bigger boat. eventually, with the hope of -- help of federal funding, surrounding rural areas as well. cedar falls is iowa policy first gigabit city -- iowa's first gigabit city. that sounds like something out of a star wars movie. here's what it means. your network is as fast as some of the best networks in the world. there is hong kong, tokyo, paris, cedar falls. [laughter] right. [applause] that is the company you are keeping. you are almost 100 times faster than the national average. one hundred times faster. [applause] and you can log on for about the same price as some

folks paid for a fully loaded cable bundle. small businesses serving clients worldwide. google named you the best city in iowa for e-commerce. you do you do not have to be the biggest community to do big things. you have to work together, and we are seeing that elevation and energy and foresight in communities across the country. in lafayette, louisiana companies are bringing jobs to the city. the people of yuma county colorado voted overwhelmingly in favor of a community broadband network.

this is not a partisan issue folks just want to no that they are at the cutting edge of this new economy. folks around the nation want these broadband networks. they promote efficiency and competition. here in cedar falls, if you do not want the highest speed package you can choose between the utilities or options like mediacom. it is not like you do not have choices. that is how free market and capitalism is supposed to work. here is the catch. and too many places across america big companies are doing everything they can. we have laws on the books that stamp out competition and make

it difficult for communities to provide their own broadband the way that you do. in some states it is virtually impossible. today i am saying, we have got to change that. enough is enough. [applause] not long ago i made my position clear on what is called net neutrality. today i am making my administration's position clear on community broadband i am on the side of competition and small business owners like mark. i believe a community has the right to make its own choices. no one will force you, but if

you want to, if the community decides that this is something that we want to do they should be able to do it. if there are laws in place that prohibit or restrict these efforts all of us should do everything we can to push back. i believe that is what stands out about america, this belief that more competition means better products and cheaper prices. it is just common sense. that is why why leaders from 50 cities and towns across the country have pledged to bring next-generation broadband to their cities and towns and i am announcing additional efforts to encourage communities to follow your lead.

slow the expansion of broadband, limit competition. the department of commerce is here and will work to offer support and technical assistance to communities that want to follow your lead. usda, the department of agriculture. this summer i will host mayors from across the country to chart the next steps we need to take. that that is what we we will be doing. [applause] the good news is, we no that it works because of you.

you took a chance and made something happen. you are supporting the jobs of the future. i want to leave you with a story of another community that has done this as well, chattanooga tennessee was once called the dirtiest city in the nation. they were hit harder than most places, but that did not stop them from building america's 1st citywide high-speed fiber network. just as fast as what you have in cedar falls. a new generation has moved down to chattanooga, businesses have set up shop. it is unleashing a tornado of

innovation. the city is testing out innovation. it is like being the 1st city to have fire. [laughter] we don't no all of the things that we can do with it yet, but think about that. that. when you are 1st and something you may not no all of the applications right away, but that is the spirit of america, imagining what might come next. we may not always know what is around the corner, but we no that we we will figure it out as long as we are bold and work together. we have been through hard times. we did not always know that they were coming. we pulled together, relied on each other and figured it out. we are blessed with the greatest

natural resource in the world, not corn. [laughter] but the ingenuity and the willingness to take risks of the american people. i am confident if we give americans the tools that they need, help lay the foundation and allow them to access the amazing opportunities and technologies of this moment in world history they are not going to continue recovering from a bad recession but ignite the next generation of american innovation, and it we will start right here in kaywun. thank you. god bless god bless you. god bless america. [applause]

> on the next washington journal, howard schmidt will join us. we will talk about the white house's efforts to prevent cyber attacks. and then lee goodman discusses rules on political party funding and the future of put speech online. later, walter, the president of the association of community colleges, on the president's plan. washington journal come alive every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. health and human services secretary sylvia burwell will speak about the white house's health care priorities. it is that 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> the c-span cities to her takes the book tv and american

history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their literary light. we visited wheeling, west virginia. >> i wrote these books. two volumes. the reason i thought it was important to collect them is wheeling transformed into an industrial city in the latter part of the 19th century. the earliest part of the 20th century. it is uncommon in west virginia in that it true immigrants from various parts of europe here in search of jobs and opportunity. that generation of immigrants is pretty much gone. i thought it was important to record their story, give memories of the immigrant generation and the ethnic neighborhoods they formed. it is an important part of our history. most people tend to farkas does focus on the frontier and civil

war history to read of equal importance is the industrial time and the immigration that wheeling had. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on the frontier. that river was the western extent of the u.s. in the 1770's. the first project funded by the federal government was the national road that extended from cumberland maryland to wheeling. when it comes to wheeling, that will give this community, which is about 50 years old, the spurt it needs for growth. over the next 20-25 years, the population of wheeling will almost triple.

>> watch all of our events saturday afternoon eastern on book tv. >> a three-judge panel heard oral argument monday on the constitutionality of an arizona state law banning at big studies. the band led to a dismantling of a mexican-american studies program in the tucson district. this is about 45 minutes.

>> good morning. may it please the court, my name is erwin. i represent the plaintiff's. i would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. state and local governments have tremendous discretion in setting the curriculum of public schools. the supreme court has repeatedly made clear that there are constitutional limits. this is the exceptional case where the state has violated those limits by a law that prohibits speech and it does so in terribly overbroad and vague language. overbroad and vague language. it is also a law that has motivated and is implemented with a discriminatory animus toward mexican-americans. the district court correctly found that section a3 was

unconstitutionally overbroad. it prohibits courses or classes designed primarily for minority students. all teachers try to engage their students. a teacher in a class of primarily african-american or latino students would of course be expected to teach material designed to appeal to them. an english teacher who chose to take the works of my a angelo or toni morrison -- or a music teacher who brought in rap lyrics or hip-hop to african-american-latino students would violate the statute. but the same notes of a2 and a4, are also overbroad. section a2 says a class on the basement of race is prohibited. last week we filed the judicial

notice, a letter sent on january 2, notifying the tucson unified school district that it is in violation. the example he gives in that letter is a question that a teacher asked whether american slavery is particularly brutal, how then is it possible to teach slavery in a matter that might not provoke -- promote resentment based on race treated how might a teacher teach about ferguson or policing in a matter that might not promote resentment on the basis of race. >> section -- section a4 prohibits courses or classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, instead of treating people as individuals. i'm not sure what that means but i would focus on the examples where the superintendent a week ago friday found that tucson was in violation.

one was a class that simply said it would teach hip-hop music. another was a class that said it would look at mexican and mexican-american history. does it promote ethics solidarity at the expense of individuality? does patriotism? a stance that is fake and overbroad violates the student's first amendment right. if you look at the administrative law that judges order, he talks about how the look is at student work and decide if it highlights. the letter on january 2 talks about looking at student work. nicholas dominguez, on >> he talks about as a student, he change the weigh wrote in

essays because of knowledge of the law. this shows what teachers teach, and that interferes with the right students to receive information. the third quarter -- there are decorations in the record from teachers. you have decorations from curtis from lorenzo lopez. in volume eight from sara rusk, that it changed what they did as teachers. >> it was supposed to change what they did as teachers. >> yes, your honor, and a state may do so, but when a law is vague and overbroad and it has the tremendous sanctions this law does, then it risks chilling a tremendous amount of speech and that interferes with the right of students to receive information. >> you agree i take it that the state does have the power -- the teaching is government activity and the state has the power to direct what is to be

taught? >> yes, your honor. but when a law like here is enforced by looking at student work then it goes beyond regulating speech. if you look at administrative law, and the superintendent's letter from january 2nd, both emphasized the need to look at student work. that is chilling student fashion. >> it doesn't tell the student that he he can't speak in a certain it reflects what the student is taught. >> that is why the vagueness and groifer bread this of the statute is important. when is a student going to know that an essay is reflective of whether or not a teaching is promoting racial reisn'tment. >> there is no sanction being taken against the student. it is taken against the course. that is, a course that produces

this kind of student work is suspicious. >> that draws a distinction between a sanction between the school district and where the student suffers. here the school district loses 10% of its funds a month. those who would suffer are the students. >> only if what they are being taught isn't something they are entitled to receive. let's take the first one which is not at issue here. promote the overthrow of the united states government. is arizona allowed to enact that that provision? >> your honor, i think this, too, would be unconstitutionally overbroad. here too, the example from the superintendent letter is so important. notice in his letter of january 2 the example he picks with violence is having lyrics from the group rage against the

machine taught how could any teacher know that a single song would do that? one of the key problems is language is taken out of con text from songs from textbooks, and it is then used for violation. one of the things the supreme court -- >> i'm concerned here. is this an attack on the administrative law judge decision? the judge pointed to the a.l.j.'s decision as perhaps the solution to the overbread this problem. what do you fault in the administrative law judge decision? >> well, the administrative law judge attempted to narrow the statute, and the judge referred to it as sensible. it is important to look at the exact language. the judge said this is going to be narrowed to instances where it is biased, political or emotionally charged. your honor, i would hope that

teaching at all levels is emotionally charged. i don't know how to teach about slavery or racism and policing that is not so often biased in the eyes of the beholder. so the narrowing here is just as overbroad and vague. one of the prisons is vague and overbroad laws lead to discriminatory enforcement. that is what we have here. in answer to your question judge, this is both a facial challenge to the statute and also an as applied challenge, which includes the administrative law judge decision. as long as the administrative law judge decision is there, it too will have a tremendous chilling effect on speech of students and of teachers. the other key issue here goes to equal protection. the escort errored by granting some rejudgment with regard to equal protection in violation

of rule 56-f of the federal rules of civil procedure. perhaps for this reason, the escort -- the distort applied the wrong standard. this court set -- said in pacific shores versus the city of new port. it is from 7 po f- 3 and 114 it. very little evidence is necessary to raise an issue of material fact. any indication of a discriminatory motive sufficient to raise a question bares up only by the fact finder, i would suggest that the evidence in this case more exceeds that. to begin with, he campaigned for this law by saying that he wanted to "stop laraza." you find that quote on page

1288 of the record. if you look at the dictionary as quoted on four of or applied brief, it is a synonym for the mexico-american people. for a key official with regard to law if they want to stop the mexican-american people by this law, that clearly is enough to go to the trier of fact. >> was he using it to mean the mexican-american people? >> your honor, i cannot know weigh means. but when you look at words it is common to look at the dictionary definition. we quote a standard dictionary in footnote to page four of the applied brief. of course that is not the only evidence of discriminatory intent in this case. when he was secretary, warren said that three of the four ethnic study companieses likely

violated the statute. the enforcement proceedings were brought only against mexican-american studies. second horne before leaving office found that the entire tuscon procedure violated the statute. under the village of arlington heights, not following proper procedures is not key evidence. under arlington heights, discriminatory impact is relevant. 9% of the students in this program were mexican-american. >> i am not sure the arlington heights is a close one. the concern in arlington heights is the use of surrogates or subterfuge in order to accomplish a goal of not having certain people live there. in this case it is not a case whether american-american students are going to be

educated in tuscon schools, but what program is offered to them. >> but that is it the leading supreme court case that outlines what evidence is relevant with regard to discriminatory intent. the pacific shores case and the language i quoted says in implementing arlington heights, very little evidence is necessary. >> what is the discrimination? it is not that there is not going to be education offered to american-american children. it is that particular programs shouldn't be offered? >> no. your honor. the point is the reason why the legislature adopted this and why they found violation was a discriminatory and muss against mexican-americans. the district court said secretary horne's not following procedures raised sparks and red flags of discriminatory and muss. we suggest it is much more than that when you look at the record here.

it is also notable that when the superintendent took office, he commissioned his own study. that study found no evidence of violation of the statute, found that the courses were rigorous and very effective. he then ignored the report and found his own violations. after that an additional stud was done by the special master in the desegregation cation. both studies found that this course was tremendously effective from an educational perspective. the statistics here i point you to on page 202 and 203 of the report from the cabrera report, students who participate in the program had 108% greater chance of graduating than those who didn't. they found in 2008 those who participated in the program passed the standard math test

144% more, the writing test, 162% more, the reading test, 168% more. the question is, in light of those statistics is there anything that explains this other than discriminatory and muss. there is potentially two explanations of what happened here. a benign explanation, an explanation about discriminatory and muss. all i have just cited that the tier of fact could have concluded the latter. under pacific shores, they should have gone to that trier of fact. >> who would the trier of fact be? >> a judge because this is a case seeking injunketive and declare tore relief. >> is there really any difference? if you heard from the same person who is the trier of fact, what changes? >> in this case, an enormous

amount. the judge erred by granting summary judge. the rules of civil procedure say before a judge grants a motion, there should be notice to the parties. here there is a great difference between the evidence that would be produced on a motion for preliminary junction. i will give you examples. the district court says there is no evidence of the report being disregarded. of course there was no evidence. there was no knowledge that summary judgment was going to be produced. he refers only to the complaints. i reserve my time for rebuttal. >> i have a couple of questions. >> sure, judge. >> you know that the justice

has been a colleague of mine for a good many years, and i know him as a very fair-minded person. and of course he himself has experienced considering racial discrimination in world war 23r -- world war ii. i can't believe he came with any racial animus. i tend to look at a starting point what was the judge like? do you want to come in on that? >> yes, of course. in no way do i attribute any racial animus to the judge. it is about the arizona legislature and the secretaries of education who implemented the law. however, your honors, although the judge is your colleague

you have to give devon novo review. here i believe the judge was correct in finding a-3 was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, but by the same reasoning, so were a-2 and a-4. the judge made a mistake. he didn't follow rule-56-f of the rules of civil procedure. and maybe because of that reason he applied the wrong standard. >> i wanted to ask you what is the present situation? has this program continued defacto even though it has been attacked by the superintendent? is it still in place? >> your honor, the mexican-american studies program was eliminated after the administrative law judge decision because tuscon didn't want to risk loss of funds. but the statute remains in effect. that is why the letter from the secretary from january 2, 2015 is so important. look at the things that he said

currently are violating the statute. they so powerfully show the vagueness of the law. >> the program was abandoned, but what is he objecting to now? >> i am sorry, your honor. i didn't hear. >> i'm sorry. as i understand, you are saying the school district abandoned the program, but the superintendent is still objecting to something? >> yes. >> what is he objecting to? >> the mexican-american studies program was eliminated, but the law remains in effect. i filed a letter last tuesday in this court asking that you take judicial notice of a letter from from the secretary issued january 2 2015, finding that tuscon is currently in violation of the statute. that letter shows that this

statute continues to have great effect, and that letter shows better than any hypotheticals how tremendously overbroad and vague the statute is. i will safe the rest of the time for rebuttal. thank you. >> may it please the court, my name is leslie cooper, and i am here on pavon of the state defendants. i would first like to address the january 2, 2015 letter from the superintendent. it is not part of the record and shouldn't be. and if it is, it should be viewed in context as part of a conversation with tusd that began with tusd agreeing to disband this mexican-american studies program after the superintendent adopted the a.l.j.'s decision.

it is a long letter and recounts in great detail the circumstances if the court is inclined which it should not be to read all of it. secondly regarding student achievement and the purported effect of these programs on student achievement. that evidence is irrelevant here. in any event the special master's study is not part of the record. it was presented to the judge just a few weeks before he issued his decision long after the case was briefed and oral argument heard. the state defendant ants objected to it, and there is no sign that the judge considered that evidence as part of the record. moving to the students first amendment -- >> wouldn't it potentially become part of the record or whatever evidence lay behind it if in fact summary judgment had been denied? i understand the argument being made is that the case shouldn't

have been resolved at the time it was because there was relevant evidence that could have been submitted and could have been considered by the court but for the fact of the summary judgment being granted. >> well, i'm not sure. the court should have been rejected that evidence even if it had been timely submitted. >> because? >> because the evidence of student achievement is irrelevant in this situation. >> why? >> the state has plenary authority to curriculum for its public school students. the supreme court has recognized this. >> that doesn't make it irrelevant. if it is demonstrated that a given program produces better results in terms of student achievement and that program is outlawed, it would seem to support an infernos of discriminatory intent if in fact educational achievement is more successfully attained through the program. >> the question here is in fact the state's authority to set

its curriculum. >> the state has the authority. but if the state rejects a program that is more effective in educating children, doesn't that suggest or strengthen the infernos the reason the state is acting not because it wants to produce better educated children? it seems to mlb that the state's regulation is intended with discriminatory intent to hold back a given group of the student population. >> i think then you need to look at the district court's decision below and its review of the evidence in terms of the equal protection claim. the court carefully reviewed that evidence using the standard set out in arlington heights, and he concluded there was no evidence of discriminatory animus against a group of people but about a program. >> let me ask you about the

piece of the statute that was struck down by the district court as overbroad. >> yes. >> designed primaryly for pupils of a particular ethnic group. why doesn't that by itself suggest discriminatory animus? >> the nude to look at the statute in its entirety. you need to look at the purpose as set out in 15:111. >> the statute specks in the -- speaks in the alternative, right? these courses are prohibitted if they fit one, two, three or four right? >> yes they do. >> so why shouldn't we focus then on each individually? >> you can focus, but you still must look at the stated purpose in focusing on each individual pronger. and you must also look at 112 :e:3 that specifically permits

classes about the history of an ethnic group as long as they are open to and for all students. so we can have the teaching about an ethnic group. it is the divisive, segregative, separationist teaching for one group that this statute is designed to prohibit. >> but it does have sub-part three. >> yes it does. >> which doesn't speak at all about the content of the course. it assembly speaks of who the pupils are going to be. it is not hard to figure out that some classes are more attractive than others. nobody would be surprised that a mexican studies program might atract more mexican-american students. that doesn't mean the content of that program has to be offensive or contrary to the purpose the state has set out in other provisions of its statutes. but this statute 12 -- 112 says you can't have a course designed for pupils of a

particular eth nick group. >> that is why you don't think you could give too much weight to the ethnicity of the students in the class when deciding how the district had designed the curriculum. the statute prohibits courses or closes which are designed for students of one ethnic group while simultaneously recognizing that courses that include the history of an ethnic group are fine. it prohibits classes for an ethnic group, not classes about an ethnic group. this is consistent with the purpose of statute as stated in 15-111 -- >> the subsection you are referring to says classes that include the history of a subgroup. that would suggest a class in mexican-american history. that is not just including, but about that. and it is likely most of the students would sign up for that would be mexican-americans and

that seems to run afoul of subpart three. >> i don't think it runs afoul of subpart three unless it is designed for the purpose of separating out those students and teaching a separate history that is not applicable to all the students in that school or that district. >> i am not maybe not following you, and it may be my fault. what is an example of a course that would not violate one two or four but would violate three and therefore would be prohibited? >> if you had a class that is designed for one ethnicity for the purpose of separating them out, the irish, the germans, jews asians, but is not about

that group. >> i'm not quite sure what you mean by "purposes of separating them out" unless you are talking about number four, advocating ethnic solidarity. what the judge said was he couldn't see what was prohibited by three that wasn't prohibitted by the other provisioned, and therefore it had the very great danger it was prohibiting someday that constitutionally couldn't be proinlted, or it invited overbreadth or vagueness because it served no obvious purpose. i'm still not hearing an example from you of why that isn't true? >> i think you could have a class that was for an ethnic group that didn't necessarily teach ethnic solidarity that

would be in violation of the statute. but if the court is included to agree with the judge -- >> what is that? i am trying to imagine what it would be? your cross appeal argues that three should be reinstated. it shouldn't be struck down as overbroad. you want that to be in the statute. why? what would that accomplish? and how would it accomplish something that wouldn't suggest discriminatory animus? >> well, the discriminatory animus that is alleged here is against lit no, sir or mexican-americans. so if the class were for some other group the evidence that is offered here of course about would not be pertinent to that. you could perhaps have a class in japanese studies that would be designed solely for japanese students perhaps not -- to not advocate ethnic solidarity, but

would nonetheless be for them and not about, and that by a violation of the statute. >> and what would would be the state's purpose in inacting that? >> the state is concerned that all of its students should receive the same foundational education, should be taught as individuals not divided on the basis of grooms such as class or race. >> so if you have a classroom of students, some of which has command of the english language because that is what their household has spoken their whole likes and some of which who don't, and the fact that differential is leichtly reflected in ethnic differential, the state of arizona want to make sure that people who need extra help in english don't get it? >> well, there is a specific provision that relates in terms of english language learners. i am not sure i understand.

>> try some other class. >> supposing you had a course in the public schools of san francisco in chinese history. it was theoretically open to everyone, but lo and behold in designing it, the designers said with the substantial chinese population in certain parts of san francisco, we think this will be especially effective in helping chinese students to understand their history. if that were in arizona, would that be forbidden by the statute? >> it could be, yes, your honor. >> and why? how does that not suggest discriminatory animus? we don't want minorities to develop any kind of ethnic pride? >> i'm not sure that the purpose -- that the public school's purpose needs to be to develop ethnic pride.

in some of the legislature hearings that the playoffs asked the court to take judicial notice of, some parents noted that it was the role of parents to incullcate those values. i don't know that there is a constitutional right to classes that would promote that ethnic pride. >> but then you've got a problem with the potential inference that the intent of the statute is to make sure that certain grooms don't ee -- certain groups don't emerge. why couldn't that be in certain forms of discriminatory animus? >> we need to look at the purpose of this. the statements that were made by the legislators that were made at the time this statute was passed, concern about a program that was divisive, and separative, and took students away, that taught values that the ledge slaves believed were

antethetical of state values. >> i hear that as a justification for subparts two and four. i don't understand how that is a justification for subpart three unless there is a broader animus against the minority population. >> there is not sufficient evidence as the judge found, of that broader animus towards the minority population. the concern that is stated by those who are in favor of this law is in regard to a program, not a people. if i may then address the question of whether or not it was correct for the judge to grant summary judgment on the equal protection claim, in oral argument on the many motions and cross motions plaintiffs counsel said the record is complete with respect to the differential treatment the

equal protection. i think with that and with the substantial evidence that had been presented by the playoffs on support of that claim and others, it was correct for the judge to grant summary judgment in favor of the state on the equal protection claim. >> wouldn't the normal course in a district court be -- if the judge was thinking of converting some other motion to summary judgment, to announce that to the parties, give them an opportunity to say whether there was additional evidence that they wanted to present on summary judgment and have them flesh out the record or not as the case may be? that is the normal course, yes? >> yes, that is the normal course. >> what was the justification for not following that normal

course here? >> i think first of all, the judge could have predicated that the record was complete. >> was that said in the context of the entire case or just said in the context of the particular motion before the judge? >> they put a number of motions in front of the judge. >> all the more reason. it was not unambiguous. wasn't that statement ambiguous? >> no, i don't think so. >> did the judge saying -- maybe he did, i don't know did he say complete for all purposes in all motions now and forever this case? >> there was no, by the judge. >>-- no comment by the judge. >> i have thought about future motions. >> he was before the court on a motion for primary injunction. a very high standard of proof presented substantial evidence,

lengthy argument, 22 pages on the equal protection claim alone. you will find it in e.r. 3 911-33. it was appropriate for the judge to conclude that the issues had been fully ventilated. and frankly, i think you can look at the kind of evidence they believe that they would introduce and to further support technical protection claim and conclude that -- support the equal protection claim and conclude that that was not the conclusion that the judge would have claimed. they are reaching to earlier versions that were substantially different and even to statements that were made in connection with other bills. there is no way to tie those statements, those snippets those cherry picked little pieces, to the legislative intent that animated this bill and no reason you should look behind the purpose that is stated in 15111 that represents

the collective statement of the arizona, the collective intent of the arizona legislature in passing this bill. if i may briefly address the first amendment right. students right to receive information was acknowledged by the supreme court. but the supreme court -- that was a plurality decision, not a majority. the supreme court there also said the petitioners might well defend their claim of absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values. even more importantly, the supreme court noted that removal from the library of a book based solely upon the educational suitability would be "perfectly permissible." that is why think this court should be guided by its

decision in downs where it recognize that curriculum is government speech. and a fifth circuit decision from 2005 where they recognize that curriculum is government speech and the government need not share his podium with another speaker. the court is to be guided as well by epperseonon, the case involving the teaching and arkansas of evolution. the statue that prohibited that teaching. there, the supreme court found that the restriction on curricular speech constituted an independent constitutional violation of the free exercise in establishment clause and struck it down. here we have no independent violation of any students right to receive information.

are there anymore questions? >> if we were to conclude that the third prong is unlawful, is it severable or not? >> yes, it is. >> why? >> why? because -- as you noted the statute is listed in the disjunctive. or or, or. you do not need to find all of the prongs have been violated before the superintendent to consider bringing -- >> as you told me previously, we have to look at the whole statute? it was designed to be a single coordinated approach to what was perceived as a problem. with each section taking meaning from the others and from the overall purpose. i thought that was your argument

a few minutes ago? >> it was designed-- -- >> so, maybe that suggest the legislature did not view this as severable. they viewed it as a coordinated package. if it turns out one provision was unconstitutional, the sensible thing is to have them reconsider the entire statute rather than our cherry picking? >> i think the legislature could want the statute to be viewed in its entirety, but could write t he statute in such a way that if one prong were struck down, it would still because attrition -- still be constitutional. it may not achieve every sickle purpose of the legislature but it still functions. for that reason, this court should agree that it is severable and the rest of the statute stands.

>> thank you. >> mr. chemerinsky. there is no doubt that state can set the curriculum, but this is a law that prohibits speech by looking at what the students each is. a-3 was properly found by the district court to be vague and overbroad. if there's even a class that is primarily designed for people of a particular ethnic group, it violates the law. if they taught a class to appeal to them, that would violate the statute. you asked the question of

severability. we believe each of depositions at unconstitutional and overbroad. there is no severability clause in the statue. the question of severability is one of arizona law. ther arizona court said the -- severability clause is relevant. it is not determinative. would the legislature have adopted the position without the offending section? we believe thatey would not have adapted? >> is that so clear? what the judge found in effect was that the other provisions of the statute were lawful, search the legislative purpose. this one he found in effect was not only unlawful but specifically did not serve the legislative purpose in ways

other than were a cop wish by the other provisions. so if he is right about that does it severability make perfect sense? >> no. a-3 was at the core of the statue. if you start with the earliest versions of the law, this is a l aw that would not have been adopted without a-3. if i may take one more moment to address the second issue? the second issue is that the statute is unconstitutional violating equal protection because the discriminatory animus and its adoption implantation. we made the point here that the judge erred under rule 56. the advisory committee -- ad apted in 2010 say the judge want to do the summary judgment and invite the parties to make such a motion. that was not done here. there is a tremendous difference between briefing for motion for plenary junction and summary

judgment. in fact, the supreme court and university of texas in the second circuit made this point. i would conclude toby saying there is so much evidence that indicates that there was a discriminatory animus, including a laminating a program that was proven to be tremendously successful -- eliminating a program that was proven to be successful. that was enough to prove that the should of gone -- summary judgment was wrongly granted. thank you so much. >> we thank both counsel for both arguments for the case is committed. the final case on the argument calendar is camp versus nevin. i suspect that we will have a lot of people moving around. we will sit in place as you reassemble. dr. anthony

>> we see the headline here, the house "to revoke or texans for million of immigrants. they are trying to undo president obama's policy. it would revoke protection for millions of undocumented immigrants. the new york times reports if -- it jewel outrage from democrats -- it ddrew outrage from democrats. here is what happened. >> would cover the debate. he covers congress for politico and joining us. to for being with us. >> to wear for having me. >> house republican party, what did lawmakers vote on today? >> vote -- they did a lot on immigration policy and don department of homeland security. the underlying deal is dhs

through september 30. dhs was put on the short funding lease back in december. the current funding runs out february 27. leadership predicted precisely that. so they could fight president obama's immigration policy when they had control of both chambers. in addition, the house voted on several different amendments there rolled back different parts of the president's executive action on immigration. not just when he announced in the past november but dating back at 2011. >> let me as by the proposal put forward by -- an acronym for the deferred action or childhood arrival program. why did she put this on the floor? why did they fail? what's many house republicans felt that going after the more executive actions and was not

enough. they wanted to go all the way back to what you called the deferred action for childhood arrival room, which was announced in 20 12 and different enforcement directives for 2011 to really get on with called the root of the president's executive action he has taken under his administration. what congresswoman made clear was not only would it not take any new applications but not -- in the current immigrants who -- 600,000 could not renew their applications, the temporary is a two year work permit and it changes to three years with the latest executive action. a lot for public had a problem with that provision. they are saying we do not like the president's executive action and do not agree. it went to our when you are

blocking the people who had already submitted all of their information to the federal government. they are living carefree without fear and it went too far for them. >> and that became part of the democratic strategy? >> they knew they had all third-party together with the amendments create it was really republican leadership had to count every last vote. we knew that will be the closest one to make sure it has. leadership would not want to measure on the floor they cannot pass that cannot pass their chamber. the vote was very close. it was 218-209. a higher number than most of us expected. >> lets me as about the gop and the politics they are facing. he said the chance of getting it into the senate would be nil. this created a fortune area >> -- friction.

>> immigration is very divisive right now. it has been even after we saw the election numbers in 2012 when mitt romney lost though latino photo by such a large margin. everybody wanted to do -- lost the latino photo by such a large margin. -- everybody wanted to do comprehensive immigration reform. you have steve king of iowa, one of the most vocal opponents of pathway to legal status. he has called for a much tougher crackdowns on immigration. you have voice on the other hand -- end such as the congressman in florida was the working on legislation for pathway to citizenship. there's an element of presidential politics. this legislation that senators

who are considering a run or the presidential nomination, marco rubio florida, rand paul, and ted cruz -- most of you have the chance to vote on in the coming weeks. and it will be fascinating to see the influence of the 2016 breeze on the votes. >> and will come before the senate? >> there's no final decision. his office is saying that members are discussing the pathway forward. no formal decision as of now. if the house picks up or the senate picks up this legislation or something similar, the implication would be interesting. >> joining us on capitol hill. she covers congress for political. thank you. >> the house voted today to roll that president obama's immigration actions.

that reporter writing that in the house version of the home and security spending bill has no hope of getting through the senate where democrats have said they would wage a filibuster and some republicans are likely to join in opposition. senators weighed in today. senator barbara boxer sent a tweet saying instead of -- we are going to hear some the debate now from the house floor before the vote. the vote. >> i want to thank the chairman of the appropriations committee mr. carter for his leadership, and putting a comprehensive bill on the floor. our presenting today along with my distinguished colleagues in particular from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and also mr. barr leta from pennsylvania, an amendment that defunds the president's unconstitutional

executive actions on illegal as has been noted here, the house voted to fund the federal government for this fiscal year. but we kept funding on a continual resolution. we made a promise to the american people that once we had a republican senate, we would work together as a congress to ensure that the president's unconstitutional and unilateral actions would not go unchecked. today, with this amendment, that promise has been kept. at this time, i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee 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-