day another recovery worker from ground zero is losing his or her life all these years later. on that day, on 9/11, those of us who were in this body, as the sun set over washington took -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlewoman is correct. the house is not in order. please take your conversations off the floor of the house.

the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. israel: thank you, madam speaker. we are talking about the victims of 9/11 and they do deserve our attention. on that day, on 9/11, we took to the step, held hands, sang "god bless america." we committed ourselves to work together to strengthen our homeland security, not as democrats, not as republicans but as members of congress whose constituents expect us to keep them safe. whose constituents expect taos put aside whatever disagreements we have on whatever other issues there may be and at least agrow on their fundamental right to be safe that is the expectation. and now, madam speaker, we have a bill that should not be controversial. that should fund our homeland security. but has been turned into a divisive political strategy on immigration. madam speaker, let's face it. this bill is not about homeland security, this bill is about

republican political security. and it is an injustice to those who suffered on 9/11 and still remember that. members are entitled to whatever view they may have on the president's executive order. they're entitled to whatever view they may have on imgrace, they're entitled to votes on those issues. but to force those views on a bill that funds grants to first responders, that helps those first responders hire additional personnel and purchase protective equipment that assists our state and local governments in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks and other disasters that secures essential cybernetworks, that simply puts ugly politics ahead of the safety of the american people this bill go taos far. for the first time in history, they are holding our security hostage to the politics of immigration. now my motion gives every member here a fundamental choice. it allows you to pursue whatever agenda you may have on immigration without undermining

our homeland security. it would ensure passage of a clean homeland security bill with an additional $3 million for fusion centers. this is the 9/11 commission report, the report every member of congress said we would heed and pay attention to, that we would not allow politics to be injected to. and this report calls for fusion centers, located in every state, to gather, receive and analyze information from federal, state, and tribal law enforcement and other safety partners. unity of effort and information sharing this report says is a key necessity in protecting our homeland and our fusion center networks are critical in our response to that recommendation. . this motion to recommit makes further investment in these fusion centers so we don't have a repeat what happened in france a week ago. this is a choice, madam speaker,

it's clear and it is stark. you can vote yes on this motion to recommit and strengthen fusion centers, you can vote no and have weakened them. how will you explain your vote no if a disaster occurs? you can vote yes and stand for a full and immediate funding of d.h.s. without washington politics, or you can vote no and tell your constituents in a being against immigration is more important to you than being for their homeland security. how will you explain that no vote to them if disaster occurs again? republicans are saying that anti-immigration riders on this bill are part of a political compromise. madam speaker, we all understand compromise, we all understand compromise, homeland security is the last thing in body that should be subject to a political compromise. not after the attacks on france, not after 9/11 when we pledged to keep the american people safe not after we stood on the steps of this building committing ourselves to

bipartisan cooperation and to do the right thing for our homeland security. do the right thing, my colleagues, and vote for this motion to recommit and take the politics the ugly politics out of keeping the american people safe. i thank the speaker. 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 texas seek recognition? mr. carter: madam speaker, i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for fi minus. .te thank you. i remind my colleague from new york that we put $300 million in those fusion centers in the bill . this time it's clearly primarily -- i would like to yield time to the gentleman from south

carolina mr. gowdy. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. gowdy: thank you, your honor. madam speaker, president obama announced one of the largest extra constitutional power grabs ever by a chief executive. he declared unilaterally that almost five million undocumented aliens will receive deferred action under some newfangled definition of prosecutorial discretion, madam speaker. not only that not only escaping consequences, he has decided to bestow benefits such as work authorization and immigration benefits. this, madam speaker despite the fact that the very same president over 20 different times said he lacked the power to do what he just did.

and he repeatedly said he's not a king. madam speaker, his position may have changed, after the election i hasten to add, but the constitution has not. that document is clear, time tested, and true and it says that this body passes laws and it is the responsibility of the chief executive madam speaker, to make sure that those laws are faithfully enforced. if this president's unilateral extra constitutional acts are not stopped madam speaker, future presidents will no doubt expand that power of the executive branch and threaten the constitutional equilibrium. madam speaker, this is not a fight between republicans and democrats. it's not even a fight -- the speaker pro tempore: i ask the members to take their

conversations off the floor. the gentleman will continue. mr. gowdy: i'll back up in case they missed it. this is not a fight between republicans and democrats. it's not even a fight over immigration reform. this is a fight over whether this branch of government will ever find the courage to stand up for itself. the same document -- the same document that this and all presidents swears to defend gives this body certain tools tools like the power of the purse. and it's about damn time we use that tool. i would ask you to oppose this motion to recommit, support the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. carter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. israel: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 184. the nays are 244. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. the members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of esve]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 236 the nays are 191. the intill passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 37 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill to make technical corrections to the dodd-frank wall street reform

and consumer protection act, to enhance the ability of small and emerging growth companies to access capital through public and private market, reduce regulatory burdens, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> madam speaker i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. mollton of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 37 to the

committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 3 before line 1 insert the following, section 3rks after disqualifications, a, in general a person may not make use of the regulatory exemption thunder act if such person, one, has been convicted of providing assistance either directly or indirectly to a terrorist organization or a state sponsor of terrorism. two, has been made subject to any judicial -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. >> madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing? without objection the gentleman from massachusetts -- pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion.

>> mr. mowlton: thank you, madam speaker. this motion will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from massachusetts deserves to be heard rm please take your conversations off the floor. staff and members. mr. moulton: thank you, madam speaker. from paris to boston, new york to london we have seen in recent weeks and years that the threat of terrorism in our world remains constant. all americans must remain vigilant, and this congress must do everything in its power to prevent another terrorist attack. history shows that leveraging america's economic strength is one of our nation's best tools to combat the scourge of

terrorism. we have forced rogue regimeses like iran to the negotiating table with strong economic sanctions. we've punished bad actors in russia and north korea by cutting off their access to global financial markets. and we ought to ensure that no one convicted of aiding and abetting terrorists or state sponsors of terror can take advantage of our financial system. that's what my amendment does. it simply makes clear that no one who has been convicted of providing assistance, either directly or indirectly to a terrorist organization or a state sponsor of terrorism can make use of the exemptions in the underlying bill. the bill before us today is complex. it's a complex piece of legislation that includes measures that previously passed

this house with large, bipartisan support. as well as other, more controversial provisions. the american people did not send us to congress to find areas where we disagree. our constituents sent us to congress to get things done for all americans. we could have moved forward today with a legislative package that includes commonsense reforms that protect consumers and create the conditions for economic growth. reasonable people may disagree on the merits of this bill but we should all be able to agree that those who support terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism should never use our financial system for their benefit. my amendment prevents this from happening. i urge a yes vote on the motion to recommit. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. i listened carefully to the motion to recommit. i suppose i have some good news for the gentleman who offered it and that is there are numerous bad actor provisions already within our federal securities law, so with the possible exception of the unconstitutional power grab of our president in granting amnesty and possibly allowing new bad actors to enter our country i think that the motion to recommit is probably largely irrelevant. so let's get down to the substance of the matter and that is madam speaker here's an idea that is worthy of the american people than idea is,

why don't we work on a bipartisan basis to promote job creation and reduce small business burdens? that's exactly what h.r. 37 does. we all know it is a rollup of 11 simple, modest bills, all of which have passed this body with huge, huge bipartisan support. h.r. 634, 411-12. h.r. 801 passed 417-4. h.r. 2274 422-0, madam speaker. so passed in the last congress unfortunately, senator reid didn't take it up, maybe one of the reasons his party lost the last election, because of the obstruction that the former senate majority leader imposed

on the american people, last week it came within a dozen votes of passing, would have passed, ma'am, but so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently were for it before they were against it and they changed their vote. so why the change of heart? madam speaker, there was a change of heart because the left hand doesn't know what the far left hand is doing. and three of these bills represent very modest clarifications or modifications of the 2,000-page dodd-frank act. to the ultra left, our ultra liberal friends dodd-frank is no longer policy it is an article of religious faith it is a sacred text, it is chiseled in stone, came down from mount sinai. meanwhile the ghunt banks and businesses that are trying to put america back to work are suffering under the sheer

weight load, volume, complexity, and cost of the regulatory burden that has been imposed by our friends on the left. the left aims their rhetoric at wall street but their votes, they vote against main street. hardworking american families and those who want to work become collateral damage. main street doesn't want to occupy wall street. they just want to quit bailing it out. and that's what we need to do madam chair. so it's time get america back to work. it's time to work on a bipartisan basis. it's time to grow this economy from main street up, not washington down. reject the m.t.r., vote in favor of promoting job creation, reducing small business burdens act, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. moulton: i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a vorded -- a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. s that five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 183 and the nays are 242. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recogti? ms. waters: to request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a

recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electroniceve. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 271 and the nays are 154. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives sir, on january 7 2015, you designated me to administrator the oath of office to representative-elect alan nunnelee of the first district of the state of mississippi under house resolution 250, 114th congress. under such designation i have the honor to report that on january 12, 2015 at tupelo mississippi, i administered the oath of office to mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee took the oath prescribed by 5 u.s.c. 3331. i have sent two cop eats of the oath signed by mr. nunnelee to the clerk of the house. signed sincerely, michael p. mills. the speaker pro tempore: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee, the whole number of the house is now 434.

the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a grand jury subpoena issued by the united states district court for the northern district of georgia for testimony in document. after consultation with the general of counsel i will make the determinations required under rule 8. signed sincerely, connie hare. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognitn? mrs. black: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 4:00 p.m. on friday, january 16 2015, and further, when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet on tuesday, january 20 2015, when it shall convene at noon for

morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection it is so ordered. . the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee -- without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker last year i promised my constituents -- mrs. black: mr. speaker, last year i promised my constituents we would fight illegal immigration, a separation of powers up ended by president obama's unlawful overreach and i meant it. that's why i proudly voted for the department of homeland security appropriations act and the attached amendment this bill is simple.

it fully funds d.h.s. will ensuring that no dollars are made available for the president's executive amnesty. i'm especially pleased that this measure contained key provisions of my bill, the immigration compliance act which will defund the obama administration's public advocates to lobby on behalf of illegal immigrants. mr. speaker, we still have three co-equal branches of government and when the president oversteps his bounds, we are compelled to respond. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise regarding fast track

authorization this afternoon. there are many reasons to oppose fast track but the first and foremost is that fast track is an abdication of congress' fundamental responsibility. the constitution authorized the congress, not the executive branch, to regulate commerce between nations. this deal was negotiated by the administration in secret, without proper input or oversight from the congress. the grapevine tells us because they're not talking to us directly, that it will do nothing to address currency manipulation, the mother of all trade barriers. just one consequence is an $8,000 cost advantage to a japanese vehicle sold in the united states which is then used to subsidize parts, advertising or uh undercut the cost of a vehicle in the marketplace. in fact detroit made more in profits last year from currency manipulation than ford made last year in its entire worldwide operation.

but i know about the domestic -- what i know about the domestic auto industry is they can out-compete any of their competitors in the world but they cannot out-compete the bank of japan or the japanese government. those who care about the constitutional responsibilities of congress should oppose fast track. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection it is granted. mr. serrano: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to express my deep disappointment at the votes just take -- mr. engel: i want to express my deep disappointment at the votes just taken in the house. in light of what went on in paris new york light of september 11, in light of the fact that there are terrorist cells, we need the department of homeland security to be fully funded. differences of opinion with the

president on the immigration bill, that should be fought on an immigration bill. but we shouldn't mix apples with oranges. my mother used to say you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face and that's exactly what this house did just before. we cut off our nose to spite our face, prove a point of dissatisfaction with the president, we cut funds for homeland security. that's an irresponsible act. i really wish it would be reversed. we need to fully fund homeland security. the fight on immigration is the fight on immigration, let's not mix apples with oranges to quote another metaphor. so i am terribly disappointed and i say to my colleagues, the department of homeland security needs to be fully funded. we should be adding funds to keep our people safe not pulling them away. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced --

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas -- i'm sorry, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i started out this week to remind americans of the difficult times in which we live. sadly, today, rather than passing a clean homeland security appropriations bill, a part of -- upon which americans are depending to secure this land, we had a political fight. i remind those around the world that america still stands strong and committed to fighting the war on terror. joining with our friends in africa against the horrific actions of boko haram and the suicide bombing they are forcing 10-year-old children to do we stand with our friends in europe and around the world.

what we must do is find a way to steer the young lives being captured by the internet and online brutality, away from these kinds of dastardly acts. ic it is important that we find a way to educate the young boys and girls in nigeria and countries around the world and be able to say to them that there is a greater and better life of opportunity and humanity and i'm committed as we move in this legislative process to focus on removing the dastardly acts of these terrorists for saving our boys and girls. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. smith: thank you mr. speaker. i will only take a few minutes and then yield the bulk of the time to mr. clyburn.

i just rise about a particular issue that happened to me and i'm sure has happened to other members that you might not be aware of. other members can sign you on to a piece of legislation without your consent. that happened to me this week. representative diane black signed me on to h.r. 217 a particularly strong anti-choice bill a bill i would never support. it was an honest mistake. i am adam smith. regrettably there's an -- well not, regrettably, he's a nice man, but there's an adrian smith. she thought she was signing adrian smith onto the bill. first of all, nobody should be able to sign you on to a bill without your signature. i know we do that and it speeds up the possess but it creates a situation where anyone can put you on any bill. in this case i was put onto a

bill that was polar opposite to my beliefs and my 18-year record in congress. you would think there is a simple fecks. to her credit congresswoman black did take it off. she had my name removed as a co-sponsor. but that's not what happens. on the bill out there with the original co-sponsors, my name does not simply disappear. a line is drawn through it and it is said next to it withdrawn, as if at some point i did co-sponsor the bill and then changed my mind. i don't know how we change this rule, but when this happens, when it is clear that someone signed you on a bill you had no intention of being on, your name should be removed. period. end of story. it was never yale there in the first place. now it is a part of my permanent record is my name having been on a bill to all appearances of my own choice that in a million years i never would have co-sponsored. i rise to make that point clear to my constituents, first of

all. i never signed on to it, never had any intention, and second of all, as i will do in the letter i will send to the speaker and minority leader as well, would urge us to at least change that second policy. once it is clear that you never intended to sign on to a bill, your name should simply be removed, it should not be there with a line through it as if you did intend to sign on to the bill at one time. i think this is potentially damaging to a lot of members. i thank you for that. with that, i yield the balance of the hour to mr. clyburn and thank him for giving me a few minutes to vent. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the minority leader. mr. clyburn: thank you very much mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend, mr. smith, for allowing me to share this time with him.

mr. speaker, in keeping with the tradition of the first amendment , a law deeply ingrained in the core of american values, i would like to put into the congressional record the poem "one river, one boat." this poem was written by south carolina's poet laureate marjorie whitworth. in anticipation of leading it at today's gubernatorial inauguration. it illustrates the history of my home state and ponders a look at the path the state seems to be embarking upon going forward. ms. whitworth has recited a poem at the last three gubernatorial inaugurations. but she will not be reciting a poem at today's. she was told that her

participation would make the program too lengthy. mr. speaker i have atended several inaugurations of south carolina's governors. some were shorter than others. none were allotted a specific amount of time. south carolinians are proud of their poet laureate and though all have not always agreed with the import of their writings. i believe it is wrong to not include this prolific, artistic expression in this year's ceremony. recently, individuals across the globe are living in fear of censorship. when free speech and expression should be a fundamental right. we're even seeing cowardly

individuals use their own beliefs to badger batter, and even murder those whose views and expressions they found discomforting. we've seen many instances of arbitrary actions against the powerless by the powerful, when words and actions threaten their comfort levels. such actions should not be. i applaud ms. whitworth for her touching words and i am reading her poem today in hopes that the people of south carolina across the country, and peoples around the world are as touched by her words as i have been. one river, one boat. by marjorie whitworth. poet laureate of south carolina.

because our history is in knotts -- is a knot we try to unravel, while others try to tighten it, we tire easily. the cord is a slow moving river silent across the land, it is a session of s's, splintering near the sea. picture us all, crowded onto a boat at the last bend in the river. watch children stepping off the school bus parents late for work, grandparents, fishing for favorite memories teachers tapping their desks with red pens firemen suiting up to save

us, nurses making rounds. baristas grinding coffee beans. workers unloading computers and toys from across the sea. every morning a different veteran stands at the base of the bridge holding a cardboard sign with misspelled words and an empty cup. in fields at day break, rows of migrant farmworkers, standing on ladders break open paetsch blossoms, their breath rising and resting above the frozen fields like clouds. the john boat drifts down the

river. inside, a small boy lies on his back hands laced behind his head. he watches stars fade from the sky and dreams. consider the prophet john, calling us from the edge of the wilderness to name the harm that has been done to make it plain and enter the river and rise. it's not about asking for forgiveness, it is not about boeing our heads in shame, -- bowing our heads in shame, because it all begins and he here, while workers on -- unearth trenches at gadsden's wharf where 100,000 africans were imprisoned within brick

walls awaiting auction, death or worse. where the dead were thrown into the water, and the river clogged with corpses has kept centuries of silence. it's time to gather at the water's edge, and toss wreaths into this watery grave. and it is time to praise the judge who cleared george stinney's name, 70 years after the fact, we honor him, we pray. here, where the confederate flag still flies beside the state house, haunted by our past, conflicted about the future, at the heart of it we are at war with ourselves. huddled together on this boat

handed down to us, stuck at the last bend of a wide river splintering near the sea. mr. speaker, i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from texas mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it's been an interesting short week, and with all that's going on in the world, it is important that we deal with our department of homeland security and i am proud the house has taken quick action to pass such a budget and passed it handedly.

homeland security needs to be funded and the president needs to sign the bill. we finished that today, sending it to the senate. hopefully they'll work quickly and deal with this issue because as people in america know we have crises all around us. we have threats to our security all around us that require immediate attention. the world is watching as we play golf while they come together, millions at a time, to stand against radical islam and islamic terrorism. so it's been interesting to see the white house as the only

significant international capital where the ultimate leader of the country cannot bring himself and therefore his spokespeople cannot bring themselves to say the words radical islamic terrorism. because that's what we're talking about. and for an administration to diminish the seriousness by which radical islamic terrorists want to destroy western civilization is worse than having our leadership's head in the sand or wherever it is. it is important to wake up and recognize what the world has recognized, what our muslim

friends have recognized that radical islam is a threat to our very existence and way of life. "weekly standard" has an article, january 13, by daniel halper, says the white house won't be calling jihadist adherence to radical islam, at least that's the reasonable takeaway from this extraordinary exchange the white house press secretary had today with a reporter. and i'll jump down to a statement by president obama's chief spokesperson, mr. ernest said, quote i think the reason is two-fold. one is certainly i wouldn't want to be in a position where i'm repeating the justification that they have cited that i think is completely

illegitimate right? they have invoked islam to try to justify their attacks. the reporter says, but to call it radical islam you feel would be playing into their hands? the president's spokesman says, well, i think what i'm trying to do is i'm trying to describe to you what happened and what they did. these are individuals who are terrorists, and what they did was try to invoke their own distorted deviant view of islam to try to justify them. and i want to stop there. the president's mouthpiece says that he's not going to call it radical islam or islamic terrorism because that's a deviant view. well, if you look at the definition of deviant that is what deviates from what most

people do or say or think. so it would appear, mr. speaker, that the deviant thought process is not what the reporters had and not what the major countries in the world have and not what our muslim leader friends in the world have. it's what this white house has. theirs is the daveiation from what is truth -- daveiation from what is the -- deviation from what is the truth. if he won't allow his spokespeople to say it. i will say it mr. speaker. this is radical islamic terrorism and it is a threat to western civilization. and the more our leaders refuse to preck it for what it is, the

worse it gets. because the radical islamic terrorists realize they're winning. and the organization of islamic council, the o.i.c. most islamic states in the world, all 57. i know it gets confusing to some in this country's leadership of whether we have 57 states and they have 50 or they have 57 and we have 50, but they have 57 because they include one that's not actually a state, but they are the ones that started the campaign after 9/11 of calling anyone who expresses concern about radical islamic terrorism as islamafobes. i fear god. i don't feel any man.

i'm not a phobe of anything, but it's time to recognize truth and that is that radical islamic terrorists wants to destroy our way of life and kill us. it's very simple. and what is remarkable -- and i think it is very important that both democrats and republicans have the opportunity to travel around and speak to world leaders in their own countries because when you're there in their country talking to them, as some of us have on both sides of the aisle in those middle eastern countries, led by moderate muslims who don't believe they need to have an explosive jihad, they recognize that the terrorism that is a

threat to them as moderate muslims and the terrorism that is a threat to us and western civilization is radical islam. they recognize that it is a religion and they recognize that when people in the name of allah and islam take territory and claim they are their own caliphate their own government then you better understand who they are and what they are and in this case the islamic state has enough strength and enough power to be taken seriously so that they are totally defeated and wiped off the map, whether it's in syria, northern iraq, wherever they find themselves because they are at war with us. and i mentioned before mr. speaker, but as we have had

this administration do a cleansing, not necessarily a book burning, but a burning in essence of parts of the training books that talk about radical islam, that tried to educate our f.b.i., our state department, our intelligence communities, all of our government workers on what radical islam is, what it believes and the intelligence officers said we have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. and that's never been more apparent than it has been this week with the radical islamic jihaded terrorist attack in paris and in nigeria. even though there weren't reporters killed in nigeria, those lives were ever bit as much precious. around 2,000 lives. somehow, much of the mainstream media had trouble reporting that.

they were concentrating on the horrors of the journalists killed in paris. and rightfully so, but they should not be neglecting the horrors for those villagers so many of them christian, who have been killed because they did not believe in radical islam. and one of the reasons that i would submit that we should have had a president there in paris -- and i know it would have been difficult for this president, but he should have been there locked arm in arm with prime minister netanyahu. words keep leaking out about things that are said about strained relations that this administration has with the netanyahu administration. there is a leader whose eyes

are clear and his vision is clear and he can see exactly who's at war against him, who is helping him and the nation of israel and who is not helping him in the nation of israel. and as we know from history, anytime a nation's enemies see that nation's strongest ally pulling away it is provocative and the more the united states distance itself from israel from those who recognize that radical islamic terrorism is a threat to western civilization, then the more radical islammists win. i really, honest to goodness didn't think we would be six years in to president obama's

administration with him still not willing to acknowledge that radical islam is a threat is at war with us. it is a religion. this administration may not like it, but it is a religion. . it's a radical form of islam. i hope one day our top leaders in this country will have the courage of the president of egypt and they will reflect as he has the will of the people of the country. if the story is properly written

about egypt, and one day it will be, and it won't be by people at the "new york times," it will be by people who are not trying to twist and turn and create history the way they want it it will be by historians that are really looking at what has happened. and they will see that in the last six years that besides israel the country that has been most fearless, by country i mean the people of the country, most fearless in standing up for freedom and against radical islamic terrorism unfortunately has not been the united states because of our leadership. it has been the nation of egypt. certainly israel has stood

strong and fearless. their nation's been under attack. nonstop. god bless them and protect them. egypt was not under attack other than by the radical form of islam the religion of radical islam, and this administration helped oust one of this country's allies, like him or not, there were plenty of agreements signed by this country with president mubarak and this administration disregarded them. that's a problem for other countries and other leaders who want to sign agreements with this administration but they don't know that our country can be trusted anymore. as people see the decline of

respect for america around the world, they should understand that it's being credited to the lack of reliability of the united states to keep its word, to support its friends not to turn its back on its friends, and this nation's leaders have begun repeatedly appearing more helpful to our enemies than to our own friends. they don't know who to trust. mentioned to secretary kerry that i have talked to people in the middle east, muslim leaders, who say, we talk among ourselves. we are all worried we may be the next ally to be thrown under the bus. you want to know who said that?

obviously i couldn't tell him because he would throw them under the bus. but for many of us that have traveled around the middle east and talked to leaders in the middle east, we understand what they feel. maybe they are not able to be as open and candid with this administration for fear of it turning on them, the way it does anybody within the administration here in america or outside the administration t god help the whistle blowers. if you want to stand up for truth, justice, and the american way in this administration and point out massive problems that could subject our country to attacks to terrorism god help you because this administration's coming after you. they'll use the justice department, they'll use the e.p.a., they'll use the i.r.s.

this administration has been weaponized to go after anybody that dares to stand up. especially within the administration. people that want to stand up and tell the truth they are attacked, they are threatened with prosecution. if someone like general petraeus who has defended the administration, but this administration knows that general petraeus has information that would virtually destroy any credibility that the administration might still have nationally and internationally. so what else would this administration do but leave over his head for over a year and a half the threat we are going to prosecute you so you better keep your mouth shut. and actually they know just the

threat of prosecution helps diminish potential credibility. so if you wonder why general petraeus does not come out in the last year and a half and said no, those weren't our talking points somebody that created them needs to be prosecuted, it was a fraud on the american people, he's not going to say that. he's got this administration hanging a prosecution over his head. what do you expect? i doubt he'll ever be able to say it without worrying about something over his shoulder coming after him. so here he is he's been defensive of the administration, he's been a good soldier, said what they wanted him to say. he hasn't told all he could say and they are going to make sure

he doesn't or if he does he pays a heavy criminal price. that's where we are now in america. it may have been the kind of administration richard nixon dreamed of, but he knew he could never get there. he couldn't weaponize the i.r.s. he apparently dreamed of it. this administration has done it. and for the president, his spokes people not to be able to call the terrorism a result of radical islamic terrorism it weakens our country it emboldens our enemies, and as we have seen, you may take out osama bin laden but when you withdraw our troops prematurely before iraq soldiers are ready to stand on their own, and you

have blinded ourselves of the ability to recognize that any believe -- believers like khomeini or ahmadinejad, the former president of iran, if you have blinded yourself to the ability to learn and educate our administration on what they believe then you're going to fall prey to everything they decide to do toward you and about you. because you don't understand where they're coming from. repeatedly reflect on that scene in the movie "patton" and although he didn't know romle was not there with his -- rommel was not there with his tank division, he yells out in the movie after his tanks have defeated rommel's rommel you magnificent fatherless -- i'm

paraphrasing fatherless man, i read your book. if you read and learn and educate yourself about your enemies, you got a better chance of defeating them. but this administration continues to make it more and more difficult to understand who our enemies are. and all of this backing up and crawfish -- this isn't all islam. of course it's not all islam. that's how i can go to afghanistan and hug dear muslim friends. we have the same enemies. and a big old bear of a man who led the northern alliance to defeat the taliban by february of 2002 in the initial defeat,

is now the vice president. thank god he is. some of us that just met with the new leadership recently, and i've known the general for a while and met with my good friend the honorable massoud beganny basically has gathered around him people a bit like lincoln did. he took people who opposed him, ran against him but because he clearly cares deeply about afghanistan he gathered around him a team of rivals, and the good thing is, unlike the current administration, he's not -- current administration here, he is not afraid of having people with opposing viewpoints around him.

just like lincoln. he had rivals all around him and he listened to their input. he got their opinions. and it helped him make better decisions. this administration here needs to do what the president in afghanistan is trying to do. it's not easy. because our u.s. administration here has been reaching out for the taliban initially they are defeated, and then this administration comes in and -- i know prior administrations started the massive occupation of afghanistan with tens of thousands of troops. this president comes in and his campaign he said that was the real war, yeah. but once you defeat your enemy in that part of the world, you don't help yourself by becoming

an occupier. you had over 100,000 troops to the country that is so thrilled that you relieved them of radical islamic leadership, then you become an enemy because now you're an occupier. we didn't do ourselves any favors. but there are people unlike the iraqis who threw down weapons and ran turned them over to islamic state. in afghanistan, the northern alliance was willing to fight the taliban initially. and they are still willing to fight. in fact, before the president was elected, there was so much uncertainty is president karzai going to try trito have another term even though it's against the constitution? are they in for a civil war? and there was great deal of trepidation on the part of the northern alliance that fought against the taliban on our

behalf, with less than 500 americans, special ops, and intelligence people embedded, they knew we withdrew and the taliban were able to take over the national government, then they were in for a war. one of them told me look, since you have taken back the weapons, you don't support us anymore, and you're doing everything you can to help the taliban, that's this administration we realize the odds are that we will lose our lives, but we are not going down without a fight. fortunately they've got a team of rivals leading the country prayers are with them. they are moderate muslims that i trust. and they want the best for afghanistan. the country of pakistan has

been, according to the military leaders i have talked to repeatedly in afghanistan and others, they have been the biggest supplier and supporter of the taliban. and the taliban didn't do themselves any favors when they in such evil fashion, attacked a school and killed 140 or so precious people. including children. and there are many more in pakistan that are saying, you know what it's time to stop supporting the taliban. it's time to worry about pakistan. some have even started saying it's time to quit persecuting the baluche people. the arbitrary alliance that were drawn many decades ago put probably the bulk of the baluch

people in southern pakistan where most of their minerals are. it put the people within the arbitrary alliance for a country called iran. in fact the baluch area, that's where the straits of hormuz are, that's where much of the oil and gas is, and i've grown to admire and love many of the baluch people. i wouldn't mind seeing them having an independent state. i wouldn't mind seeing an independent kurdistan in northern iraq. . unlike what is portrayed in the many of the mainstream media, the kurds never threw down their weapons and ran away or turned them over to the islamic state. they are people we can trust. and a solution to our problem there would be to announce that we're going to provide weapons

directly to the kurds, don't have to go through baghdad because baghdad don't want them to have the equipment they need. they're afraid of them. let them have the equipment they need to defeat the islamic state and, yes, i know that would not make turkey happy but turkey has said, not only are we not fighting islamic state, even though we have pledged in our nato alliance that we will help fight any enemy of our fellow nato signatories, we're not going to help and we're not going to let you use any of the nato bases or u.s. bases here in turkey. you're on your own. well, if turkey's not going to fight them and they are a threat to all western civilization, then we're just going to have to supply the kurds and let them take them out. it's been an honor to be over there numerous times, spend time there even when the state department said it was too dangerous to go. dana rohrabacher and i spent three days there when the state

department was telling us it was too dangerous to be there. but i knew that there was no way their leaders were going to let anything happen to us and they didn't. they were trustworthy. one of the problems this administration has is figuring out who we can trust and who we can't. and i know this administration continues to talk about these moderate, vetted syrian army soldiers that we can really help. well, if they were there three or four years ago most of them are ready to throw in with the islamic state or with al qaeda subsidiaries. and in fact, they've done that very thing. they have fought together. i don't know if naivity is the

proper word, but when this administration started supplying their so-called free, vetted, moderate syrian army personnel and the equipment they kept supplying kept ending up in the islamic state possession they even suspended sending them more weapons and equipment for a while, but then some months later they picked it back up. i don't know why, what made them feel they were more believable than they were before, but amazingly they start sending it start sending up in the islamic state hands. and it is heartbreaking to be as a few of us have, in northern iraq, in the kurdistan area with real patriotic kurds

who love their people and who fought, not just for themselves but they fought for other groups, shiia and sunni, without throwing down their weapons they have fought and died but to look in their eyes and see the hurt as they say couldn't you give us, you know, some humvees, some uparmored vehicles because we're fighting against the islamic state and they're using american humvees they're using american armored personnel carriers, they're using american tanks and we don't have anything that can penetrate your american tanks or your personnel carriers and those are invulnerable,

completely, to i.e.d.'s because you uparmored them that gave them to isis or to the iraqi soldiers that left them for isis. and the commander who had lost soldiers says you don't know what it's like to see a big armored vehicle that is going to be used for a suicide bombing coming at your soldiers who have weapons that can't possibly penetrate those vehicles and they're shooting they're doing everything they can to try to stop them but because they're the best america has in the way of fighting vehicles we can't stop them and we know we're going -- my guys are going to get blown up as this american vehicle gets close and it's been set up

to be a suicide bomb. since this administration has not been effective in fighting isis for so long, for too long looked at them as a junior varsity, the j.v.'s, shouldn't we at least help those that are fighting to help us, along with themselves, by giving them vehicles that could match up against the vehicles we provided to the islamic state? seems like the least we could do. really does. you know, this administration that was going to be the most transparent in history story out this week josh ernest doesn't think -- this is a

story from p.j. media. he doesn't think president obama is upset about missing the solidarity gathering of world leaders. the world leaders see that our way of life is at risk and our leadership doesn't see it. if we give a good enough speech, we coddle, we offer to buy offices in qatar or release more of their murderers surely they'll recognize how truly wonderful and kind, generous we are and they'll stop their evil ways of killing innocent people. and it's not going to happen. and i know our christian friends say, yeah, as christians we're supposed to turn the other cheek and that's as individuals. individual christians should live out the attitudes as christ gave them but the government has a different role and if you do evil you should be afraid because the

government within the bounds of christianity romans 13:4, is supposed to punish the evil, eliminate the evils, protect your people. i don't try to convert anybody using my position in government but for those who misunderstand christian teaching, you need to read romans 13. we have an attorney general still holding on, holder the holdover. he said he's concerned about the so-called lone wolf attacks in the united states and one of the things, mr. speaker, i don't think, again, that this administration understands. they talk about these lone wolf attacks, and yet when you get down to the bottom of it you find, gee, they had talked to alawacky, the -- al-awaki, the

man born in the united states, so he gets an american birth certificate, an american passport, american citizenship because his parents came over and had him so he's an american citizen. he's radicalizing people. these aren't lone wolves. they got information, they got advice, they got radicalization from somebody else. tough to find anybody self-radicalized because apparently there are plenty of imams in this country. they're imams that are ready to radicalize those and twist and convert into evil that would kill innocent children women and men. we need to recognize the threat that is upon us, and you can't

do that when an administration will not even call the evil for what it is. i know indications are gee, the economy is getting so much better. we still have over 90 million people that are not counted as unemployed because they just finally gave up looking for a job. to me that's unemployed. but we don't count them in our statistics, and this staggering story came out today written by -- yes today. in a stunning tuesday report gallop c.e.o. and chairman jim clifton revealed that, quote, for the first time in 35 years american business deaths now outnumber business births. i can't help but think that has something to do with the massive overregulation of this administration continuing to set records in the number of

regulations it sets. how in the world can businesses keep up with over 70,000 new pages of regulations year after year? did it again 2014. over 70,000 pages of new regulations. and they're expected to follow them and manage to keep a business? you don't have to look very far to find c.e.o. after c.e.o. or a person that started a business, no matter how massive , who said, you know in looking at all the regulations it's a good thing i started my business when i did because if i were trying to start it now, i never could. i couldn't overcome all of the massive government overregulation. and now as we see obamacare continuing to fail continuing to provide less care for more money, but not to worry. a lot of your good health care dollars are going to fund

navigators who will never put a band-aid on anybody or never even blow on a cut to make it feel better. no. they'll never even pat somebody on the back. they're bureaucrats. they're not in the health care business nor or the thousands and thousands and thousands of new i.r.s. agents who are not looking out for your health care. they'll probably give you ulcers. but they're part of the health care dollars now. so people keep asking me, louie, i don't understand. my deductible's higher i'm paying moral than ever, i'm getting less care, i'm getting turned down for things, i don't get to choose my doctor, i sure don't get the insurance policy i wanted, i don't understand. and i have to explain. well, that's because you're paying for a lot of government workers that don't really help in anybody's health problems at all. they create health problems

more likely. and with all of this as a background, all of the failures of the federal government, as the federal government in fact is intruding in people's private lives access to email, gathering phone logs of every call to and from american individuals we were assured that would not happen when the patriot act was extended. i was not here when it was passed. we were told it was only if you are a foreign terrorist, a known foreign terrorist, you had ties to foreign terrorists would you even be eligible to have your phone logs gathered, emails checked.

only, we were told. well, that turned out to be true. that was just an outright lie. and it's time to stop the government intrusion into people's private lives unless the government has a warrant. as a judge, i had no problem signing a warrant if there was probable cause spelled out in the affidavit. there were times i'd turn away law officers and say, you got plenty of speculation there that sounds good but you don't have facts to get you the probable cause. that should be in there under the constitution before the government can start invading your privacy. and then when the house and senate were controlled by the democrats, president obama's in the oval office they passed a bill creating this consumer finance protection bureau that apparently is out there thinking they need to be able to monitor everybody's debit

and credit card records so they can see if anybody's being taken advantage of. well, how about following the constitution and not getting anybody's bank records or credit card or debit card records unless you have probable cause or unless the person gives permission? i'm hoping that's going to be a bill that we pass, because i've talked to enough republicans and know how we feel, and there are democrats that fweel feel the same way. of course, they're the ones that created this monster, but that needs to be reined in. and now with that as a backdrop, we have the story obama backs government-run internet. . i know somebody wrote in that they want net neutrality. they love the idea of the government playing more of a role in the internet. guess what? when the government takes control of the internet in the

name of neutrality, it will probably not be neutral, according to most americans' opinion. so i hope americans are not fooled. i hope americans don't buy into this because when the united states government takes control of the internet, then we are going to start having the same problems they have in china russia, other parts of the world where their government does control their internet, and they control your freedom to search for what you want or to say what you want because i know of numerous occasions where people said they were in china, they mentioned anything about the government, even if it's not terrible what they said about the government, they start typing it. they have lost their internet connection. they have learned not to say anything about the government, let it go, and they keep their

internet connection better. mr. speaker, just -- i want to also touch on this because we passed the funding for the department of homeland security. hope the president doesn't veto the bill. i hope the senate will pass what we passed. there are some things in there i would have liked to have been different, but i read the bill totally. there are some parts that aren't great. there are some parts that are great. i'm very proud -- my friend john carter has some great language in there. i know he's worked very hard on language that's very good. i read some of that as i was reading the bill this week and went that's john carter's specific language from his other bill. so there's good things. overall it was a good bill. that's why i voted for it. the amendments helped it and hopefully the senate will do the right thing and pass it. send it to the president, and we'll fund the department of homeland security without all of the amnesty he's

unconstitutionally created. but if the president wants another way of doing things, i haven't heard anybody else suggest this in the house or senate, brought it up with some friends this morning but perhaps we go ahead, if he doesn't think he likes that we are not able to override a veto maybe it's time to start setting goals for the administration when they don't meet them, we just take that money from them and block grant it out to state and local law enforcement. there's some jail cells opened. we don't have to provide the hundreds of millions of dollars to hold people being detained. the local law enforcement's tired of holding people on behalf of the federal government and not being reimbursed. let them do the job they are supposed to do of enforcing the law. local government do.

i think we'll -- enforce our laws for i think we'll get a lot more done. that may be something else to consider. the president's not going to sign the bill that funds homeland security. maybe we need to fund it. they can't meet their goals, block grant it out to local authorities. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: in the time i have left, i wanted to touch on a significant article by patrick pool, j.p.j. media, because as he says, it's a look back on this year's parade of failure and expect more in 2015. he has a top, the national security not top 10 of 2014. so i guess my paraphrase this to

be top 10 failures in national security by this administration. number one befriending quote, moderate al qaeda in syria. he said, where with reason and reality they can only exist in the vetted potomac fever swamps of d.c. think tanks and foreign policy community. such was the case in january when three of the best and brightest from those ranks published an article in foreign affairs, same publication in 2007 brought us the moderate muslim brotherhood contending that the u.s. needed to befriend the syrian jihadist group as some kind of counter to more extreme jihadist groups like isis and gentleman bad. the president they decided was

the u.s. failure to designate the taliban after 9/11. at the time they wrote this one of of the top leaders was a lieutenant for al qaeda head if zawahiri who openly declared himself a member of al qaeda. after most of their leadership was wiped out in a bombing in september, they have gravitated closer to the jihadist groups they were supposed to counter, and their positions had been bombed by the us us, much to the consternation of other vetted moderate rebel groups. so ridiculous was their opposition that the original subtitle of their article, an al qaeda affiliate worth befriending, was changed online to an al qaeda link group worth befriending. in hopes of minimizing the absurdity of their case. but this administration bought into it.

i understand there may be a republican senator or two that buys into it. it doesn't make it any less preposterous. number two of the top 10 national security failures is obama administration deploys three hash tag divisions in response to russian invasion of ukraine. some folks may remember as russia invaded ukraine, the response of this administration to help the ukrainian people that i hold so dear having lived with them for a summer, back as a college student, the response of this administration was to launch a twitter war that russia wasn't terribly concerned about. number three failure of national security was obama calling isis the j.v. team.

i'm sure americans remember patrick pool discusses it but to call the islamic state a j.v. team betrayed his failure to get his security briefings as he should have to really understand what was happening in the world because i don't believe for a minute having talked to different intelligence people, i don't believe for a minute that our intelligence people did not know how dangerous the islamic state was. number four, failures of national security was the state department official denying that boko haram targeted christians. having been over there and hugged and wept with those parents of daughters who were kidnapped and terrorized and made sex slaves unlike the

state department official who says it wasn't about them being christians, if you go hug them and weep with them and talk to them and their pastors as i have, you find out it was precisely because they were christians. please somebody in this administration wake up. radical islam is at war with the united states, and any western civilization and specifically with christians. when i asked these mothers whose daughters are still held kidnapped, probably sold into sex slavery by now and this administration has not done enough because they don't see it as a war against christianity as it is. i ask just to be sure, i said now, did they attack boko haram these radical islamic

terrorists, did they attack your daughter's school because they were girls? they don't believe girls should be educated? no they don't believe girls should be educated, but they attacked it because it's a christian school. precisely why they attacked it. number five homeland security advisors pro-caliphate tweet used by isis recruiters. i have been warning about this pro-caliphate homeland security top advisor in janet nope's -- napolitano's regime in homeland security, a guy that has spoken, was a listed speaker to pay tribute to the ayatollah khomeini as a man of vision, the 20th century, who blasted the prosecution of the -- holy land foundation, the largest terrorist support prosecution in

american history, and he defended the convicted defendants and he tweets out, finally finally it was enough to show the administration what most of us that had eyes and ears understood, he tweeted out after isis killed more innocent people that the caliphate was inevitable so they just, you know, get ready. and then isis used that to help recruit. number six failures of 2014 of national security in this administration. obama and the state department give shout outs to islamic cleric who ok'd the fatwa authorizing the killing of americans in iraq. and they lay out the -- patrick pool lays out exactly what's involved. not once but twice as i understand it he gave a shout

out to this islamic cleric who authorized the killing of americans in iraq. number seven, the obama administration gives heavy weapons to, quote vetted moderate syrian levels promptly promptly turning up in the hands of isis and al qaeda. number eight, the white house defends the muslim brotherhood's commitment to nonviolence. that was what some of the moderate muslim leaders in the middle east have said. different countries saying, why aren't you helping the muslim brotherhood? do you not understand they are at war with you? number nine, the obama administration defends u.s. islamic groups, branded as terrorist organizations, by the u.a.e. the u.a.e. is run by moderate muslims. perhaps this administration could learn something by listening to them and who they recognize to be terrorist

groups. and number 10, having banned discussions of ideology driving islamic terrorism, the pentagon says it can't understand the ideology of isis. well duh. it's no wonder they can't understand it when you're not allowed to be educated about what these people believe. but there are people around this town that have been banned from teaching about radical islam, that perhaps should be unbanned. i just want to reference the vote this week for speaker. votes behind us. it's done. the speaker was re-elected. but one of the big concerns i had has not gone away and it's -- if still needs to be addressed -- it still needs to

be addressed. those four years that democrats controlled the house and senate they set a record for the most bills brought to the floor where no amendments by anybody were allowed. they wouldn't let us participate in the legislative process. and we railed against that. said you put us in the majority we won't do that. and it breaks my heart that under the current speaker, a new record broke nancy pelosi's record of more bills brought to the floor with no amendments allowed. closed rules. that's got to change. some have said our effort had no chance. if all those that had said they would have voted with us but it had no chance, voted with us then it would have been overwhelming. one of the speaker's supporters

came up to me yesterday on the floor and handed me this. said this is from an old novel. i think it's called "the lion's den." he said this applies to you. and i appreciate him more than he would know. the quote is this. no matter how the espousal of a lost cause might hurt his prestige in the house, zimmer had never hesitated to identify highly self with it if it seemed to be right. he knew only two ways, the right one and the wrong one. and if he sometimes made a mistake it was never one of honor. he voted as he believed he should and although sometimes his voice was raised alone on one side of a question it was never stilled. there were 24 such people that spoke this week and i hope they will be honored and not belittled and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair announces the

speaker's apountment pursuant to clause 11 of rule 10, clause 1 of rule 1 and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following members to the permanent select committee on intelligence. the clerk: mr. miller of florida. mr. conaway of texas. mr. king of new york. mr. lobiondo of new jersey. mr. westmoreland of georgia. mr. rooney of florida. mr. heck of nevada. mr. pompei of kansas. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida, mr. turner of ohio. mr. wenstrup of ohio. mr. stewart of utah. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas wish to be recognized? mr. gohmert: at this i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands

adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on friday january 16 that's the rule prohibiting banks from engaging in some forms of risky financial trading. no more house debate this week. they are in for a pro forma on friday as house and senate republicans are headed to her she, pennsylvania, for a two -- herbee pennsylvania, for a retreat. 236-191 vote blocking the pred's action on allowing some undocumented immigrants to stay in the u.s. and work illegally. it also removes protections for i am grants brought illegally to the country as children. the bill goes to the senate and faces a veto threat from the

president. of the five immigration amendments passed one aderholt's, nullifies the 2014 executive action to delay the deportation of nearly five million illegal immigrants. while democrats voted against that amendment as well as seven republicans, including carlos car bullee, mario diaz-balart of florida, robert dold of illinois, rene ellmers of north carolina ros-lehtinen of florida, and david valadao of california. and the amendment eventually passed. the vote was 237-190 on the house floor. the first of five amendments to that homeland security spending bill. the next up we'll show you debate on those amendments beginning with congressman aderholt's amendment. the segment earlier today, this somethingment of amendment debate is about 90 minutes. . 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 amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-2 offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, and

a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague from alabama mrs. roby. mrs. roby: i thank the gentleman, madam chair. i rise today in support of h.r. 240, the homeland security appropriations act, and to offer this amendment alongside my colleague mr. desantis of florida. if we're going to fix a broken immigration law, the way to do it is to uphold the rule of law, not undermine it. president obama has offered amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and that not only undermines the rule of law it threatens american jobs. it is dangerous and irresponsible. i am proud to have worked alongside my colleagues, including mr. aderholt from alabama, to get this bill to the floor today so that we can responsibly fund the department of homeland security but also defund the president's unlawful

executive amnesty. madam chair, you want a great example of why the president, acting ube laterally to -- unilaterally to circumvent congress, this amendment we're offering today demonstrates that. right now illegal immigrants convicted of child abuse sexual offenders and domestic abusers are not a top priority for deportation in this country. this amendment simply makes them a priority for deportation. this is the example as to why the president circumventing congress is not only a bad idea but undermines the law. i ask my colleagues to not only support this very important amendment but also to support the underlying bill that uses the power of the purse congress' responsibility to

defund the unlawful, unconstitutional acts of this president and his executive amnesty. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: this amendment is unlawful and harmful. the memorandum by the department of homeland security already makes these crimes -- these people convicted of these crimes inyou will jeble for deferred action and already -- ineligible for deferred action and already makes them available for deportation. at best, this amendment is duplicative but it does something else. in the demmum, it provides, in whether the offense is a misdemeanor involving domestic

violence, careful consideration should be given to see whether the alien is a victim of domestic violence. if so it is a mitigating factor. this amendment leaves that out. that's why so many supporters of services of domestic violence is opposing this amendment, and that includes the national task force to end domestic and sexual violence, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, leo, the law enforcements group. they oppose this because they say it will make victims of domestic violence less able to seek help, also willing to call the police and more likely to remain victims of domestic violence. let me make it clear. people who are convicted of aggravated felonies, which includes child molestation, it includes child pornography, rape any crime of violence or

-- they are a top priority for deportation. they are excluded from relief under what the president did. as are significant misdemeanors, which includes convictions of domestic violence. so this is really much simpler than it looks. this is trying to correct a problem that does not exist but also creates a problem for domestic violence victims in the solution to a nonproblem. and i would yield to the gentleman from texas for a unanimous consent request. mr. green: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a statement supporting the clean homeland security appropriations bill that has bipartisan support and opposing the republican amendments. the chair: without objection. mr. green: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the chairman of the house judiciary

committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from ohio -- virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for the work of himself and mrs. roby on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. this amendment simply requires the department of homeland security to treat any alien convicted of any offense involving domestic violence sexual abuse child molestation or child abuse or exploitation as a top priority for immigration enforcement. unfortunately, the current priorities created by the obama administration on november 20, 2014 treats certain aliens convibblingted -- convicted of domestic violence convicted of sexual abuse or convicted of exploitation as a secondary priority. while aliens convicted of a significant misdemeanor, such as domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation are deemed a secondary priority for removal, they can stay in the united states in controvention of duly inactive law.

this amendment corrects the irresponsible policies of the obama administration and ensures that criminal aliens convicted of domestic violence and sexual abuse are treated as top priority for removal. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: madam chairman i would yield to the leader -- the democratic leader, nancy pelosi one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank her for her exceptional leadership and that of the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers, and the work of your staff to bring the facts to the floor on this subject. i rise in opposition to all of these amendments for reasons that i spelled out for half an hour last night. not to go into them again.

but i want to just say how disconcerting it is after we've seen the president act with authority in the law -- under the law and also according to precedent of every president, democratic and republican, since president eisenhower. that's why it's very disturbing to see the speaker of the house by saying that president obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness. legacy of lawlessness. that's just simply not -- president reagan lawless was president george herbert walker bush lawless was president bush lawless? i never heard about any executive action taken by them. i want to speak specifically to the desantis amendment, opposition contained in the letter of the national conference of catholic bishops. on behalf of the bishops they write to ask that we oppose immigration-related amendments in the bill.

specifically, to desantis they say that representative desantis' amendment, the bishops say, would prevent the department of homeland security from implementing the memoranda several setting immigrant enforcement priorities. while presented as a measure that helps domestic violence victims, we fear that it actually would discourage many such victims from reporting abuse. immigrants face on tackles of reporting crimes that have been perpetrated against them. this amendment would perpetuate this problem. so i urge our colleagues to vote no on all of the amendments call to their attention the letter from the bishops urging a no vote on the amendments and submit it for the record. and, again, say that what is disturbing about this -- we have a difference of opinion about immigration or this or that, but to describe the president as lawlessness, to use the constitution as the basis for this debate when in fact the courts have upheld the

rights of our presidents to act -- take executive action in relationship to protecting immigrants in our country. every president, democratic and republican from president eisenhower to the president. i urge a no vote on all of the amendments particularly in this case the desantis amendment and submit the bishops' letter for the record in opposition to those amendments. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: madam speaker, i recognize myself for the remaining time. the president likes to say that he wants to focus all of our resources are on the criminals and yet over the last two years , by d.h.s.'s own figures, this administration has released 66,000 individuals who have been criminally convicted in

our country and who are illegally in our country. and the number of crimes and the quality of crimes is stunning. some homicides, some rape, some drug trafficking, and so i think you've seen a record developed over the last several years that has put the public safety at risk. and so i'm per plucksed why someone would oppose this amendment. if someone is convicted of molesting a child, maybe it doesn't qualify under the highest priority. the administration wants to dismiss it as a significant misdemeanor. why would we have any tolerance for child molesters? if you get convicted of an offense like that, you should be gone. we shouldn't be discussing it. and the fact of the matter is, as a prosecutor you have to make some tough decisions. you may not be able to put a young child victim on the stand. you may have problems with evidence and you may have to do a plea to a lesser charge because of the family's

concerns and because what that could do to a victim. that perpetrator is no less dangerous to the community and to our society. so i think the people are going to vote no on this are basically saying we don't want a zero tolerance policy against child molesters and sexual offenders. i don't care what offense it is. you touch a child, you're here illegally, you're gone. i urge people to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chair, i'd yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you madam chair, and thank you to the gentlelady for yielding the time. i'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women opposing the desantis-roby amendment. the chair: does the lady request -- the request will be covered by general leave. ms. edwards: thank you. and thank you, again.

as a founder and former executive director of the national network to end domestic violence, i join the network of every state domestic violence coalition and the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women in opposing this amendment. this issue is really very simple. often, too often of cases of domestic violence law enforcement show up at a home, they can't figure out what happened, both parties are arrested and down the line both plea to misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. it happens all the time all around the country. for the victim it may be because she just wants to get it out of the way or get it behind her or get back to her children or she's been threatened with further violence by her abuser or with her immigration status held over her head. whatever the reason it turns out that in too many of these circumstances no one, not law enforcement or prosecutors or judges or even her attorney, if she's fortunate to have one, no one tells her that by pleading to the misdemeanor her immigration status is threatened and she faces deportation.

so this is not about fault. it just means that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to domestic violence. it's why we re-authorized the violence against women act in the last congress. and here's the harm. this amendment would prevent immigration authorities from looking beneath the surface in circumstances only of domestic violence offenses to make absolutely certain that we're not victimizing the victim twice by subjecting her to deportation. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous amendment that could result in additional violence and undoing what successful congresses, republicans and democrats have done for over 20 years, provide protection for vulnerable immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. and so let's get the facts straight. this is not about shielding perpetrators, it's about protecting victims. our immigration authorities deserve to take a second look when it comes to domestic violence. and i urge my colleagues to vote no, to do no harm and vote no on the desantis-roby amendment.

the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida mr. desantis. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. lofgren: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. . it is now in order to - amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 presented in part b of house report number 114-2. offered by mr. salmon of arizona. the the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27 the gentleman from arizona mr. salmon, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. salmon: thank you madam

chairman. first i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania co-author of this amendment mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you for yielding. thank you to the chairman. my colleague from arizona, congressman salmon for your work on this legislation and this amendment. i rise in support of thal mon-thompson -- of the salmon-thompson amendment. daca protects a large number of unlawfully resident aliens from deportation. in addition to constitutional concerns and national security implications madam chair, the action poses a range of unintended consequences. case in point the president's policy creates a incentive to hire illegal immigrants over lawfully present workers. illegal aliens who are granted deferred action are exempt from being counted under the 2010 health care law's employer mandate. which requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance or pay a penalty.

essentially the president's create add situation where employers face a penalty for hiring americans over illegal aliens. madam chairman, the president's current deferred action expansion promotes the hiring of individuals who have broken the law. over the men and women who have come through legal channels worked hard, and played by the rules. congressman salmon and i are proud to offer this commonsense amendment. the amendment merely states it is the sense of congress that this administration should not pursue any actions to put the actions of illegal immigrants and illegal workers -- illegal immigrants before u.s. workers. i encourage all my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote yes on the salmon-thompson amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: madam speaker, the barbaric killing in paris last

week of 17 innocent human beings, including two police officers, is a stark reminder of the high price we sometimes pay to exercise our freedoms. including our freedom of speech. here in this house we exercise that freedom every day on this floor. but that freedom comes with the responsibility. we are all entitled to our own opinions and we can express them here. but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. this sense of congress fails in that responsibility. first, it misappropriates the facts but worse it misrepresents the facts. the affordable care act prohibits the precise activity and conduct by employers that this sense of congress says it's trying to prohibit. in fact, the affordable care act has explicit language, and i will for the record, submit -- ask unanimous consent to submit

section 29 u.s. code section 218-c, protections for employees, which specifically prohibits an employer from discriminating against an american citizen who works for that employer for the purposes of hiring someone who doesn't have a right to work and therefore will not get insurance. the worst part of this sense of congress -- try to mislead the american people to think something's going on that isn't. if it is going on, in the time the gentleman has to push his amendment, i urge him to name the name of an employer who is doing this to an american citizen who should be allowed to work w that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the request made by the gentleman will be held by general leave. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: i yield one minute to the chairman of the full committee on judiciary and the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one min . goodlatte: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment by representative salmon and thompson. the amendment expresses the

sense of congress that u.s. workers should not be harmed by president obama's unilateral executive action program. these programs have certainly given american employers a financial incentive to hire unlawful aliens over american citizens and legal immigrants. the fact is in many cases a business now has a $3,000 incentive to hire an unlawful immigrant who benefited from the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. this is because under obamacare, many businesses face a $3,000 per employee penalty if they do not provide health insurance to their workers. however unlawful immigrants granted daca relief and most likely most benefiting from president obama's new deferred action program are not eligible for obamacare. thus, in many cases employers will not have to pay this penalty if they hire deferred action recipients rather than legal workers. it is simply indefensible public policy for the obama administration to give unlawful

aliens a leg up over legal workers. yet that is the result of the president's unilateral executive action. i urge my colleagues to support this good amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman on the ways and means committee, from in nnl, mr. pascrell. -- from new jersey, mr. prasskell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one -- mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minut the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: i want to report to the other side that you are already on retreat. as a mart you have retreated from our -- as a party you have retreated from our solemn oaths, camouflaged by highest anti-pieric acclamations of patriotism and liberty. these are not sick people you're talking about. -- stick people you're talking about. these are real people. they are not despots, they are not money changers, they are not felons they are human equals to

you and me. you have a bumper sticker mentality without the bumper. for years and years all we heard is read the bill. well, we have read the bill and in fact i helped write the a.c.a., i'm proud of that. there is nothing in the a.c.a. where the president's executive order that treats people on temporary status under the a.c.a. differently than u.s. citizens for the purposes of triggering the employer mandate. the whole purpose of this amendment is to play into fears that by allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows and work legally and pay taxes you're undermining american workers. that is a lie. admit it. nothing in this a.c.a. incentivizes employers to hire undocumented immigrants over american citizens. in fact, just the opposite as you heard the speaker before me. specifically prohibits employers from firing a citizen employee

because they receive a premium tax credit. read the bill. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to obscure what the president did here with this executive order, provide responsible solutions to prevent families from -- being torn apart even further. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and have a nice retreat. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself so much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you. madam chairman, they say sunlight's the best disinfectant. we are trying to shed sunlight on some of the problems with the president's unconstitutional and illegal executive order of last year. i'm incredulous that the leader of the opposition has now

encouraged the members of the opposition to vote en bloc against all these commonsense amendments. defending the american worker, protecting the american worker. and cracking down on the plesters -- molesters and sex offenders and making sure they don't have a haven here in america. and making sure that those that want legal immigration are the first and foremost that we consider in this process and that those that cheated the system have to get behind those folks that are doing it legally before their paperwork can be processed. it's incredulous that the other side would oppose such commonsense measures that i believe most of america is crying for. people are hurting out there. maybe they haven't gotten the memo, but i think most of us have. the other thing that's incredulous is that when you hear a lot of squealing, you know when you hit a raw nerve,

you know there's some truth to what's being spoken. this amendment is simply a sense of congress that we don't give a $3,000 benefit to those that have cheated the system. that we don't give $3,000 advantage to them over hardworking, tax paying american citizens that have been out of work for quite some time. as we know, president obama recently issued a series of memos that would essentially grant legal status to millions of people residing illegally within the borders of the united states. unfortunately, this is not the first time that such action's been taken by this administration. and history has a habit of repeating itself. under deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca, up to 1.7 million individuals were granted legal status and were allowed to cut in line, being given preferential treatment over those who respected our laws and waited patiently for their immigration cases to be

processed. furthermore while those individuals who were given legal status under daca were initially required to purchase health insurance under obamacare. they were later exempted from that requirement. with this exemption those given legal status under daca are not required to purchase insurance. we just don't want that to happen again. i would urge the other side to stand up for the american worker. that's why we are here. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. it the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: madam leader, at this stage i would like to yield one minute to the vice chairman of the house democratic caucus and member from new york, mr. crowley, one minute. the chair: before recognizing the gentleman from new york, the chair will remind members to refrain from improper references to the president. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: madam chair i think my republican colleagues take the american people for fools. madam chair, i lost too many constituents and friends on 9/11. i lost people who i loved on

9/11. in the years since then, new york city has been the focus of attempted terrorist plots, too numerous to name. homeland security funding is something that i take very seriously because it is so -- so much a part of a new yorker's life. frankly, i respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take it as seriously as well. for this is not a serious effort by any stretch of the imagination. you know what's good for our national security? bringing people out of the shadows so they -- so that we know who is in our country. focusing our limited enforcement resources on true threats to our country. and not holding up needed funding for security and law enforcement programs to make a political point. it's a political point they are trying to make. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle genuinely think our immigration system should deport parents instead of true criminals, if you want to

destroy all our economic gains and throw a sucker punch to our economy by deporting 11 million people you know what? bring a bill up on the floor and let's have a real debate on all those issues. don't walk in here and tell me and the american people that this garbage belongs in the homeland security funding bill. don't tell the american people that. they are not suckers and they are not fools. they know what you're doing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would ask members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from california is recognized. for 30 seconds. mr. becerra: i thank the chair woman. i ask if the proponents would name the name of an american who has been discriminated against. the name of an employer who has discriminated against an american worker. they gave none. this is all anecdotal, these are all stories. they don't have anything to do

with the fact we need to pass the homeland security bill because we are jeopardizing the funding for our security. are people tone deaf to what happened in paris they would do these amendments at a time when we need to support our men and women who protect us through homeland security? this is wrong and that is why we oppose this senseless sense of congress amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona mr. salmon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. salmon: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schock: madam speaker, i

have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designatehe amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report number 114-2, offered by mr. schock of illinois. . the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: thank you, madam speaker. there are currently 4.4 million people ready to enter this country through legal channels. many of them have been waiting for years. they've saved their money. they've filled out all the proper forms. they've paid their fees. this amendment is about doing right by them and their families. it's about making sure the men and women who play by the rules receive the fair treatment they were promised. congress must send a clear message to the administration and the american people -- we are committed to fixing what is broken about our immigration

system but not at the expense of law-abiding immigrants. in recent weeks, i worked with the heritage foundation to identify seven failing programs at usgis that are at most need of improvements. one of the most egregious example is $792 million that they spent between 2008 and 2012 to create an online system for applicants to file forms and pay fees. after $700 million spent and four years of time, only two forms out of 100 and one out of 73 different fees can be processed online. the administration's repeated inability to build a website that works, well documented as is by now, is compounded by its eagerness to bypass the constitution and break the law. had the president wished to

show real leadership on immigration reform, he could have used his executive authority to promote greater efficiency and cost-saving measures within the system. and had he done so, i suspect there would have been overwhelming support in this congress. but regrettably, that is not the course he chose, and it's why this congress must act. we have a responsibility to american taxpayers and to millions of immigrants to establish spending priorities at usdis and eliminating wasteful spending in the immigration system is an important components of our responsibility and a first great step in achieving comprehensive reform. ensuring that fees paid by lawful applicants are not used to fast track those who break the law strikes at the heart of our oath of office. during my time in congress, the 18th district of illinois has welcomed more than 2,600 new stents many of whom faced a

long road to get here. but there are still thousands more who are waiting. and not because their paperwork isn't in order, not because they have something in their record and not because of anything other than a broken system. take charles from peoria. he's been trying to get his fiancee to join him in the united states since january of 2012. for more than two years charles has waited. he's struggled with the financial support requirements. he's been unable to travel to see her. he had his application postponed time and time again. why? because charles is a quadriplegic on disability. take danny from jacksonville, illinois. works two shifts at a meatpacking facility. he applied and paid for his green card on october 4 2013. his green card was mailed to the wrong address. even though it was properly done on his paperwork and it was in order.

danny lost his job because he couldn't show his green card to his employer and after many months of lost wages uscis admitted to my office and to danny that they screwed up and made a mistake. now more than a year later, danny finally receives his green card and went back to work. but not before our broken system cost him a year's worth of wages. madam speaker, these stories could be repeated hundreds of times in my congressional office alone, tens of thousands of times across this body in republican and democrat districts alike. the system is failing our constituents. their families, their loved ones. it's failing businesses in our districts. it's failing daycare facilities and major manufacturers. so yes, mr. president, the system is broken, but the way to fix a broken system is not to overload the system by fast tracking five million more people. madam speaker, as if these

hardworking taxpayers, these hardworking people are sitting at a toll booth -- >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. schock: yes, sir, i will. how much time is remaining? mr. carter: how much time is remaining? the chair: seconds. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognion ms. lofen: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: this amendment is premised on a mistake and understanding of how uscis actually works. here's a fact that some people may not know. the uscis is funded, not by the taxpayers, it's funded by the fees of the applicants. and so the amendment seems to assume that the -- if you are out of status somehow somebody else is paying for you, the

taxpayers or some other applicant. that's not the case. each applicant pays the money of processing their own fees. it does not delay others. what this amendment would do would not just deal with daca applicants. it wyoming pact people who i don't think want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. for example, people who are victims of torture can come to the united states and make a case, plea for political asylum. they file a petition to do that. this amendment would say their petitions can't be heard. people who are victims of domestic violence, we created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. that would -- those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. victims of sex trafficking are

eligible for a visa, that's something we created in law. according to this amendment, people who -- sex trafficking victims would not be eligible to have their petitions processed in a timely manner. and here's something else. most of the petitions that are adjudicated are family-based. so if you have your american citizen daughter marries somebody from another country, she can petition so that her husband can become a legal resident of the united states. if that husband is out of status, that petition would not be petitioned. i don't think we want to do what this amendment suggests we should do and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves? mr. schock: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i'd yield for unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to place my statement in opposition to this amendment

and others that play politics with the security and safety of america. i ask unanimous consent to place it in the record. the chair: without objection. ms. lofgren: i yield to my colleague and compatriot on the judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas, 1.5 minutes, a minute and a half. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you madam chair. and the ranking member for his leadership. this is a full force assault on immigrants. it is an assault on the integrity of this nation that was built upon the investment and the love of this country by immigrants from all over the world. and as i look to the landscape of what we now confront 2,000 dead in nigeria by boko haram, little girls dressed with suicide bombs and homeland security being held hostage by the assault on immigration.

let me say to you that the constitution has given the president the authority under the take care provision. and so this assault of amendments trying to chip away at these executive actions is a false premise in order to attack the ideas and the values of this nation. in my home state, if the actions of the president are in place we'll gain $8.2 billion in gross domestic product and $19.2 over a 10-year decade. do you think we need the underlying amendment or amendments, plural? pastors and religious leaders the episcopal bishops have indicated that they support the executive action. the cast lick bishops supports the executive action. the aderholt amendment wants to attack those young dreamers who want to invest in young soldiers. the blackburn amendment wants to take away, if you will, the childhood arrivals. and desantis wants to misrepresent to victims of

human trafficking and domestic violence. and mr. salmon and his amendment wants to suggest that workers are being hired over american workers. and mr. schock wants to ignore the investment of this particular language into this nation. let me end by saying this is an attack on immigrants. let's vote against all of these. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois reserves? mr. schock: we reserve. ms. lofgren: i believe we have the right to close so we would reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has the right to close. he has 15 seconds remaining. ms. lofgren: all right. then at this point i'd yield the balance of our time to the ranking member of our full committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam chair. members of the committee i oppose the schock amendment for many of the numerous reasons

that have already been stated by our colleagues. but i want to make sure that we're all perfectly clear on what is occurring on the house floor today. the majority is unfortunately playing politics with the lives, safety and security of the american people. the ideologues are holding funding for homeland security department hostage here today. that is not right. and they would rather deport dreamers, the kids and their parents rather than fund the department of homeland security. in the wake of the recent paris tragedy we need to remain vigilant with smart enforcement policies that protect

americans. the department of homeland security plays a central role in our fight against terror, and we must fully fund their efforts as soon as possible. we should not be attaching poison pill amendments to this important legislation. and so i urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to really join us and govern with a sense of far more responsibility. i yield back the balance of my time. choim the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for5 cd mr. schock: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to my friend and distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. and let me thank all of my colleagues who've worked to put this bill together. today i rise and the house

rises to support and defend our constitution. we do not take this action lightly but simply there is no alternative. this is not a dispute between the parties or even between the branches of our government. this executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the constitution itself. i appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since i'm one of them. what we're dealing with is a president who's ignored the people who's ignored the constitution and even his own past statements. in fact, on at least 22 occasions he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done. before he became president on

march 31, 2008, the president said, and i quote i take the constitution very seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with a president trying to not go through congress at all and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president. on may 19, 2008 the president said, and i quote i believe in the constitution and i will obey the constitution of the united states. after he was president on may 5 2010, the president said, and i quote anybody who tells you that i can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works. on july 1, 2010, the president said, and i quote, there are those who have argued passionately that we should at least ignore the laws on the

books. i believe such an indiscriminant approach would be both unwise and unfair. . on october 14, 2010rk the president said, and i quote, i do have an obligation to make sure that i'm following some of the rules. i can't simply ignore the laws that are out there. on october 25, 2010, the president said, and i quote, i am president i am not king, i can't do these things just by myself. i can't just make up the laws by myself. on march 28 2011, the president said, and i quote, america is a nation of laws which means that i as president am obligated to enforce the law. on april 20 2011, the president said, and i quote, i can't solve this problem by myself. i just can't do it by myself.

on april 29, 2011, the president said, and i quote, some here wish i could just bypass congress and change the law myself. but that's not how democracy works. on may 10 2011, the president said, and quote they wish i could just bypass congress and chiang the law myself, but that's not how democracy works. on july 25 2011 the president said, and i quote, the identify deef doing these things on my own is very tempting, but that's not how our system works. that's not how how our democracy functions. that's not how our constitution is written. on september 28 2011, the president said and i quote, we live in a democracy. we have to pass bills through the legislature, then i can sign them. on september 20, 2012, the

president said, and i quote what i have always said is that, as head of the executive branch there's a limit to what i can do. on october 16, 2012 the president said, and i quote, we are a nation of laws and i have done everything i can on my own. on january 30, 2013, the president said, and i quote, i am not a king. i'm head of the executive branch. i'm required to follow the law. january 30, 2013, the president also said, and i quote, i'm not a king. you know my job as head of the executive branch is ultimately to carry out the law. february 14 2013, the president said, and i quote, the problem

is that i'm the president of the united states, i'm not the emperor of the united states. july 16 2013, the president said and i quote i think it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. september 17, 2013, the president said and i quote, my job in the geckive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. but if we start broadening that then essentially i would be ignoring the law. on november 25 2013, the president said, and i quote, the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend can i do something by violating our laws. that's not our tradition. on march 6 2014 the president said, and i quote, i cannot

ignore those laws any more than i could ignore any other of the laws on our books. and on august 6 2014, the president said, and i quote, i am bound by the constitution. i am bound by the separations of powers. to think that the president of the united states actually studied constitutional law is one thing. he didn't just teach or learn constitutional law, he taught it as well. but now his actions suggest that he's forgotten what these words even mean. enough is enough. by their votes last november the people made clear they wanted more accountability from this president. and by our votes here today we will heed their will and we will keep our oath to protect and

defend the constitution the house went on to approve all few of those amendments, including representative aderholt's amendment that would block president obama's executive action to delay the deportation of more than a million immigrants. the amendments were part of a $40 billion spending bill to fund the homeland security department. it passed the house 236-191. it now goes to the senate and faces a veto threat from the president. the house and senate are out for the rest of the week. house and senate republicans going to hersey, pennsylvania, for a retreat jay leno expected to be one of the speakers there. the democrats head to baltimore where they'll hear from the

president. president obama is expected to speak today from cedar falls, iowa. he's scheduled to speak in just under 20 minutes. you can watch live remarks on our companion network c-span2. tonight our state of the state coverage continues taking you live to

now i can accurately predict, look them in the eye and say if you take your medicine regularly, you could live an additional 50 -- 5-0 -- years. so to go from knowing 50% of the people will die in eight months to knowing that if you take your medicines you could live essentially a normal life span, that's a huge advance. >> director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, dr.

falchee, 8:00 eastern on sunday's "q&a." >> the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce called on congress to pass cybersecurity and immigration bills. his remarks were part of his annual address on the state of american business and the economy he talked about the 2014 elections and looked ahead to 2016. following his remarks he took questions from reporters. this is an hour and a half. >> thank you very much, suzanne. but let's not lose sight of the fact that i am irish. and thank you again to the foundation and their team for organizing this event and thanks to all of you for being part of this annual chamber tradition. the state of american business is improving. six long years after the recession technically ended

investing, hiring, and consumer spending are firming up. the housing sector continues to recover in fits and starts. entrepreneurship and good old fashioned ingenuity in our energy sector have created millions of new jobs though the recent drop in energy prices may slow this sector over the next year. we've had a few good quarters of very solid growth, surprising some of the experts. the economy should continue to improve moderately through 2015. the chamber expects to see growth at 3% to 3.5%, at least through the middle of the year. interest rates energy prices, and inflation should remain low for the time being. there's no reason to think that

another recession is lurking out there or in the near term horizon. but when you look beyond the near term, the outlook becomes much less certain. businesses are concerned about the health of their major customers overseas. china is slowing. europe is floundering. and japan may be sinking back into recession. there's also the potential for disruption from a whole host of international conflicts. closer to home employers are being saddled with another new health care mandate, and they're worried about what's coming next. at the current rate, some 4,000 new regulations will pour out of the regulatory pipeline this year. the new congress faces a series

of government funding and debt limit deadlines this year as well. we hope that lawmakers and the administration will act responsibly and not add to uncertainty. and everyone wonders when the federal reserve is going to raise interest rates, when the time inevitably comes, how will the markets react? adding to these uncertainties are all the questions about cybersecurity. what happened to sony can happen to any business. any organization. any government agency. or, by the way, to any media outlet. government and the private sector must work together on this challenge and we are calling on the new congress to pass a cybersecurity information sharing bill without delay. based on recent economic

reports, it's understandable that the administration and the business community and perhaps the chamber may like to take a victory lap. not so fast. there's lots more to come. we can't forget that 17.7 million americans are still unemployed underemployed or have given up looking for work. participation in the work force stands at 62.7%, the lowest since 1978. reflecting a significant level of discouragement, and by the way, let me say parenthetically in some places extraordinary increases in productivity meaning work can be done by far fewer people. current policies have eroded our economy's long-term potential

rate of growth. it would be a serious mistake to think that higher taxes, a bigger debt and more regulations can deliver more growth jobs, and prosperity. they will deliver less. now the american people understand this, which is why last november, they clearly rejected a good portion of the economic cost that -- course that we're on. they voted for new direction. one that puts jobs and growth first and demands confidence and -- competence and leadership from our government at every level. the chamber played a significant role in the mid-term elections. we have, since then, been meeting with our leaders in both the house and senate, and the

administration to discuss with them how we move forward. we are urging them all to become part of what we call a governing center to solve problems and get things done. a governing center suggests you can be a committed conservative, a passionate progressive, or even one of a shrinking number of moderates, and still find a way to work together. sometimes you can find common ground but more often than not, you acknowledge your differences and just make a deal. that's how governing is supposed to work in a democracy. we've had divided government many times in the past and lawmakers still got things done. why not now? in 2015, we're asking the nation's leaders to rally around a common bipartisan cause, and

that cause is stronger and deeper economic growth in order to create jobs and expand opportunities for all americans. how can we get there? first, we need a growth agenda that capitalizes on the extraordinary potential that we have in trade, energy, technology and infrastructure. second, we need a government reform agenda that eases uncertainty and supports growth by improving our immigration system. the regulatory process in this country, the tax code, entitlement programs, the legal system, and last but not least, our public schools. with a return to regular order in the senate, and an expanded role for congressional committee, we hope that business priorities will get attention

and then see action. through the passage of bills and amendments and in the appropriations process. to support our proposals on the hill, we will further grow and employ our grass roots network of state and local chambers, associations small businesses, and free enterprise activists. we will lay the groundwork this year for the pivotal election year to come. we will be very clear about what lawmakers in both parties need to do if they hope to earn the business community's support. outside of washington the chamber will be busy in the states, fighting for legal reform workplace freedom, and education reform. we will be working in regulatory agencies to fix and improve new regulations. we will be working around the

world to open markets, defend the interests of american companies, and protect their intellectual property. last but not least, we will be extremely busy in the courts. legal action to stop government abuse and defend the rights and freedoms of the business community will be a critical tool in 2015. last year, the chamber's litigation center filed successfully i might say a record number of briefs in federal and state courts and we will likely surpass that record this year. now let me continue now with some comments about what we can do right now today, to accelerate growth, secure our recovery and create jobs. the first is trade.

95% of the people we want to sell something to live outside the united states. and we now have some great opportunities to open new markets and increase america's exports. the administration is actively negotiating two historic trade agreements. the transpacific partnership agreement, and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. the chamber has supported those initiatives from the very beginning. the president has said that he is committed to finishing the job in both and we congratulate him for that. but he needs trade promotion authority from the congress to do it. he'll have to go out and really fight for it, especially with the members of his own party. but he can count on our

aggressive support. enacting t.p.a. so we can finish these agreements is one of our top legislative priorities this year. we also continue to advance other trade priorities including a revised information technology agreement, a trade and services agreement, and a bilateral investment treaty with china. we'll work on the recent successfully concluded w.t.o. trade facilitation agreement, modernizing our borders with customs reform and extending the charter of the x.m. bank. our global intellectual property center will support efforts to improve intellectual property protections here and around the world. and we will work to improve our own rules on trade secrets while advancing i. -- i.t. protections in china india, and in pending

trade agreements. even with the recent decline of energy prices, abundant domestic energy will still -- still stands out as an extraordinary opportunity to generate millions of jobs in this country. billions in revenues for government and trillions in new investment while securing affordable energy for american consumers. congress and the administration should take the needed steps to unleash the energy revolution in an environmentally responsible way and we should reform export rules so that we can sell this energy when appropriation around the world. our institute for 21st century energy has issued a 64 specific recommendations on how, for example, to remove various oil

and gas production and ensure the continued use of coal and nuclear energy and enhance the competitiveness of renewable resources. and we're going to keep pushing on the keystone pipeline. i'm sure you're surprised. the administration's own facts clearly show that this project will create jobs and energy security without harming the environment. one more thought on energy, and it's important. over time, energy development can deliver hundreds of billions of new dollars to government coffers and that will be a nice down payment on our rapidly growing bill for our nation's entitlement programs. energy won't solve that problem or remove the need for reform, but it sure can help.

along with trade and energy, american leadership in technology can continue to deliver great benefits to our economy and to our quality of life. yet as it grows bigger, our tech sector is also becoming more the target of government and activists at home and abroad. this year, our new center for advanced technology and innovation will be running at full speed and will spearhead a chamber-wide effort to defend the technology companies and advance their policy interests. tech companies find themselves unfairly targeted by law enforcement and regulators in key markets, from china to the european union. domestically companies urgently need high-skilled talent as well as an expansion of spectrum and broadband capacity.

we recognize that the issue of net neutrality divides the tech community but there can be no neutrality as far as the chamber is concerned. we oppose efforts to regulate the internet as if it were a 20th century public utility or a copper wire telephone company. the internet is one of the greatest drivers of prosperity and innovation in our economy. we need to develop better and smarter framework for data security and sharing. but the system must remain open, flexible and innovative and excess i government regulation of the internet would just kill that goose. infrastructure is another big growth opportunity. we're asking congress to pass a long-term highway and mass transit bill with full funding

generated from the users, along with appropriate reforms. and we must fully fund our aviation and water systems as well. the big question is how to pay for these programs. the simplest and fairest way to do this is through a modest increase in terms of roads and transit of the federal fuel user fee. it hasn't been inreesed in more than 20 years. i know the politics are difficult, but isn't this a pretty good time to try? since last summer, the average price of gas has dropped $1.45 a gallon. isn't that reasonable then to consider investing a dime or two of those savings back into our roads and bridges and highways and transit to put americans back to work, to clean the air, to grow the economy, and save

thousands of lives? the chamber plans to continue our strong case to the congress, to the white house, and most important to the american people. now along with action on trade, energy, and technology and infrastructure. we must embark on a sweeping program of government reform. let's start with immigration reform. i can assure you that we will continue to make this a top priority until it's done. meaningful immigration reform can only be achieved, only be achieved, through bipartisan legislation. we are renewing our call for commonsense measures that not only better secure our borders but also provide the american economy with the workers it needs at all skill levels,

improve the employment verification system, and the employment -- let me just say, parenthetically that is beginning to work and it would be a big benefit for american companies, and the deal with undocumented -- and to deal with undocumented immigrants in a positive way. we know that reform is unlikely to happen in one great big bill, that would be a lot neater. and we recognize that moving forward might not be a whole comprehensive bill, but it can't be one for nothing. it's got to be something that works on a bipartisan basis. and by the way i think it's important for the leaders and the members of both houses to understand that there is more agreement in the country and by the way, in the congress, on these issues than you may think. it is in the political interest of both parties to act before

the next election, it's pretty obvious why. that's why we believe a resolution is possible this year. government reform must also address the regulatory system itself. which hasn't been significantly modernized since harry truman's administration. many of you will not remember him. it was a long time ago. business recognizes the need for smart regulation. but with a $2 trillion price tag in compliance costs put on american business by a virtual fourth branch of government, it's time to bring the system into the 21st century. the chamber will launch an all-out effort to pass three regulatory reform bills that already enjoy significant

bipartisan support in both the house and the senate. the bills would modernize the process by which new rules are considered. and promulgated. it would bring transparency and accountability to the now abusive process known as sue and settle. and it would streamline the permitting process once regulations are in place. now these are not pie in the sky ideas that have no chance of passing. in fact, the first bill passed the house just yesterday. they are bipartisan measures that should be able to clear both houses. as for the president we hope that by the end of the process and the discussion, he will find cause to reconsider his early reaction to these important, bipartisan reforms. now while working to reform the regulatory process, the chamber

will also address specific regulations that we believe would hurt our economy, throw people out of work while achieving little or no public benefit. e.p.a.'s proposal to lower the ozone standard and its waters of the u.s. rule are two examples. while we strongly support technological solutions to address greenhouse gas emissions, we do not believe that the regulations of these admissions through the clean air act is appropriate or more importantly, workable. in health care we support congressional efforts to restore the 40-hour workweek to define who must be covered under the employer health care mandate. we'll work with to repeal taxes such as the medical device tax,

the cadillac tax, and the health insurance tax. now on the labor front we will aggressively oppose members -- measures that will unnecessary amend or already -- our already complex work laws, workplace laws covering a whole list of issues. including those that would upset the delicate balance now struck by the labor relations act. when it comes to financial markets and the regulation of these markets, it is time to ask, who is in charge of making sure that the overall regulatory system actually works for job creators and investors. you all know that at a federal level alone there are nearly two dozen financial regulatory groups that often most of the time conflict, compete, and

fail to work together. successful financial regulatory reform can't be measured by the sheer number of new regulations or the size of the fines extracted from financial firms. we need a modern regulatory system that both drives financial stability and encourages capital formation. and it occurs to us that we will be working on helping the congress and the american people to better understand how the capital pool in this country is created and how without it, you will not be able to expand and support our economy. the chamber has supported positive steps to strengthen corporate government -- governance. however, we will continue to vigorously oppose using the proxy to advance special

interest agendas. we will also continue to push for reform of secretive proxy advisory firms. the chamber will also seek further fixes to dodd-frank. you know how long ago it was passed and still a third of the rules have not been completed. for example, the financial stability oversight council is considering overdue and necessary changes to its systematically -- systemically important designation process, and we all saw in today's papers, there's going to be an interesting lawsuit about that. in addition, both the consumer financial protection bureau and the treasury department's office of financial research ought to be placed under the appropriations process. we all think it might work better. and we are very concerned that

the department of labor is considering misguided fiduciary proposals that could result in making retirement savings much harder for middle class families. the next target for government reform tends to divide the business community. but it is essential. and that's tax reform. the united states has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. -- we adhere to a system of worldwide taxation. discarded by most major countries a long time ago. as a result, american businesses pay taxes twice. first in the foreign country in which they do business, and then to uncle sam whenever they bring the profits home. and since 28 million businesses pay their taxes as individuals, we also need to reform at the

same time, the individual side of the code. we need to end the bias against investment and spur small business startups, which, by the way, have been lagging yet for going down protracted period of time as a result, less job creation. now republican leaders and the president all say that tax reform will be a priority in 2015. now the chamber plans to be at the table if that comes to pass, on the theory that if you're not at the table you're on the menu. we will encourage genuine efforts to create a simpler, fairer pro-growth tax system. we will not support an approach that uses tax reform as an excuse to engineer another big tax increase on the american business community.

turning to the nation's financial condition, short-term deficits have come down. that's good. but almost everyone agrees that they will soon begin to rise again. the federal government has already piled up $18 trillion in debt and it will reach 74% of the gross domestic product this year. more than anything else, the nation's massive debt is being driven by one thing -- entitlement costs. by 2024, which is just around the corner, federal spending will be $5.8 trillion to $6 trillion, that's the government's numbers, and more than 76% of it will go to mandatory programs plus interest on the national debt. that leaves 20-something-odd percent for national defense important domestic programs, and

everything else that the government does at home and abroad. one of these early tests for congress will be passing a fiscally responsible budget that should lay the foundation for further action on tax and entitlement reform. now ladies and gentlemen, this will be no small feat. the last time congress produced a real budget was in 2009, six years ago. america's leaders need to start telling the american people the truth. the entitlement crisis is entirely predictable. we know it's going to happen. it demands action and leadership without further delay. there are two other sets of reforms we need in the first -- and the first is legal reform. with the chamber's institute of legal reform leading the way, we

have made progress in curbing the excesses of class and mass action trial lawyers and educating voters in state court elections. but america still has the costliest legal system in the world. even before distributing -- excuse me. even before disturbing america's enforcement system, which has turned into a shakedown process. enforcement officials find a company that may or may not have done something wrong, threaten itsmarks with commercial doom, and the basic way they do that, they indict you, you can't do any business with the federal government, just think about that. then force them to pay an enormous fine to drop or just not file the charges. now our agenda includes curbing

these excesses, plus reforming the legal system in key states and jurisdictions preserving the availability of arbitration passing the fact act to help prevent fraudulent asbestos claims, and challenging foreign governments so that they don't get as foolish as we do considering the american style of class action lawsuits. finally, education reform. it's fundamentally unfair that some of america's children get high quality education while others are left far behind far far behind. this is where the real inequity comes in america. the harsh reality is that a young person withouts by ex-- basic skills in reading, write, math, and computing won't be able to hold down a good job in the 21st century.

or a job of any kind. we must ramp up our efforts to reform public school toughen standards, and to measure them against prior years so we can find out if students are falling behind or moving ahead. we also need to remove the small number of bad teachers and pay good teachers accordingly, to create more innovative charter schools and ensure that parental choice is an option not just for wealthy communities, but for all communities. ladies and gentlemen, hopefully i have helped you understand what the chamber stands for and what we're going to fight for this year and beyond. let me underscore that this is no time to be complacent. we have had a few good quarters of economic growth but we are not out of the woods. there are many risks and

challenges facing our economy. and they have the potential to send us right back to the doldrums or worse. that's why our elected leaders, divided as they may be, must work together to put jobs, growth and opportunity first. we hope that the new majority in congress understands it has something to prove to the voters who elected them. they need to legislate, the president needs to engage, together they need to govern. i have focused in these remarks on what needs to be changed. yet there are some things that must never change. and that is a set of fundamental american values that define who we are as a people and to explain why we have been able to build and sustain the most free,

most prosperous, and most compassionate country in the world. i'm talking about the right to speak. the right to due process under the law. and the right to participate in a free enterprise system where you can take a risk, where you can work hard where you can achieve your dreams. we should all be concerned by the steady erosion of these rights in this town and around the country. the chamber will fight to ensure that all americans have the right to petition their government without fear, without intimidation and without undue regulation. we'll fight for due process under the law. free of abusive tactics by federal and state agencies and prosecutors. we'll fight for everyone's right to speak and even voice controversial opinions without

being tarred and feathered in the public square or having the i.r.s. threaten his or her tax status. and we'll fight to preserve the spirit of enterprise in america which begins with the right to risk, to fail, to try again, to succeed, and to be rewarded for your efforts. contrary to what some of our political leaders have said, businesses really do create the jobs. they really do build things. wherever they reside, whether on main street or on wall street, businesses are not the enemy. they are a big part of the solution to the challenges we face as a nation and as a people. of course businesses does not -- they don't do it alone. and yes, businesses need the government to protect our security. and to maintain an economic platform of our country.

but what business needs most from all these government agencies is wise, competent, and courageous leadership, that knows when to get involved and when not to interfere. a government that is judicious and responsible in the exercise of its extraordinary powers to tax, spend and regulate. today we're hearing a lot of talk about so-called economic populism. its advocates claim they are standing up for the average citizen. but what they're really standing up for is the unbridled growth of the central government and the development of a state-run economy. we already have real economic populism. in this country. and i'll tell you what it is. it's 28 million businesses of every conceivable size and

endeavor that have sprung to life in every town, city, and community in our country. it's millions of businesses that are being invented around the kitchen table or in the garage or in a college dorm. it's millions of women and minority-owned businesses whose owners are persistently and aggressively laying claim to their share of the american dream. and it's tens of thousands of larger businesses, many of them with global reach, that are providing jobs, services, health care and retirement savings and charitable giving for the entire nation. american free enterprise is the economic populism we need and must support. it has built the most

successful economy in our history and in the history of the world and built it from the bottom up. not everyone succeeds and not all outcomes are equal. but our enterprise system is the envy of the world it's why people from rich and poor countries are beating a path to our door. we must reject trickledown government and support expanded and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and we must make sure that it thrives, not just in business but in every field of endeavor in our society. so as the chamber pursues a full policy agenda, focused on economic growth and government reform rest assured that we

are reserving a good measure of our fight, of our spirit, of our passion for that which must not change. the unique american rights and freedoms that made this country great and that will carry it forward to a bright future. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> thank you very much for your patience and for coming today. as you know, i'm tom donohue, president of the chamber. and in just a few minutes ago i delivered our annual look at the economy and business and what we might expect from others and what you could expect from us this year. if you missed it there's a copy of the speech they're giving you, as is always the question, the case but not last year. because he was in the hospital, scared the hell out of us. bruce josten who is our executive vice president of all things we do with government and related matters. a number of our senior advisors are here that handle many of these subjects and so they're over there and they're over there.

you can catch them all at the end of your questions and pursue some of your issues in more depth. as i said in the speech, the chamber believes the state of american business is improving. and that the economy is gaining momentum. we expect growth to be in the 3% to 3 1/2 percent range, at -- 3.5% range, at least in the middle of the year. when we look beyond the near term, the outlook is less certain. business faces a host of challenges and uncertainties, including economic weakness abroad, which is very significant, by the way, and unprecedented regulatory onslaught here at home and new cybersecurity threats, among many others. while things rim proving the current policies of tax spend and regulate aren't cutting it. in fact, we have eroded our economy's long-term potential

for the growth of the economy because of some of these factors. so instead of taking a victory lap, the administration, the congress and all of us have got to heed the lesson of the last election, work together to advance jobs and growth and raise america's take-home pay. divided government is not an excuse to do nothing. it's an opportunity to work together. it's to everyone's benefit. we know it wonalt be easy, but with new people in congress with a president who hopefully will be tending to his long-term legacy, we think we can get some important things done for business, for workers and for the american people. now, our agenda is simple. what we're asking leaders to do in 2015 is to rally around the common bipartisan cause, stronger and deeper economic growth in order to create jobs

and expand opportunities for all americans. the chamber will be pursuing three very quickly i'll say, things to help achieve that. first, we're going to aggressively advance our jobs growth and opportunity agenda that capitalizes on the extraordinary potential we have in trade energy, technology and infrastructure. second, we're going to build support for a government reform agenda. this is not an individual regulation or something. it's reforming the agenda. how we make regulations. that eases uncertainty and supports growth by improving immigration, the regulatory process, the tax code entitlement programs the legal system and very importantly our public schools. and third the chamber's going to vigorously defend a set of fundamental american values that define who we are as a people.

and what made us the most free, most prosperous and the most compassionate country on earth. i'm talking about the right to speak, the right to due process under the law the right to participate in a free enterprise system, where you can take a risk, you can work hard and achieve your dreams. and we should all be concerned by the steady erosion of these rights and freedoms on a federal and state level. most of all, we'll fight to preserve the spirit of enterprise in america. this is the real economic populism. we're all talking about economic populism. we have a set of economic populisms we really believe in. it's reflected in the more than 2 million businesses of all sizes in every community in this country. america's enterprise system is not perfect. we want to say that right up front. but it's built on the most successful economy in the

history of the world and it's built, it's been built from the bottom up and this is the populism that really works. last two thoughts. a populism based on trickledown government, with an ever-growing power accruing to washington cannot work because with it our economy cannot grow. instead we need policies that support, expand and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and make sure that it thrives. not just in business, but in everything we do in this country. and with that we'll take all your questions. wait a second, i have to tell you the rules of engagement. you have to tell us who you are and know that if it's a really tough question i'm going to let bruce answer it. [laughter] >> we're going to start right over here. >> ok. >> thanks so much for having me. i'm with "the hill." you mentioned in 2015 that the chamber's going to have in this renewed push on regular reform.

can you -- regulatory reform. can you talk about that strategy? >> in the last session of the congress we passed a three-part -- we didn't pass it, the congress passed it with our encouragement, a threa-part reform of the regulatory -- a three-part reform of the regulatory process. it dealt with the questions of sue and settle, it dealt with the questions of permits, it dealt with the fundamental issues of how the process of regulation was going to go forward. and by the way, it was voted on in a bipartisan basis and i think there will be growing sentiment to move this forward and we've had a lot of indication in the senate of interest for this reform process. remember, i said in the speech that the last time we reformed our regulatory process harry truman was the president. i remember him. but most of you don't.

we think there is a sentiment for doing this. i'm not worried about the president's suggestion that he's going to veto it. i mean that's part of the negotiation process. the white house always comes up with the things they may veto. well, let's see what's in it, let's see what the discussions bring and let's see how many people vote for it. you pick them out. i'll answer them. go ahead. >> thanks. bloomberg news. this is kind of a three-part question. >> you always have three-part questions. >> yeah. you sort of tempered your language a little bit on the oil exports issue on the energy exports issue, whether there should be reform. i'm wondering, first, if you're calling for an outright end to the limits on oil exports. and if so, should that be coupled with the keystone pipeline legislation? and then finally, we have pretty much free oil exports with canada. i'm wondering if you think that that should be granted to mexico as well. thanks. >> i'll do the last part first. mexico is a long way from

getting its energy industry oil and gas and so on organized the way that canada has. but they're moving in a very thoughtful way to do that. and we think it's good for the nafta relationship. the three countries that are together on many trade and investment and security issues. so we would hope that we would treat them the same way. second, the keystone pipeline, i mean -- i'm going to behave today. that's a political joke. we have been through this thing in every possible way, everybody knows it creates jobs, the labor unions are vigorously for it. everybody knows with all the studies it does not create an environmental problem in this country. and the thing that really bothers me the country that has been our friend, our

partner, our supporter in every way for as long as any of us can remember is canada. and we're treatinging them very badly on this issue. and i think that's a mistake. on the question of exporting oil and gas, you really have to look at it in two circumstances. you know, we had a circumstance what, 120 days ago where the prices were higher and there was a good surplus here in the united states. now it may go down some because of investments as the prices go down. but there is plenty of opportunity for us to export oil and gas if they want reasonable regulation, that's fine. for the advantage of the american economy to create jobs and to help stability around the world.

you can just think about, how about the issue in the ukraine. there are a lot of opportunities to look at the stability issues as well. thank you and that's the end of the three-part questions. you picking them or am i? >> i am. right here. >> hi. "national journal." looking ahead to 2016, i have two questions for you. do you think the chamber will be as involved in g.o.p. plimearies, and do you have a ball parbg of what you think you guys -- bark of what you think you guys -- ballpark of what you think you guys will spend? >> primaries are created in two ways. one, people decide not to run or people locally decide to challenge someone. and we've already seen folks that are looking at whether they think running is a good idea. so i think there will be more opportunities. it's a long way to then. some people will temporarily assume those jobs or be

appointed or even elected. but that creates an opportunity for primaries. and i think -- i don't know, we had a conversation one day about, we could even have a primary on the democratic side that we'd be interested in. we think -- here's our fundamental one-sentence deal. we believe candidates matter monday more than anything else. we're -- matter more than anything else. we're looking for people who want to govern, who want to come to washington to join in the debate and the process and the responsibility of governing on behalf of their fellow citizens and we're going to support them. how much we're going to spend, i have no idea. it basically comes down to how much we do and how much we need. who's up? >> good morning. i'm with the a.p. many thanks for doing this. i would like to ask what are the chamber's goals this year for cuba that you veanlt

mentioned in your speech? and also you said in the speech that immigration reform could be possible this year. but we see today that the republicans, the house is about to vote on a bill that blocks executive action by president obama. could you please see how -- say how you see the solution possible this year and what is the specific initiative the chamber has on immigration. thank you. >> the immigration thing is -- what we're interested in is what i said in the speech. we need workers -- we're a country with people without jobs and jobs without people. we're working very hard to find jobs for the people that don't have them and we're working very hard to find people for jobs that need specific skills. it's why our hiring the heroes out of the military program works so well. and we really believe that an immigration program that provides people at both ends of the spectrum, you know people

going to our great universities and people who work in everything from hospitals and nursing homes and resorts and agriculture, we need a way that companies can know who they're hiring and there's a good process in place there that seems to be ready to be put in fuller use. we need to deal with the borders and it's got to be a reasonable thoughtful process. and we have to figure out what to do with the people that are illegally here and give them some process to having legality in moving forward and i believe that the sentiment is growing across this country to do that. on the question -- oh, and by the way, on the issue of what they're voting on today, it's got not a lot to do with immigration. it has a lot to do with constitutional prerogatives of the president and of the congress. and i think it's fine they go about that. but there's a very simple way that the members of the house and senate can solve this problem. go pass an immigration bill,

send it to the president and let him sign it. and that's the end of that problem. on cuba, we are -- we've been involved on the cuban issue for a long time. we believe that the agreement and the decisions by the president on this are a good start. we only had three sentences to say about that right now today. number one, no matter what you're doing, if you're doing it for 50-plus years and it doesn't work, you ought to find something else. number two, if you look at the tenure of the current government and what their plans are, when the major changes will be, if you look at all the people from countries all over the world that are developing the economy over there it is time for us to move. and number three, after the last time i was there, in the two weeks following putin and

then the president of china were there and i'd much rather that we were deciding what we're going to do in cuba than them deciding what they're going to do. thank you very much. >> "tax notes." i'm going to start with you, since you gave the speech. it took you about half an hour to get to tax reform, which i -- and you were -- it seemed like you were a little tepid when you were talking about it. you didn't seem to have a lot of confidence that it would happen this year, which is really unusual because i think everybody else i've talked to thinks it's definitely going to happen. and -- but i also want to ask -- yeah. maybe -- >> did you say the people you talk to think -- >> i was joking. that's not going to happen. but i want to go to bruce on this too. what's your take on that? i mean, it's a serious issue,

there's been talk of compromise . but you seem to have very low expectations. how are you guys approaching that issue? >> i'm going to answer that question, bruce will talk about the tax deal. if you look at the sequence of the things we talked about, they're not -- their importance is not in the order in which they were done. you know that i'm very passionate about the last things i talked about. and by the way, we're realists about taxes. we're realists. and bruce will tell what you realism is. >> i think what tom tried to do in his speech, first and foremost, was highlight the most obvious opportunities for legislative outcome, if you look at the trade agenda if you look at all the energy legislation, if you look at all the technology stuff. and infrastructure, which in part gets you to tax reform. i think first off we have two new chairmen of the tax writing committees. no one's going to pick up where the last person left off. they're going to start anew. i think over in the house

chairman ryan has been hard at work on what he would more likely describe as process reforms that are needed and necessary to facilitate achieving tax reform. some of that deals with dynamic scoring, some of that deals with budget issues. chairman hatch i think is really close to 700 pages of outlines of tax reform. i've been up and met with both of them and many others on this . i think tax reform is very hard to do. there's been a lot that suggests the administration and the tax writing committees and both chambers and both parties are roughly on the same page, 70% to 80%. that's good. of course the other 20% to 30% is the really, really hard stuff to do. jacob blue had a meeting yesterday with some small business groups trying to rev this up. i think the difference here is we began last fall a campaign

on comprehensive tax reform. we're still engaged in that most heavily right now on social media. but stay tuned. we'll be doing more and we'll echo chamber that throughout the year. the business community is always going to be divided. by definition this is a winners and losers exersiles. it didn't take two years in 1986 as everybody says, it took about five and another year of transition. we have a ways to go. we're all in on tax reform. it is one of the biggest things to do. it has one of the biggest potential impacts overall on the economy and our competitiveness and g.d.p. growth. >> hi. "politico." my question has to do with g.p.a. in your speech you said that the president's going to have to -- fight with members -- round up support in his own party to get t.p.a. approved. i wondered what is your sense

of how many democrats are needed in the house to make this a bipartisan effort and are you concerned that there might be, you know, a large number of republicans who would be loath to vote for the bill because they don't want to give obama the authority? >> every president since jerry ford or something have had trade promotion authority. our reading of this, having been all over the team, all over the congress, talking to just about everybody, is that there is plenty of support there. we further read that the president has begun it to make it clear first of all, to his own team that he wants the cabinet and others up there working on this. i'm hopeful he'll be very aggressive on it in the state of the union. he knows and he's had some meetings just recently,

organizing the white house and others he knows that they're going to have to have an effort to deal in two areas. one, with the necessary number of democrats, and that means dealing with labor. and he knows that he's got to spend some time assuring republicans of what it's going to lead to. but we believe that there are plenty, plenty of votes to get this done. i believe we will get it done and i'm very encouraged that this could be the first step in a three or four-step process that would strengthen the economy of the united states for a long time to come. >> if i could quickly add to your question. if i remember correctly, i'm sure somebody in the room will check if i'm wrong and report it, but i think only about 25 house democrats voted for t.p.a. the last time. i'm not sure all 25 of them are

still in the house this time. in the senate if i remember correctly it was about 21 senate democrats that voted for it. i believe only six of them are there. the point is, you know, there hasn't been a lot of trade votes, there aren't a lot of mens -- members of congress that understand t.p.a.. and now we have to add, don't forget t.a.a. as part of that journey to accomplish t.p.a. i agree with tom. this does get done. the president's clearly going to have some challenges on his side of the aisle in and outside of congress. he's going to have to work to bring some democrats with him. but let's not overlook the republican leadership in both chambers is on the same page with the president wanting to deliver t.p.a. to him. >> "wall street journal." i was hoping you could be -- give us more specifics about the legislative priorities you have regarding financial

regulation. for instance you mentioned fsoc. but do you think congressional action is needed beyond what fsoc itself is doing? and then also, on cyber. what specific legislation do you think is needed there? >> let's do the cyber first. as you know, over the years there have been efforts to seek out a piece of legislation that would help us deal with what was at the time a problem that people were sort of spending time looking at. and we never quite got there. and one of the reasons was that there was, in the government, a view that there should be a law that told everybody how they had to react to cyber difficulties. well, it would take, you know, about every 12 minutes we change how we respond to those

things. so we challenged that. by the time they wrote the law and wrote the regulations, it would have changed 1,000 times. but right now what we're saying, and there's a much, much more educated understanding of this subject than there was years ago, but what we need now so that companies and governments at home and abroad, let's say american companies and governments at home and abroad, because we have companies overseas have to be able to exchange information with the government and in some instances between and among companies that have similar problems so that we, we the american economic system, the american system of government, is in a position to defend itself instantly and to learn from the problems of others. and we believe that a bill that addresses the issue that

provides legality for companies to do that, within appropriate limits, is very, very important so that we can work together to avoid the really difficult things that you've seen and you can multiply those out as being far more. on the issue of financial regulation, i mean, i think the first thing to understand in fact, i'll just say three things. the absolute frustration of running a bank or a financial institution and having a half a dozen regulators in your building telling you how to do -- what you're supposed to do every day and then being in absolute conflict with one another is not a good way to do business and there has to be some strengthening of that process, including some oversight by the congress. the second thing is, all this

time since dodd-frank we still have a third of the regulations that have not been completed. and only, you know, we can only begin to imagine what that's going to do when added to what's already here. the last thing that i think is very, very important is that the regulators are going far beyond where an overkill law already went. and if it doesn't exactly fit what they want to do, they decide, they'll decide what the law is. well, you noticed we've been in the courts on some of those issues quite successfully. and our issue, we were lucky that we dealt with the drisktive issue, not for people -- derivative issue, not for the people who were the outside users, the companies, not the financial institutions, but we're going to have more of that. you're going to see places.

and why would you not? i mean, you write this thing, it's a tome, it's still two or three years from getting completed, it was written in anger and written in a hurry. if you don't think you're going to need technical corrections or discussion and explanation, then we're never going to get anywhere. you guys know a lot about that. i hope you'll write on it extensively because it's a real problem. >> i would add two quick comments. we continue to be concerned about the cfpb. this is an agency that has one person running it, doesn't really have anybody surrounding it, has basically an unlimited budget isn't under congressional oversight. if you look at the fsoc issue and take the meth light example. this is an example which tom mentioned in his speech about the need for government reform and regulation. here you have a group of regulators who couldn't identify, let alone define, what the systemic risk behavior was in the insurance face. they couldn't decide over here

what was the systemic risk activity. and then they name four companies as systemic risk outside of banking. one of them is obviously going to correctly challenge that because definitionly, if you can't identify the behavior, how do i become a systemic risk institution? so something's awry in this whole process of how we're raising to regulate -- racing to regulate. >> cnn. could you talk a little bit more about the 2016, how you see the presidential race shaping up, and also could you specifically address the fact that mitt romney is thinking about getting in the race? >> well, i'll be glad to make a couple of comments but i have to, you know, first put out my disclaimers. we don't actively participate in the presidential election. we of course comment during the process on the policy issues

involved. and we are interested, of course, on who all the candidates are. just think about it. every morning in america, about 25 or 30 people get up and look in the mirror and say, god morning, mr. president god morning, madam president, and it's the great thing about the american system. it's a great thing. and it's going to have an effect, you name the time, is it six months from now? we thought it would be, but now all of a sudden we're, you know a lot of up front people, it's g