issues. they're working on that and immigration will be an issue in the house and senate today. enjoy the rest of your friday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] become, thank you for giving us another day. in these days our nation is faced with pressing issues, including once again a troubling impasse. grant wisdom, knowledge and understanding to members of each party as well as an extra measure of charity that a workable solution can be reached to the benefit of all americans. help us all to be patient yet resolute in the desire to do what is the right thing to do however your inspiration might

impell. and may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. speaker pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not pnt. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. brooks. mrs. brooks: if you all will join me in the pledge.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: february 27, 2015, appointment of director of congressional budget office, pursuant to section 201-ac of the congressional budget and impailment control act of 1972, 2 u.s.c. 60 1 the speaker of the house of representatives and the president protemperature of the senate hereby jointly appoint dr. homer keith hall as director of the congressional budget office. effective april 1 2015 for the term expiring january 3, 2019. signed orrin hatch, president protemperature of the senate and john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker: the chair will

entertain one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the obama majority on the f.c.c. seized unprecedented control over the internet under the guise of net neutrality. now, net neutrality is the notion that the latest cat video is of equal importance to a teleconference consultation for a heart patient. to impose this leftist ideology on the internet the f.c.c. has just placed it on the same stifling regulatory structure as the phone company or broadcast stations. this gives them potential control over content and it destroys the price-driven incentives for innovation expansion, speed, economy that americans have long enjoyed. it means more costs as government piles on new fees. and the natural incentives to invest are stifled.

its internet services conspicuously slower, ponderous. the reason the internet has grown and thrived is because government has kept his fat, corrupt, incompetent hands off of it. that era ended yesterday and that's a shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognio mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i rise to publicly apologize to leader mccarthy for a remark i made by myself that was picked up by the house microphone yesterday. it was said out of frustration and anger. it was wrong. and i have apologized privately to mr. mccarthy, who i believe is a man of integrity in this house and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texs recogd e >> mr. speaker, yesterday i introduced a bill that would authorize and request the president toward our -- to award the highest honor to eaksan who served this nation with distinction. chris kyle protected many. chris kyle voluntarily put his life on the line when he completed his first tour in iraq and when he returned not once but three more times. make no mistake, the medal of honor will not bring back a husband, father, son and a model texan but the medal of honor will show chris kyle's family our gratitude for his relentless devotion to our country. mr. speaker, since its inception the medal of honor has been awarded 3,507 times. i challenge someone to tell me chris kyle didn't show the bravery that is prerequisite for this high honor. mr. williams: i challenge anyone to tell me that his courageous acts are undeserving of this recognition.

chris kyle is someone who we should strive to be. he is a true american patriot whose acts of valor must be permanently etched in our nation's history. in god we trust, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak about the importance of impact aid which impacts 1300 school districts in my country, make up of lost revenue due to federal lands that reduce the available tax base. among the most heavily impacted districts in the country, the central school district is home to many live near military bases. it has not received the aid it has relied on to support these military connected kids. i'd like to thank the education and work force committee ranking member mr. scott for

including an amendment that we'll consider that will help schools get the impact aid funding they rely on. i look forward to working with the committee and our colleagues in the senate to include this provision and any final legislation that re-authorizes the elementary and secondary education act. mr. speaker, this is important to kids. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balancofis t for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about an american hero, allen harrington of anderson indiana, was one of the nation's first african-american marines. he and his fellow monthford point marines -- montford point marines broke the color barrier. he aided efforts to rescue prisoners of war being held by the japanese. how many americans can say they broke racial barriers while

serving our country when the future of the free world was on the line? allen harrington could. unfortunately, he passed away in 2002, nine years before legislation was passed awarding living members of the montford point marines the congressional gold medal. this weekend residents of anderson and his family will gather at city hall to pay tribute to his tremendous legacy. i look forward to presenting his daughter, darlene, a special certificate and letter from the president and replica montford point marine medal. i'm glad he hailed from indiana's fifth district and proud that his remarkable life will finally receive the recognition it deserves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from indiana yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: once again, the republicans have brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. this time the department of homeland security. for weeks the department, specifically designed to keep

america and americans safe, has been forced to spend time and resources, making plans to lay off 30,000 workers, to stop paychecks for hundreds of thousands of critical workers like the coast guard and border patrol agents and t.s.a. at the airports. why are they on this dangerous mission? so they can continue their futile and cruel war against immigrant children and families. now i hear they will try to put the department of homeland security back in limbo for another three weeks while they figure out some other mischief. this is reckless. this is irresponsible and dangerous. shame on the republicans for doing this. stop it. just pass a clean bill for a continuous funding of the department of homeland security. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, tomorrow is rare disease day

and i stand to help raise awareness for more than 7,000 different types of rare diseases and disorders that affect more than 300 million people nationwide. today the national institute of health is celebrating its eighth annual rare disease day and i applaud their efforts to bring awareness to this very important issue. mr. speaker, in the united states a condition is considered rare if it affects fewer than 200,000 people combined in a particular group. in the u.s. today there are approximately 30 million people living with rare diseases many of whom are inflicted with diseases whose diseases are so complex that they remain simply undiagnosed. some are genetic and about half of all rare diseases affect children. mr. speaker, i ask all my colleagues to join me not just today but every day in helping raise awareness on this very important issue that effects so many people in this nation and around the world and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to urge house republican leadership to put a bill to fund the department of homeland security on the floor, a clean bill for a vote. it's our job to lead this great nation and america deserves better than political gamesmanship. the threats facing our country are real. the department of homeland security is on the front lines making sure or communities are safe. mr. desauliner: they secure our borders are safe. if congress fails to fund d.h.s., 169,000 border patrol agents, customs and border protections officers t.s.a. aviation security screeners and active duty coast guard military will report to work but not receive a paycheck. mr. peters: and that's just wrong. i joined serve of my colleagues today to withhold congressional pay if homeland security is shut down. it's simple. if the hardworking men and women of the department of

homeland security will continue to work but not receive a paycheck, members of congress who have failed to do their job should not receive a paycheck either. let's do the right thing, cleanly fund our homeland security and quit political gamesmanship. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate nicholas bennett for making his 1,000th half court basketball shot on january 24. it's not the shot that's impressive it's nicholas. you see, nicholas is a senior at a high school and he also has autism. mr. collins: as manager of the school varsity basketball team, he wanted to sink 1,000 half court shots by graduation, he consistently made those shots on the way to fulfilling his promise. nicholas got his first-ever opportunity at the game last month and he scored on the

opening play and sunk his 1,000th half court shot during halftime. one of those people who -- he's one of those people who impresses you the minute he meets you. his dedication to the team are an inspiration. his motto is have faith. it speaks to georgia's core values. i rise to wish him the best in his future endeavors. sometimes it's not about the shots, it's about the person making the shots, and nicholas, you remind to us have faith. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: i -- we are just hours away from asking 200,000

d.h.s. employees who protect our country to go without pay because republicans can't get their act together. a d.h.s. shutdown doesn't protect us from national security threats and it certainly doesn't solve our disagreements over immigration policy. there is -- this is nothing more than a tantrum but even my 5-year-old son knows that tantrums are a waste of time. it's time to grow up and govern. will you listen to the extremists in your party who are focused on obstruction of progress or will you listen to the majority of americans who want us to fund d.h.s. want us to act on comprehensive immigration reform and want us to govern like adults? i urge my colleagues to pass a clean d.h.s. funding bill. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time.

>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not entertain that request at this time. the chair said he would entertain five requests at the start. and five requests have been entertained. the chair is not prepared to entertain that request at this time.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period less than 15 minutes.

that the democratic leaders in the senate and in the house came before reporters and talked about the path forward. this was before we knew how the republicans would handle homeland security in the house. here's what it looked like. >> i brought my glasses to be with harry, he switched object me -- on me. good morning everyone. it's an honor to be here with the house -- senate democratic leader. to see him being so fit. we come together because we are faced with a challenge for our

country. a challenge to honor our oath of office. now we have this comedy of errors that's been going on this amateur hour in nonlegislation that is standing in the way of our honoring our oath of office. but as we have the debate on it it's important to recognize what it means to people. harry, you remember when we established the department of homeland security and the committee on homeland security. it was controversial, and i don't think we still have it exactly right, but nonetheless, the title, homeland security, was the source of great debate. but it has the word home in it. and this is what it means to people in their homes. a shut down will block $340 million in staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants. you know it as the safer grants.

critical funding for local communities used to help fire departments increase the number of frontline firefighters. it means that the urban areas security initiative, a shut down will block $600 million in the urban area security initiative that support the preparedness of nearly 40 high-threat communities across the country. fema and disaster preparedness grants, think of this under the republican department of homeland security shut down 3,260 fema employees will be furloughed. furloughed means stay home and you don't get paid. do not under any circumstances come to work. critical disaster preparedness grants will be blocked. local jurisdictions, for example, in massachusetts which has been inundated with snow, local jurisdictions will be denied the disaster assistance grants they need to deal with the snow.

d.h.s. shut down in terms of secret service would prevent new hires, vital training, and upgrades across the secret service's protective activities. not only to protect president obama, but to prepare for the upcoming presidential election. under the republican shut down 30,000 d.h.s. employees will be furloughed. another nearly 170,000 d.h.s. employees, made up primarily of frontline security personnel, will have to come to work without pay. that's nearly 200,000 employees that will either be furloughed or asked to work without pay. i don't know about you, but i think almost everybody i know cannot live without having their paychecks or time. members of congress even. and yet they are asking this department of homeland security people to do that. and that nearly 170,000 of

d.h.s. employees, 40,000 are border patrol, 50,000 t.s.a. 13,000 i.c.e., 40,000 -- >> currently, take you back live. the house is gaveling in for legislative work. mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 129 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 12, house resolution 129. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution h.j. res. 35, making further continui appropriations for fisc yr , d r her purposes. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, and two one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. collins: for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york ms. slaughter pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from geora recd. . lls: all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . . mr. collins: i rise today in support of a rule that would provide for funding in the department of homeland security for three weeks. this short six-line resolution, house joint resolution 35, would provide certainty by taking a shut down of the department of homeland security off the table. so why are we here today? we are here because last year the president brought forward a plan to grant executive amnesty to over four million illegal immigrants. i believe that the administration's actions violate

the rule of law, circumvent the role of the american people, and undermine the constitution. these actions have failed the american people. over the last few years, the president's immigration policies have cost the federal government millions of dollars. they have cost our states, our communities, and our local schools and hospitals millions more. i disagree with executive amnesty because i believe it is unwise, unlawful and unconstitutional. that is why six weeks ago the house of representatives did its job. we passed a bill that provided for the funding of homeland security, blocked the president's executive amnesty actions. we had an expectation that the senate would then do its work, stand up for the constitution, while funding the department of homeland security. unfortunately, senate democrats, including numerous senators who have argued repeatedly that no president can unilaterally change the law, have bought that bill. that is why we are here today, because senate democrats refuse to stand up and fight on behalf of the constitution against the president's executive amnesty plan.

we would not be here without a short-term solution if six, only six, senate democrats would stand up for the american people and stop the president's executive amnesty plan. fortunately, mr. speaker the state of texas and others, including my great home state of georgia, stepped up to the plate and led a lawsuit with other states against the president and its unilateral actions. a judge in texas ruled on that case 11 days ago and said that the president's november executive amnesty action was illegal. as long as his injunction remains in place no federal dollars can be used to fund the president's executive action on immigration. that means that for the time being the president's plan has been stopped dead in its tracks. in the meantime, i believe the house must do everything it can to fund the department of homeland security at a critical time which is why i stand in support of the rule that will fund the department through march 19. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?

ms. slaughter: good morning mr. speaker. i rise to thank the gentleman my friend, mr. collins, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker in this house we use a manual of rules, it was written by thomas jefferson. in 1801, when he began writing his manual parliamentaryry procedures, he surely imagined a chamber which follows the rules would be orderly, steadfast, and unwavering. and it could govern our nation in a respectable way. but under the current majority's rule, this house stands in deep contrast to that ideal. yet again, we stand on the brink, on the edge on the precipice of a shutdown. after four years of this kind leadership of self-inflicted wounds and manufactured crises, one would think the house majority would have learned their lesson. it is clear today that they have not. first, republicans promised when they took control of this

chamber that they would govern prudently and fairly and openly with regular order. we haven't seen any of that. then last november when republicans took control of the senate, we were promised that two chambers under republican rule would be better than one. and that the games would be over. and we surely haven't seen any of that, either. . the house majority is not willing to double down on their vendetta against the president. they want to undermine their own party in the process. to the best of my knowledge, every president since eisenhower, republican and democrat, have said some immigration enforcement and other priorities through executive order. but the majority's contempt for this president is so strong that they are engaging in an intraparty war while rome is burning around them to see who can punish him the hardest. mr. speaker, as we stand here debating this the senate is poised to send us a clean

bipartisan bill to fund the department of homeland security to the end of the fiscal year. the republican senate would help from -- with help from democratic senators, is ready to do what's right for the country but the house is so blinded by their need to discredit and disparage the president that they risk the very security of our nation for political games. house minority leader nancy pelosi offered speaker boehner all 188 democrat votes on clean bill to fund the department of homeland security. it would have only needed to come up with 30. but the speaker refused to take them. and if this dangerous continuing resolution were to pass, and it will not be because of the democrat support, it will be pure republican. democrats have been shut out of the process yet again, and today's closed rule brings the tally to 13 closed rules of the

18 rules passed in the 114th congress. the secretary of the department of homeland security, jae johnson, sent a letter to congressional leaders yesterday which laid out what's at stake if his department's funding is disruptive, either through shutdown or short-term continuing resolution. from maintaining the airport security to helping us recover from one of the harshest winters in generations to guarding against cyberthreats to keeping the coast guard running and monitoring possible lone wolf attacks on our homeland by isis the house majority's threatening the safety and security of our nation. secretary johnson went on to say and i quote, as i have noted many times -- excuse me -- mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. in other words, a short-term solution simply keeps us going on this cliffhanger. it exacerbates the uncertainty

for my work force and puts us back in the same position on the brink of a shutdown just days from now end quote. how in the world can we run the united states like this? what must the rest of the worrell think about us as we flounder around here trying to inflict all pain we can on the president of the united states and in any case that is more important to too many members of this house? the prime reason for being here is to tear down the government and the president. and mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the letter from secretary johnson to congressional leaders dated 26, february, 2015, into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: now, these are the consequences of the actions of the chamber's majority. real and dangerous consequences -- no certainty, no safety, no end in sight. i say to my colleagues in the majority, the senate is giving you a way out of this thorny, treacherous brush that you have

built up around yourselves and i urge you and i implore you to follow the path out of that brush. it's the right thing to do for the country, and it's certainly the right thing to do for this institution. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman gis recognized. mr. collins: mr. speaker, i'll just be brief. this frankly is an understanding that this is being brought forward, it's not a contempt as has been said, mr. speaker about this president. this has to due with institutional integrity, that each branch has a role each body within the congress has a role. do your job, that's all we're saying. make compromises where need be, work to progress where need be but if you simply say i will not do anything, and especially from this executive amnesty action, which we believe should not be funded that is a valid point of view. we've got to come to the table. when the administration refuses to negotiate, the american

people see truly we are not functions, not because of this house, but what is happening through a frankly, a frustrating policy from this administration to want to bypass congress. and with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm going to yield myself 30 seconds to say the negotiation took place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: and that is why a bipartisan bill is passing the senate this very moment. and i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the committee on rules, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady from new york. what we're talking about here is simply kicking the can down the road three weeks. the facts in the ground don't change in three weeks. guess what president obama is still president of the united states in three weeks. guess what, harry reid is still the minority leader with enough votes to prevent something from reaching the 60-vote threshold in the senate. all we're doing is giving the republicans yet another chance three weeks from now to remind the american children of

undocumented parents that they want to deport mom and dad and to remind dreamers, aspiring americans who grew up here and know no other country, that they should be deported to a country they haven't been to, might not been to and don't now the language of. that's not a way to win friends . look, when you're going to people in an election cycle, doesn't matter how great your agenda is. it might be great for their pocketbooks, might be great for their values but you know what, if you're trying to deport mom and dad, you're not going to get past the front door. and yet here we are setting ourselves on a cycle every three weeks, every two weeks, every six weeks. apparently the republicans want to remind american children that they want to deport mom and dad. apparently the republicans want to remind young people who grew up here who know no other country, who might want to serve in our military, who

might be a cheerleader or on the football team with your kids, mr. speaker, that they, too, might be deported to a country they don't know who might not speak a language they may not speak. that's not winning electoral strategy and it's contrary to our values as americans. it's against family values. it's against the values of our nation as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. those two can be reconciled through sensible comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our broken immigration system and, yes, it is broken and yes, president obama's first steps don't completely fix it. but together we can make it work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from n yk reserves. the gentlem for recognized. mr. collins: thank you mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield six minutes to my good friend and the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess, member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for six minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. i would -- i come today, of course, to speak on the rule and encourage passage of the rule and encourage passage of the underlying bill, funding the department of homeland security for the next 21 days. i would remind this body that the house last month funded the department of homeland security to the end of the fiscal year, september 30. we have since awaited activity in the senate or over in the other body and that activity unfortunately has not been forthcoming. so we're left again with a deadline situation and the house responsibly, house leadership responseably stepped up to pro-- responsibly stepped up to fund for the next 21 days. the problem goes back to november. the house did not want to fund the president's unlegal, unlawful amnesty. it turns out a federal judge in texas agreed with us here in the house that it was an illegal amnesty. but in reference to comments

just made here on the house floor, here's a pop quiz for everyone. what country, what country is more welcoming than any other country on the face of the earth? what country allows more people in legally than all other countries combined? well that country is the united states of america. last year over one million individuals were welcomed into this country legally, and it has been so every year that i've been in the congress for the last 12 years. that's 12 million people, even using simple math. and all we ask all we ask is that you simply follow existing law. for people who want to say our immigration system is broken, i would submit what is broken is our enforcement system. you need only to look to the southern border last summer and see the flood of unoccupied minors walking across the border and turning themselves

in and this country was required to deal with that on an emergency basis. state of texas was required to deal with that on an emergency basis. a lot of discussion as to why that surge happened. i think there is a link back to the president saying i'm going to suspend enforcement of some of our immigration laws and it sent a message. it sent a message to people y'all come. y'all come, the doors are open. if you get here in time, guess what you won't have to worry about our laws and that was the wrong message because as a consequence, as a consequence, states like my state in texas were required to deal with the influx and required to deal with the increase in social programs that were then called upon to provide those services that had never been budgeted before because they were by definition unexpected.

but i agree that we do have a problem and the problem is the porousity of the southern border, particularly in the reeo grande area of texas. rick perry told the president to come down to the border and see what we were dealing with and the president refused. well many of us have been to the border, bipartisan trips have been conducted it the lower rio grande sector. thankful the sheriffs who show up to work every day to keep our country safe. right now the lion's share of the enforcement on the border of the protection on the border is being done by the texas department of safety, the highway patrol, the people who are supposed to be out catching speeders on the freeway are actually in both on the rio grande to enforce our border

security because it is national security. lieutenant governor patrick, when he was running for election, said over and over again, the security of the southern border is a federal responsibility but it's our problem as state leaders and so they have stepped up and they have spent money. they have committed money. they have committed people and equipment to that southern border, equipment that should have been pledged by the president of the united states and department of homeland security. former governor perry offered president obama an opportunity to come to the border and see what the problem was. the president refused. i think that was a mistake. i think the president should have traveled to the southern border. the reality is that many of the customs and border patrol individuals are not even on the border. they're one county in dealing with the people who've now treked across some of the most dangerous deserts and difficult

country around and are picked up by customs and border patrol now 40, 50, 80 miles from the southern border. the problem is not solved by the president's executive orders. the problem is exacerbated. the president is throwing gasoline on a fire on our southern border and that needs to stop. thank goodness a federal judge recognized that and at least the process temporarily has been halted. the answer, though is to enforce existing law protect and defend our border as all of us were sworn to do when we took that oath of office and that is the type of reform that is needed. i thank the gentleman for yielding the time and i'll yield back to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york mr. israel.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: thank you mr. speaker. i thank my friend from new york, the ranking member, for the time. mr. speaker, i come this morning with some good news that should make us all very comfortable. we received an intelligence dispatch from isis and isil and the good news is that they have decided to finance their terrorist attacks against the united states and the people of the united states based on their continuing resolution, based on short-term funding. they're going to finance the hijacking of airplanes, attacks on americans, attacks on our embassies on a three-week spending resolution. sound preposterous? so is what the house republicans are doing to our department of homeland security. it is a disservice to the american people, it undermines our homeland security. this is not a game, mr. speaker .

three terrorists in brooklyn were arrested yesterday. they were planning to do three things. one, they were planning to hijack airports. two they were planning to kill cops. three they were planning to assassinate the president. there is one department in the federal agency that protects us from hijacking airplanes, assassinating the president and helps protect us from killing cops, it's the department of homeland security. those terrorists were not planning these terrorist attacks based on kicking the can in their budgets. they were planning those terrorist attacks based on doing whatever it took at whatever the cost to inflict harm on this country, and what are house republicans doing in the face of that threat? they're kicking the can with three-week spending resolutions because they disagree with the president on an executive order on immigration.

you have the right to your -- they have the right to their disagreements, mr. speaker. you don't like immigration, debate it. you don't like an executive order oppose it. do not undermine the safety of the american people by weakening the department of homeland security with short-term funding resolutions while our terrorist opponents and enemies are financing those attacks every single day for as long as it takes. . i yield back the balance of my time. i believe i made my point. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point in time i yield to the gentleman from california, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i don't come to the well and speak on rules. i think that the gentlelady from new york will not -- almost not recognize me on the house floor in this capacity. mr. issa: but i think this is an

extremely important rule and i think the last two minority members made the point for me very well, and i'd just like to maybe comment on it for just a moment. mr. polis, a dear friend of mine, that i have co-sponsored and am co-sponsoring legislation with. we agree on a great deal. he talked about the question of whether this was american to do what we are doing. nothing could be more quintessentially american than to say when we have a real difference of opinion between two bodies in this case the house and senate, that we want to provide an opportunity to reconcile those differences. to go to conference, to spend a week or two as necessary publicly as the rules require. debating the differences between our visions. democrats in the senate have been able to keep us from having any kind of a comment on the president's acts which have been

ruled by a federal judge as unlawful and unconstitutional. now, i just got basically told shame on you by my other colleague. i can't understand that. he knows that there's a real difference of opinion in this body between what the president can do and what he is doing. and he said, i'm paraphrasing, he said don't, please, don't shut down the government because you disagree. just disagree. the president has made it very clear time and time again that the wrong place to argue with him is on a debt limit. the wrong place to argue is on the budget. and now the wrong place is to argue is on our one constitutional absolute which is the power of the purse. mr. speaker, there is no more

important place for us to reconcile these differences than when we are debating the power of the purse. the president has said he has the authority, fine. federal judge will decide that. but the house can decide whether or not to fund him. it is our obligation to decide whether or not his spending of the american people's hard-earned money is, in fact, consistent with the best interests of the american people. now, i want immigration reform. i want every aspect of it. i have hardworking farm families in my district who cannot live without an effective solution for an out-of-control farm labor base. almost every farm labor in california is either -- either is or was unlawfully in this country at one time. we have held up other immigration waiting to try to get an agreement with the senate. if we do not begin today by

creating space in our democracy for the healthy debate between the two bodies over the next three weeks, then we have shirked our duty. if we simply shut down and give up, we have shirked our duty. if we simply capitulate and fund whatever the president wants just a blank check, we might as well just say spend such funds as you may need to and go home. that's not what the american people want us to do. they want us to reasonably provide the advice and consent when it comes to appropriation. this bill was intended to do it. the three week extension gives the president a full three weeks to wage, if you will, his view with the american people. the senate to do so. but i desperately want the healthy public debate between members of the house, members of the senate, democrats and republicans, on what we will do going forward. and i would hope my colleagues object the rules -- on the rules

committee would vote with me if not on the rule certainly on the passage of three weeks to give democracy a chance. three weeks for our republic to do what is enshrined in the constitution, what has been the policy of these two bodies for over 230 years. provide the three weeks, go to conference publicly debate the differences between the house, the senate, republicans and democrats, the president, and quite frakely -- frankly a federal judge in front of the american people. i have been here 14 years. we have been working on immigration problems. the president's been president for six years, we have been working on immigration problems. three weeks, three weeks of healthy debate, nothing could be more appropriate in our great republic. and anyone who says that we are going to let down the guard on national defense because we are having a healthy debate and we have continued funding fully the department of homeland security, simply his -- i thank the

gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. ice why: simply is not being -- mr. issa: simply is not being genuine in the discourse. our enemies will know we take homeland security seriously, but we also take immigration seriously. my colleague, mr. burgess from texas, said one thing that should be repeated in this body every single time we use the word immigration. america allows more people to come here through the front door, not more than just any country in the world but more than all the countries of the world combined. but we are 1.2 million people that immigrate to this country legally this year, we are generous beyond any other country in the world. so no one can say we are not pro-immigrant. we are. but there are 11 million people in this country who are unaccounted for, and getting it right and spending those dollars wisely is mr. burgess' requirement it's my

requirement, and for all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. vote yes. make this happen. and we will have a healthy debate in our republic. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i have to note we just heard my friend, mr. issa, i think we real what's really going on here. he said, and i think i'm quoting him correctly, referencing the president, that we don't have to fund him. with all due respect, mr. speaker, this is not about funding the president. this is about the decision of this body and the senate, republicans in charge, to continue to kick the can down the road and not fund the most essential government function, and that is public safety and national security. so let's be clear about what's going on here. this is a manufactured

deliberate political crisis intended to deflect attention on the fact that for seven weeks, seven weeks in session we have not seen any of the democratic deliberation that my friends on the other side have referred to. they could have brought a funding bill in the first week, second week, in the third week, in the fourth week, in the fifth week, in the sixth week, or the seventh week that we have been here on the floor of the house. but have they? no. on the last day before the department of homeland security shuts down after seven weeks in session, what do we get? three weeks of funding. what changes in three weeks? what can you do in the next three weeks that you have been completely incapable of doing in the last seven weeks? i don't see anything changing. while the american people are at home worrying about how they work harder every day and can't

seem to get ahead that they can't seem to put the money aside to put their kids through college, they can't seem to put the money aside to make sure when they retire they are going to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, those are the questions that the american people have. we have a republican majority in the house and senate that can't even seem to act on the simplest question of providing for national security. if they are so concerned, mr. speaker, about immigration policy, bring an immigration bill to the floor of the house. do your job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: provide for the national defense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. there is something i can -- i'll agree with the previous speaker on. i agree this is not about the president. it's about the process. it's about what we have all gone through and said this is how a bill becomes the law.

and if we need reminder, let's talk about that. one of the questions that was just said, why would we -- we have been here for the last six weeks bring spending bills and sending it over. let's talk about what we did do. january 14, the house approves a full-year funding bill for d.h.s. february 3 senate democrats vote to block consideration. february 4 senate democrats vote again to block consideration. uh-oh february 5 groundhog day somewhere in that neighborhood, senate democrats vote a third time to block consideration. february 23, in case they forgot, senate democrats vote for a fourth time to block consideration. democrats even prevented themselves from offering amendments to strip the language that they found offensive. it's not a problem being developed here. we find ourselves in a position today because senate democrats refused to be part of the solution. again, this goes back to basic civics. let's work this out.

let's do what we need to do. this is about giving us time to let the process work. and as said earlier, what can be different? this could be different. maybe the senate democrats would learn they are in the minority, the american people spoke in november, it's time that we work together to find solutions. i yield back. -- reserve. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york mr. jefferies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. jefferies: i thank the distinguished gentlelady from new york. we are here today to do a single job. and that should be to fund fully the department of homeland security. anything else is an abdication of our responsibility. anything else is an act of legislative malpractice simply because of the inability of my friends on the other side of the aisle to satisfy the theirs of the extreme right wing -- thirst

of the extreme right wing base of the party. so we are playing political games at a time when the safety and security of the american people is being threatened. and i know that all too well because earlier this week the f.b.i. uncovered a plot in brooklyn, in the communities that i represent, where individuals sought to impart bombs, the coney island neighborhood that i represent. and yet we are here playing games. government by crisis. this of course is nothing new. fiscal cliff. sequestration. 16-day government shutdown in october of 2013. a flirtation with defaulting on our debt. and now we want to shut down the department of homeland security because my friends on the other side of the aisle can't get their act together.

we need all hands on deck right now. that means the f.b.i., the c.i.a., the n.s.a., and the department of homeland security working together. why would we want to either shut the department down, or create a level of uncertainty where people within the department of homeland security are distracted? when we know that the terrorists only have to be right once. when we have to be correct 100% of the time in order to protect the american people. you claim to be strict constructionists as it relates to the constitution. we have an article 1 legislative branch. an article 2 executive branch. an article 3 judicial branch. and the founders said if there's a conflict, if you have' got concerns, if you've got constitutional issues, let the judicial branch work it out. that's what's going on right now.

we should be doing our job. instead of taking the american people on another reckless legislative joyride that is simply going to crash and burn. this time affecting the safety and security of the american people. . they want us to focus on good paying jobs. they want us to focus on social security, higher education affordability better childcare, strengthening the middle class and all those who aspire to be part of it. they want us to further the american dream. but we're here playing games with their safety and security. it's a shame. let's get back to doing the business of the american people. vote down this rule and vote down the underlying three-week reckless extension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collinsthk yo mr. speaker. again, i respect greatly my friends across the aisle.

we have to know what this bill is for, it's funding the government for three weeks while we work on a process of getting stuff done. i agree with my colleagues. we had to work on the 529 plan that was frankly -- administration had some issues with. we fixed that in the house this week. we are working on the problems that matter to kitchen tables around the country. republicans are doing that but they're also standing up for what we learned in sievics is this is the way -- civics is this is the way the legislative works. let's go through it once more. january 14 the house did its job. it approved a full-year spending bill. february 3, senate democrats voted to block consideration. february 4, senate democrats vote again to block consideration. february 5, senate democrats vote a third time to block consideration again. and as we'll go on as you know, february 23 same story three times, fourth time removed. democrats have -- this is the part -- i'm -- democrats prevented themselves from offering amendments to strip

language they found offensive. i guess after so many years of not being able to offer amendments they forgot how. they're preventing their own self from doing that in the senate. it's time to act. this is what we're dealing with today. we'll continue to do so. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaug: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. my good friend from new york let me thank you for the time and my good friend as well on the rules committee, let me thank you for the time. we share time on the judiciary committee. he is a good friend but in this instance i vigorously disagree and say it is about the president. it is about the president on every turn, from the affordable care act to his reason constitutionally premised response to the tragedy of undocumented individuals in this country over and over again.

it is about the president. it is about the president when there is not one item that president has put forward that you are agreeing to. but right now let me change my story, because i'm here today -- though i wanted to honor a dear person who is in my district today and i am not able to be there. i was leaving last night but because of this immediate crisis and the foolery that is going on, the ignoring of the words of the experiod of times such as the secretary of -- experts such as the secretary of d.h.s., in a letter sent to all of us, it it's must be noted that the shutdown of the department comes at a particularly challenging time for homeland security. it is stunning that we must even contemplate a shutdown of the department in the current global context, the global terrorist threat has become more decentralized and complex. the f.b.i. director said that there is an isis, isil cell in every state and mr. speaker, the tom foolery of republicans

are absurd that they are willing to play with the lives of americans, that they're willing to throw under the bus the thousands upon thousands of important, essential and crucial workers in the department of homeland security . the f.b.i. said under this new fusion of work together that the department of homeland security is crucial. in my district people are coming up to my staff and asking, what is going to happen in houston, a place where when we were in the midst of 9/11 there was rumors about planes going to the energy sector? this is a foolish position we're in. i demand that we vote for a clean d.h.s. that is coming from the senate. this is foolish. this is outrageous. i cannot understand what is going on with republicans that they are -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is

recognized. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i think it's sort of interesting, and i appreciate my colleague from texas, but i think the well-reasoned response to the administration to the issue that's going on i think there happens to be a contrary opinion found in a federal judge in texas. maybe so much for the well-reasoned opinion. with that i give three machines to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. chabot: thank you mr. speaker. the house went through regular order to fully fund the department of homeland security, but in keeping with our constitutional right, we elected to not fund the president's executive amnesty. we have a policy difference with the president, that's clear. he supports amnesty, we support the rule of law. let's debate that. but harry reid and the president want to play games and in doing so are jeopardizing america's security to win political points. it's sad. republicans funded the department of homeland security. we have not funded the president's illegal actions.

and now democrats are playing politics with it. but this is not the time or place. this is about funding the department of homeland security, which we have done and now senate democrats are playing political gamesmanship that offend his executive amnesty. democrats are the ones putting the department of homeland security in peril to defend an illegal action taken by this president. we have passed a bill that funds every aspect of the department of homeland security except for the president's illegal actions. that is a reasonable stand to make. president obama did what he said he couldn't do more than 20 times, he said he couldn't do what he did. he went outside the bounds of the constitution to make law that was politically expedient in his point of view. he didn't work with the legislative branch. he went outside of it. we disagree with that action. we have the power of the purse. it is our responsibility to appropriate money and to make law. the house has funded the department of homeland

security, and we have responsibility to go through regular order to do so. we did that. harry reid and the president are the ones throwing a temper tantrum right now. this rule for this bill is necessary. let's pass this rule. let's pass this bill. let's fund the department of homeland security. let's stop playing political brinksmanship. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair asks members to refrain were making improper references to the president. the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker the department of homeland security will run out of money and shut down tonight. house democrats, senate democrats, the white house and senate republicans all agree on what to do to pass a bipartisan bill to fully fund the department for the rest of the fiscal year. the republican majority in the house of representatives is the

only ones standing in the way. our next vote on ordering the previous question will be a vote on whether to continue down that dangerous path or to govern responsibly and to put our national security ahead of partisan politics. to discuss how essential it is that we pass a clean full-year appropriations bill, i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member on appropriations, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge this house to immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the department of homeland security . by defeating the previous question on the pending rule, we can immediately make in order a clean homeland security bill stop the theatrics over

the president's use of executive orders. my colleague, ms. roybal-allard and i made several similar attempts which were unfortunately defeated on party line votes. it is my sincere hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are now prepared to end this standoff with only hours left before the department of homeland security shuts down. republicans are playing a dangerous game with our security. as the ranking minority member of the appropriations committee, i was involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus spending bill that passed the house and senate, was signed by the president last december. that package could have contained all 12 annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference, bipartisan, democrats and

republicans, and every one of them was ready to go but an unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to omit the homeland security bill. not because there were standing issues or continued disputes. that bill was stripped from the omnibus because some in this body were upset by the president's executive order on immigration. they even admitted the president's actions had little to due with the homeland security appropriations bill. yet, that was the choice that was made on how to proceed. so the homeland security appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution instead of having a full-year bill. ironically, it meant that customs and border protection immigration and customs enforcement, two of the agencys tasked with defending our -- agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our

immigration laws, had to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they would have gotten under the full-year bill. delaying the full-year bill limits the department's ability to advance the secretary's unity of effort initiative designed to improve coordination in our security missions limits the ability of the secretary to move ahead with the southern border and approaches campaign creates uncertainty concerning isis capacity to deport criminals complicates the department to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border stations delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the white house, hiring increases of the u.s. secret service, delays terrorism preparedness and response grants for state and

local public safety personnel. i do understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel quite strongly about the president's use of executive orders on immigration policy, but do they have the courage of nair convictions to look the first responders -- their convictions to look the first responders they represent in the eye and tell them that they are holding up critical assistance to firefighters law enforcement, e.m.t.'s emergency managers because of an ideological fight over immigration? my friends, this is disgraceful, this is irresponsible. the homeland security bill should never have been held hostage. with only hours left until the -- 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield the gentlelady 30

seconds. the speaker pro tempore: mrs. lowey: hasn't this gone on -- mrs. lowey: hasn't this gone long enough pass a full-year bill? i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so my colleague, ms. slaughter, can offer an amendment to provide a clean full-year appropriations bill for the department of homeland security. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i think the question was just asked, mr. speaker, on the floor is, do we have the courage to tell first responders and others that we will fund and put forward a bill to keep funding going for three weeks? the answer is a resounding yes. the question would be to my friends across the aisle do you have the courage to tell them this afternoon you are going to vote no? that's the better question. with that i verve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland

the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker what we ought to have the courage to do is to tell all our homeland security personnel we're going to fund you through the end of this year, as we have told every other employee in the federal government that is protecting us and serving us on a day-to-day basis. mr. speaker the majority party said to the american people in a pledge to america this, we will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation. the funding of the department of homeland security is a must-pass piece of legislation. legislation to circumvent the will of the american people. instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time

. mr. speaker, they are breaking that pledge today. peter king, the former chairman, republican chairman of the committee on homeland security said this -- if a clean bill comes here, as we expect to happen in just a few hours, we have to accept and vote on it, said representative peter king. . he then said in reference to this strategy that the majority party is following of continuing to go into a dead end, he said this, peter king, i think up to this point we have engaged in an exercise of tactical malpractice. self-delusion is self-destructive. there is not a republican in this house who believes this

strategy will do anything but run them back into that cul de sac that they went into in december. at the expense of the confidence of americans that their department of homeland security tasked to make them safe, tasked to provide for the security of this nation, will in fact be operating on a full basis. lastly, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter dated yesterday from secretary jeh johnson and read this key excerpt from it. finally, secretary johnson said, as i have noted many times mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts outlined in this letter. a short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty from my work force and puts us back in the same position. on the brink of a shutdown.

for those republicans who believe that we ought to do the responsible thing as peter king has said, vote against the previous question, vote for a rule that provides for the consideration of the senate -passed bill which they the 8-2 -- 98-2 decided to put on the floor because they thought it was good policy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: may i inquire if my colleague has any further speakers? i'm ready to close if he does not. mr. collins: we have no more speakers at this time. ms. slaughter: thank you. i shall close, mr. speaker. this intraparty dysfunction governing from crisis to crisis and self-inflicted wounds must come to an end. our nation's very security is at stake and the american people crying out for stability for certainty and for responsible

government. let's give them that. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no. to defeat the previous question, vote no on the underlying rule, and underlying bill. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. it has been really an interesting morning discussing what we could do, what we not do and what we have done and actually the fact and process of the house doing its job again and the senate democrats not doing theirs. it's just -- it's very frustrating. talk about the american people, from a republican standpoint,

this is about administrative, this is about a time which we are confronting, in which there is honest debate on both sides. but when it comes down to the bottom line, it's been very true over the course of these first seven, eight weeks here, that one party is putting forward an agenda that says that moms and dads and kids matter. that the rule of law matters. that things are to operate in a certain way. and they are operating in way they grew up civics knowing from our founders that had a constitution that laid out the path. what is interesting right now is is that really right now the house republicans for the second time are providing a path to keep the department of homeland security open for business while the judge, federal judge has said, the administration cannot go forward on their executive amnesty memo, which means it's not happening right now. so the question really becomes, i don't think this can be stated enough, because when people are out there looking to washington, they are wanting to know, are you thinking about me? are you thinking about what's going on?

are you thinking about what we need to fund and the days that people get up and they know their country is fighting for them? i just want to make it very clear, we said for the second time, this is the second time, because the first time happened on january 14. the house approved a full-year funding package for d.h.s., and yes, said this is what we do not like and will not fund, but this is a part of the process. february 3 senate democrats vote to block consideration, february 4, senate democrats again vote to block consideration, february 5, guess what? senate democrats vote for a third time to block consideration. february 23, let's at least make it a home run. we'll touch all the bases, senate democrats refused for the fourth time to block consideration. but then the most amazing part. democrats even prevented themselves from offering amendments to strip language they found offensive. we are here today because the senate democrats refused to be part of the solution. so as i go forward, as i look at this, there has to be an understanding of this today and

it was said earlier and i made the point but i'll make it one more time today. a solution is being put forward. there's no one putting forward a bill to shut anything down. the bill that is being put forward is to fund for three more weeks. so i will encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle, any democrat who wants to vote no on this funding bill, you're voting to shut down the department of homeland security. is that what you want to tell the american people? with that i urge my colleagues to support this rule and underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on -- the

yeas and nays are requested. those in favor a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, having risen. the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 183. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please remove conversations from the ploor, outle of aisles, back aisles, the house needs to proceed with its business. please remove all conversations.

please remove all conversations from the floor. out of the aisles. if you need to have a conversation, please remove it from the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order again. please remoffings conversations from the side aisles, the

middle aisles and the back aisles so we can proceed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i call up house joint resolution 35 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: joint resolution 35. making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: please remove all conversations from the house. the house is not in order. the house will not proceed to order until conversations are taken off the floor. pursuant to house resolution 129, the joint resolution is considered read, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and

the gentlewoman from new york ms. lowy, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.j.res. 35. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i rise today to present h.res. 35 a short-term continuinging resolution to keep the department of homeland security open and operating until march 19 2015. this type of band-aid, stop-gap funding fix is not the way we should be running things around here. it's the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the federal government. all of the federal government. and this should be done through regular order. without the threat of shutdowns or the lurching uncertainty of

continuing resolutions. may we have order, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will not proceed until the conversations on the house floor and in the aisles cease. both sides in the back please, so that the gentleman can proceed. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from tennessee can condition -- kentucky can continue. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, we face a deadline that makes this continuing resolution a necessity. without it, the department of homeland security will shutter

its doors at the stroke of midnight tonight. this would put thousands of federal employees on furlough, waste taxpayer dollars and create instability at the department tasked with one of the most important functions of government, potentially risking our national security. the house must pass this bill in short order to keep the lights on at the department of homeland security in the near term. hope fully this will buy us the additional time necessary, i would prefer, and i hope that we pass the full year regular d.h.s. funding bill that we negotiated on a bipartisan bicameral basis last fall. until both chambers of congress agree on how to do that, we must continue to fund the essential daily operations of our homeland security. at the same time congress must

continue to fight the president's executive actions on immigration. a massive overreach of his constitutional authority. and a substantial shift in our immigration policy that i do not support. and the american people do not support. i believe we can and should continue the fight on the president's intrusion into our constitution. but we must also maintain the fuppingses of government that protect the -- functions of government that protect the rights and safeties given to us by this hallowed document. we have no time to waste mr. speaker. i ask that my colleagues in the house today keep in mind that, as elected members of the house of representatives, it's our constitutional duty to fund the government. to protect the people who elected us. and to defend this great nation. so i urge an aye on the bill

and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. mrs. lowey: we learned late last night that the house republican leadership has stepped in to thwart the agreement reached in the senate to fund the homeland security department. as we all know, funding for these critical activities runs out tonight at midnight. we learned that instead of taking the clean bill that would fund the department for the remainder of this fiscal year, the house has come up with a new plan a plan to string this mess out even further. the new plan to pass yet another continuing resolution.

150 days into this fiscal year this is really discurrentlying. additionally, we learned that the house leadership has decided now would be a good time to formally request a conference committee be convened on the controversial immigration riders passed by the house bill and the senate's clean bill. as hard as it is to believe, they really think requesting a conference with the senate on the very day funding expires is reasonable. i could not disgrow more. i understand that many of my colleagues disagree with the president's executive actions on immigration policy. i understand that many of those same members believe strongly that they should fight the president through the power of the purse.

the appropriations process. but what i don't understand is how a decision could be made to wreak havoc on one of the most important agencies in the federal government, the agency tasked with protecting our nation's homeland. over policies related to an agency that isn't even directly funded in this appropriations bill. under a continuing resolution, the agencies that are funded through the department of homeland security are hamstrung forced to live at last year's levels and under last year's terms. ironically this means that customs and border protection and immigration and customs enforcement, the agencies task with defending our board rts -- tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our immigration laws have to do

without the nearly $1 billion increase they would get under the full year bill. so instead of pursuing the bipartisan path and i want to remind my friends that this homeland security bill was negotiated right here between democrats and republicans a bipartisan bill but right now instead of pursuing the bipartisan path the senate has chosen the house leadership has chosen yet another punt by not passing the clean full-year bill the house plan would. delay terrorism preparedness and response grants for state and local public safety personnel, potentially leaving fema with insufficient time to get those grants out before the funding expires. it would limit the department's ability to advance the

secretary's unity of effort nirntive -- initiative, designed to improve coordination in our security missions, limit the ability of the secretary to move ahead with the southern border and approaches campaign, create uncertainty regarding isis capability, to detain and deport -- i.c.e.'s capability to detain and deport dangerous criminals delay implementation of new security upgrades at the white house and necessary hiring at the u.s. secret service. my colleagues, i am simply at a loss. i am mistified. i can't understand the wisdom of this strategy. i know some of my colleagues are upset with the president.

i understand how much easier it is to take out your frustrations on the appropriations process instead of through debate on an immigration policy bill. and we know we must have serious debate on immigration policy. i support comprehensive immigration reform. but why should we do this in such an inappropriate way through the appropriations process? don't take out your frustrations on the appropriations process, instead of a thorough debate on the immigration policy bill. i think the majority of my colleagues agree with me, that this has gone on long enough. it is not rational to punish firefighters e.m.t.'s, police officers emergency managers you represent because of immigration policy. it is not rational to hamstring

u.s. customs and border protection or the customs enforcement agency because you're mad at the president. we're adults. i left my eight grandchildren home, we're adults, i hope, in this body. it's not rational to fund an important government department week by week. i really hope mr. speaker, that the house gets serious by immediately taking up and passing the clean bipartisan bill as the senate has done. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve? the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. mica: thank you so much mr. chairman, and, mr. speaker. the gentlelady from new york is a good friend and i respect her so much. and she asked some important questions that the house has to answer. now, why -- and she's been here

a good while. i've been here a good while. why would we be proceeding in this fashion? first of all, the house -- we're trying to get to regular order. the congress has not passed a budget, hasn't passed most appropriations, we live from c.r. to c.r., there's been such an instability in this institution. here for the first time we have the opportunity and i believe it's within the hour that the other body may act or they've had this question for them for a long time, but here we have the possibility of going to a conference. and this is an important issue. this is an issue in which the president himself has said, i think 22 times, that he doesn't have the authority to do what he did. the courts have upheld the position that we have -- or at

least put a stay on the president's action. this is a very important issue because it affects the entire nation. so if we could get to regular order, we want to keep the government open. we want national security and homeland security to move forward. and we're offering that and also the opportunity for a little bit of time to go to regular order to make the process work. why shouldn't the house of representatives have the opportunity to sit down with the senate and work out the differences and honor the law that we passed and the president has is abusing? -- the president is abusing? so, mr. speaker and my colleagues, i think we need to do this in regular order and there's good reason to act in the fashion that republicans are advocating. i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will remind all members to refrain from inappropriate references to the president. the gentleman from kentucky

researches. the gentlelady from new york is now recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, just for clarification, because my friend asked some fair questions, but maybe the gentleman is not aware that the appropriations process concluded 12 bills in a bipartisan way. democrats and republicans worked together. however, back in december on probably one of the key bills at this time, when we are threatened when terrorists worry my constituents, they worry about whether they should go to the mall, they worry about their daily activities and so when my good friend, the gentleman just spoke about regular order, check the appropriations process. we passed the homeland security bill through the committee, but it was held up, you'll have to ask your colleagues on your side of the aisle why the

homeland security bill was not part of an entire omnibus, why we had to invent this cromnibus so we can leave out homeland security. i yield back or i yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky. . mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the luret committee for -- homeland security committee for as much time as she takes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. miss robal allard: i thank the gentlelady -- ms. roybal-allard: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. on december 2014, as leverage against the president's immigration executive actions, the republican leadership irresponsibly decided to hold hostage the 2015 funding for the department of homeland security.

now 150 days into fiscal year 2015, this house is no closer to addressing the homeland security funding needs of this country than it was in last december. instead, the republican leadership is proposing to once again kick the can down the road. this time for another three weeks. the serious consequences of the republican majority's inability to responsibly lead on behalf of the american people will once again leave the department without the 2015 funding levels it needs to effectively fulfill its mission of protecting our homeland. i ask my colleagues, what is gained by continuing to delay resolving this crises? a crises of the house republican

s' own making. does anyone really think circumstances will be any different three weeks from now? the judicial review of the president's executive actions will not be resolved in three weeks. the only circumstances that will be different in three weeks is that much will be lost. republicans cannot continue to block the department of homeland security funding for 2015 without undermining the national security of this country. we should not fool ourselves into believing that the department of homeland security has been doing just fine under the continuing resolution. or that there would be no further consequences if we forced the departments to keep living with the uncertainty of a continuing resolution for even

another day much less three more weeks. secretary johnson and agency heads, have warned that passing another c.r. will not address the uncertainty of being able to meet our long-term national security needs. yesterday secretary johnson sent a letter to the bipartisan leadership of the house and senate warning of the dangers of either a funding lapse or another short-term continuing resolution. to quote the secretary a mere expansion of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts of a shutdown. it exacerbates the uncertainty for my work force and puts us back in the same position on the brink of a shutdown.

just days from now. the secretary ends his letter by saying, the american people are counting on us. the american people are, indeed counting on us. and so far the republican majority in the house has let them down. the constitution provides a path for congress to work its will on policy issues without resorting to funding lapses or continuing resolutions which represent the complete and utter abdication of congress' obligation to effectively govern. the senate will soon send back to us a bill that was agreed upon by both democrats and republicans and that will enable the department to move forward on the critical planning needed to protect our country

now and in the future. let us do the responsible thing and bring that bill to a vote so that our country can truly be protected by funding the department of homeland security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: let's review. let's review briefly where we are and why we are where we are. the house passed a funding bill for the department of homeland security maybe three weeks ago in order to give the senate enough time to consider it and take appropriate action. so the house acted three weeks ago. sent the bill to the senate.

the democrats in the senate have refused to allow that bill to be brought before the senate four different times over three weeks . now who's to blame? for not funding the department of homeland security. the house has tried. the senate has refused to act until finally this morning the senate took up a clean funding bill for homeland and passed it. and so here's where we are. the house has passed a bill. the senate now has passed a bill, finally so what do you normally do once the procedures of the congress when both bodies pass a bill that is different? from each other? you go to conference. we've done that from time immemorial. that's the recommended way. that's what's in the constitution.

and so the conference is necessary. but that's going to take some time. so we need some time to allow the conference to go to work and conclude this problem and work out the differences. thus we need this temporary funding bill for the department to keep the security of the nation intact through the department of homeland security. while we work out the funding permanent funding for the department for the balance of the year. that's where we are. it's fairly simple. i don't know any other way to do it. perhaps our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a better idea about how to reconcile the differences between the house and senate. other than a regular conference committee. a lot of members of this body are so new to the process that they have never seen nor know what a conference with the senate is.

and i think there's some confusion in that regard because people in this body, new to the process, over the last four, five years, have never seen one. and that's sad. so i hope members will quickly pass this temporary funding bill for the department and allow the conference committee to go to work. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the former chair of the homeland security committee, who is a key person in negotiating the bipartisan homeland security bill that could have been part of the omnibus in december and we wouldn't have been involved in these kinds of dangerous games. i yield four minutes to my good friend, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. mr. price: madam chairman, i thank our ranking member for yielding. as she suggests the history

account, the account of the history of this bill that the chairman has just given needs to go back a bit further. the original failure in this case was in december. today we are voting on a three-week continuing resolution. i rise in opposition to this that. -- opposition to that. but this is only the latest manifestation of the majority's failure to govern this institution. and to get the funding in place for the homeland security department for the full fiscal year. the initial failure was in december. that's what we need to look back to and understand. it was a profound mistake to leave homeland security out of the omnibus appropriations bill. this department and this department alone was put on a three-month continuing resolution rather than our passing the bicameral, bipartisan negotiated homeland security bill that is the

equivalent of a conference report. people don't think we have a need for a conference report, we have a conference report. it's an agreed upon bill that the majority deliberately left out of the omnibus bill in december. why did they do that? they did that for political purposes because they didn't like what the president was doing on immigration. they want to poke him in the eye. they want to enact these riders with a radical anti-immigration policy. and they are willing to sacrifice the regular funding for the homeland security department in order to pursue that political objective. now, ironically in doing this, in passing a c.r. rather than the regular negotiated bill, they sacrificed the increased funding for things they professed to care about. they are all about border security. they are all about immigration enforcement. those things were reduced by virtue of the failure to accept that negotiated bill and going

down the road with this continuing resolution. now, the clock has run out. the three-month clock has run out and here we are again. and today we are about to compound december's failure by passing a three-month c.r. which doesn't solve the department's basic problems, but in fact just postpones the day of reckoning by a few weeks. the senate has shown the way here. the republican-controlled senate has shown the way here. they have resisted this tea party siren. this desire to make the homeland security bill a vehicle for radical anti-immigration policy. the senate has passed or will soon be passing the negotiated homeland security bill, the bicameral, bipartisan negotiated bill which we should have approved in december.

now the secretary as our ranking member has made clear the secretary has made very, very clear that a continuing resolution is not an acceptable way to run this department. the state and local terrorism prevention and response grants are held up, for example, from my state of north carolina, that means $9 million in emergency management preparedness grants. it means $5.5 million in in-state grants. that's true of every state in this union. the security upgrades at the white house on hold. the acquisition of the coast guard's eighth national security cutter, on hold. construction of the national bioandagri defense facility in kansas, on hold. a continuing resolution is just what it says. it is a continuing resolution which does not permit us to make the upgrades and undertake the innovations or make the grants

that our homeland security requires. now, the house majority is till unwilling, still unwilling, in this case, to follow the lead of the senate. and put that negotiated bipartisan homeland security bill on the floor. so here we are stuck with an inferior proposal, a three-week continuing resolution which doesn't do the job. we should reject this. where does this go? where does this end? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. price: where does this end? some kind of conference? we have the conference report. we have the conference agreement. that could pass today. we could put that on the floor and it would pass in a heartbeat. that's what the majority needs to do not this three week holding action. we need to pass that bill and keep the homeland security department functioning at full strength. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations judge carter from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: thank you. history is something we ought to try to get right. . we've heard some versions of history. let's talk about exactly why we're here today. we are here today because, yes the appropriations committee on a bipartisan effort put together a whole series of bills to fund this government. one of which is the homeland security bill. and it's a good bill. i agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. it's a good bill. i'm proud to have had a part in that. but there's a piece of history that's missing in this discussion. right after the last election,

the president, well, we don't want to talk about the president, the administration stepped forward and said, the legislature hasn't changed the immigration laws, so the administration is going to change the immigration laws. without any action of the legislature, they're going to ignore laws that are on the books and in some cases have been on the books for almost generations, and they're going to do what they want to do for immigration reform. which includes the proposal that somewhere between four and six million people who are here in this country illegally would be allowed to be in this country with other benefits added to those, so that intervening cause is why all of a sudden the people of the united states said wait a minute this is not following

the constitution. this is not the way our government's supposed to run. we fought a war with a guy named king george to not have a king in this country. that would just do it without legislative process. we fought a war to make sure that we followed the legislative process. and the people who are are charged with enforcing the -- who are charged with enforcing the law the executive branch, should be enforcing the law. and it became quite a tidal wave of people who were very concerned about the action. so in an effort to try to engage that fight, we came up with what's been referenced here as the cromny business. and we -- cromnibus and we with held the homeland security bill

. i say it's a great bill and -- but the decision was made and here we are. we passed this bill with amendments that take on the actions of the executive and sent it to the senate three weeks ago. so someone said once, that's the greatest deliberative body on earth. well, it may be, but this spring here this early spring they haven't deliberated. in fact, they haven't taken action at all. because each time the republican leadership in the senate said, let's go have a discussion, let's go on the floor and have a debate and we'll accept amendments, let's go have a debate, the democrat minority said, no. we won't have a debate.

four times they said no. under their rules. we won't have a debate. the republicans didn't do what the democrats did when they were in the senate and just wave the -- waive the rules that thomas jefferson wrote a couple hundred years ago. no, they followed the rules. so there was no discussion in the greatest deliberative body on earth. of this particular problem. now, are we funded now in our department? yes, we are. we've heard cries from the other side, you're leading this country -- leaving this country in scombrepdy because if we close the -- jeopardy because if we close the department, which i do not want to do, if we close down the department, you put us at risk from terrorists. well here we are, we're saying, you're right, let's don't close down the department, but we just got three weeks ago, we sent it to them, we're getting in a few

minutes the results of their work product over there. and quite honestly we have a dispute with them. and what is the process? i know there are many in this body who have never even seen a conference committee because since 2006 this has not been something we've done very regularly in this body. but quite honestly, the way we do this, resolving differences, is go to a conference committee. so what we're saying here is, help us keep the government open for three weeks, kind of the same three weeks they had to hang around and never go to work in the senate, let us have three weeks and go to conference like we're supposed to and see if we cannot work out the differences we have between the two bodies. how unreasonable is it this -- is this? and by the way, if you're worried about those terrorist acts that are looming on the horizon, which they very well may be, then you better vote to

continue this government today. or otherwise a no vote on this particular -- keeping the government open or shut the government and when the government closes, all those terrible things are going to happen. you don't want to have the responsibility of voting no to keep the government open and let the government close and then face the fact that the terrorists may be looming in the wings. let's pass this c.r., do it like we're supposed to go to conference work it out in the three weeks like the senate had and see if we can't resolve this issue. an issue that was started by the executive branch in their november surprise. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker i am so privileged to serve on the appropriations committee with the gentleman from texas who did an excellent job working in a bipartisan way, completing a

homeland security bill that we thought would be part of the omnibus bill so the homeland security department would be funded for a year. this event was a manufactured event today and i do hope we can get past it and pass a homeland security bill for the next year immediately, so we don't have even a small potential of shutting down the government. madam speaker, could you tell me how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 13 minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the distinguished leader, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i join her in thanking mr. carter and mr. rogers for bringing to the floor in december a homeland security bill that was appropriate. that funded at the levels that were agreed upon by both

parties. all we are asking is that we pass, mr. carter and mr. rogers -- pass mr. carter's and mr. rogers' bill. the republicans pledged to not mingle controversial issues. and allow each issue to stand on its own merits or demerits. that was their pledge to america in 2010. this action is inconsistent with that pledge. the senate has just voted, madam speaker 68-31 to pass the rogers-lowey-mccull i ask -ranking member on the senate side-shelby bill. this is not a partisan bill we're arguing about. this is the bill we have agreed upon, republicans and democrats. and we can't even pass that. with the knowledge that if we do not, the future funding of

america's homeland security will still be in question. yes, we could do it for three weeks. i call it our culled sack strategy -- culdesac strategy. going into a culdesac over and over again and feeling a path is going to hope -- open. the senate is now voting on the collins amendment. as i understand the strategy in the house is to add the bill that has been rejected four times on the floor of the united states senate. it went into the cul-de-sac once, it didn't open up. cul-de-sac third fourth time, didn't open up. now the proposal is to go into that cul-de-sac a fifth time while we focus on whether or not we're going to fund homeland security not on the objectives of homeland

security. ladies and gentlemen i thank you for one additional minute. low low -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one additional minute. mr. hoyer: i urge republicans and democrats who have all said not funding the homeland security department now for the balance of the year is in -- mr. rogers didn't quote this, he was talking about sequester, but is ill-conceived. and wrong. i therefore, madam speaker, urge my colleagues to vote against this short-term c.r. and to vote for the senate bill that will be sent to us in just a short period of time. today. which passed the united states senate with over 2/3 vote. democrats only have 46 members. so, almost a majority of the republicans voting for it as

well. madam speaker, that's the responsible thing to do. that's the right thing to do. that's the regular order to do. let's do it. let's put aside our partisan differences and our partisan strategies and vote as americans to fund the department of homeland security for the balance of the year and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madaspke i am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the appropriations committee from california, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two mibs -- for two minutes. mr. farr: thank you madam speaker, and thank you for yielding madam ranking member. i rise today to give apologies to all of the employees of the homeland security administration.

in watching this i hope that they understand what's really going on. this is not a battle about the process, the gamesmanship that we need time to work out a conference. we don't go to the conference on a brink of a disaster. we've had a year to deal with this. in fact, we passed this bill. what this is about is a bigger game going on down, about whack-a-mole with the president. they sue him, they say they don't want to support any of his proposals, they cut squeeze and trim his appropriations. they hold up his government appointments. but now the real story shifts, we see that the republicans in this house, even more than disliking the president, dislike the senate. the senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill which we could have passed. there were enough votes if we brought that bill to the floor to pass it. if we'd passed that comprehensive immigration bill we wouldn't even be here today.

this wouldn't even be a discussion. the irony is, for all you homeland security employees, is that the house has taken care of itself. the leadership with their details and all of the wonderful capitol police we have around here, they're all taken care of, because we don't pay for them out of the homeland security bill. we pay them out of our own legislative branch bill. and that was passed. so our security is fine. but the security of the rest of the nation's in jeopardy. what does it take? the senate's just passed a bill, we bring it to the floor, it takes the votes, 218, we've got at least all but 30 on this side. 30 republicans. mr. speaker, let your republicans go. let them come to the floor and vote on a clean bill. we could pass it before this afternoon. that bill would be in the white house tonight. and we could go home sleeping, knowing that this nation's security is in good hands. stop playing games.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i thank the ranking member for yielding. it's really important that the american people understand what's happening here. mr. kildee: it's pretty clear. the republican majority in the house and perhaps in the senate disagrees with the president on immigration policy. so they have two really clear choices. one would be to do what they somehow have been unable to do, despite promises of a prolific period of legislation in the first couple of months here in congress. despite that, seven weeks later we haven't seen anything that looks like an immigration bill. so rather than using this magnificent process of democracy that the framers

designed for us, to determine policy, the republicans in congress, really the republicans in the house have decided to threaten the shutdown of an essential government function national security, public safety, in order to extract concessions on policy that they are unwilling to submit to the legislative process. why not bring an immigration bill that determines for this country what our immigration policy ought to be? and in the meantime, fund the essential functions of government. to not do so there are consequences. this is not an academic exercise. there are consequences. three weeks of funding? seriously, three weeks? after seven weeks of coming to the floor of the house in session, why couldn't we come

up with this compromise with the senate with whom you share partisan majority, why can't we have a real debate on immigration policy on the floor of the house of representatives without having to threaten to close down the essential function of government? my friends on the other side have said, that's not what we're doing. . except that's what you are doing. words are cheap madam speaker, when you won't pass a clean bill to fund this department like your colleagues in the senate have done and continue to hold out to get something that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: i think this is time for us to get back to the serious business of the american people and pass a clean bill to fund this essential function. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 240, making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, there it is. that's the bill the senate finally passed. it's been six weeks, i said three weeks earlier, i'm corrected it's six weeks the house passed a funding bill for the homeland security department. six weeks ago. sent it to the senate purposefully early to give them plenty of time to consider and bring forward a funding bill of their own. and i have to say the majority over there tried. the democrats in the senate

stopped consideration of that spending bill four different times over six weeks. in the meantime, the house had to sit here waiting for the senate, and we have been waiting six weeks until just now. finally, this more the senate has passed a bill funding the department for the balance of the year. which differs from the house passed version of that bill so we got to go to conference. that's the way the framers set things up when the house does something, and the senate does something different on the same subject, you've got to bring them together into conference to work out the differences and come up with a bill for the president to sign. that's where we are. finally now we can go to conference. we could not have earlier because the senate had not passed the bill. now we can go to conference. and we'll be asking the speaker

for that designation today. but in the meantime we can't let the department stop working. consequently we are putting before you a bill to temporarily finance them while we go to conference on the main year-end financing of the department. that's what this is all about. so now i'm glad that the clerk brought the senate bill and laid it on our desk. now it's finally up to us to give a chance for the department to survive and for us to stop the president's amnesty program. and by the way, madam speaker there is not one penny in the bill before us the temporary bill, the c.r., there's not a penny in there to fund obama's amnesty program. we are opposed to it, and there's no money in this bill for that purpose. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky

reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i just want to state for the record as my good friend from kentucky is aware, on december 12 the senate and the house conference committees agreed on a bipartisan bicameral homeland security bill, in december. could have been implemented with all the other 11 bills. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady very much. i thank her for her explanation commonsense explanation. might i say as a member of the authorizing committee on homeland security, i believe as we have just heard that the senate has passed a clean department of homeland security funding bill that came out of these appropriators who did excellent work in the name of

the security of this nation. i ask the speaker to bring this bill to the floor of the house right now. i do so with headlines like three denver girls played hooky from school and tried to join isis. i do it in the name of the headlines of three arrested in brooklyn who had intentions to do the commander in chief harm and many others harm. i do it also in recognition as one of the members who was there, if you will in the aftermath of 9/11 who watched the forging of the department of homeland security put forward border patrol agents and t.s.a. agents and i.c.e. agents and working with the f.b.i. all of those individuals will be not funded. let me say to the hardworking men and women of the department of homeland security, we will not leave you abandoned, but we will vote for a full funding of the department of homeland security and we ask the republicans why they refuse to address the national security of this nation putting political security over national security. with that, i yield back madam

speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield with you minute to the ranking member of the homeland security authorizing committee the gentleman from mississippi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from new york for the time. it's quite clear that a short-term c.r. is not in the best interest of the country. it's quite clear that the politics of homeland security puts us at risk as a nation. all of the things that have gone on over the last few weeks say that we have to have a fully funded department. our men and women in the coast guard customs, border protection transportation, security administration, all those entities on the frontline keeping us safe. three week c.r. kicks the can down the road, does not keep us

safe, it only says it's politics as usual. what i'm saying in the interest of the over 200,000 men and women who work every day, do a wonderful job, they should not be played as pawns in this game of homeland security chess. let's fully fund the department like we funded every other department and get on with the business of securing america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mitts lowey: -- mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to our distinguished leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one mnt. -- minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and congratulate her on

her exceptional leadership as the ranking member of the appropriations committee. i also commend our colleague, congresswoman roybal-allard, as ranking member on the subcommittee on hurt for her great leadership to protect the american people. to keep american security strong and certain. i also thank the chairman of the committee, mr. rogers, for the important work that was done leading up to december to have bipartisan legislation, to have an omnibus bill that funded all of the departments of government, except, unfortunately, homeland security, for the full-time. that's really a disagreement because the first thing we do as members of congress is to take the oath of office to protect and defend the american people. that we would have this be the last bill that we would fund fully is really shameful. and the fact is is that the senate has acted in a strong bipartisan way. i always like to talk about

time. it's about time, it's about the time that has been lost from december until march 19 should this -- in terms of what the intentions are of our republican colleagues heemplet it's about the time lost. the uncertainty placed on our security. it's so sad. at the same time, this morning, the senate in a very strong bipartisan way passed a clean department of homeland security funding bill. the papers are here. we could take it up immediately. send the bill to the president. the crisis would be over. long overdue, mind you, but nonetheless bipartisan and with great certainty. instead of that certainty, while the senate republicans have joined with senate democrats for sending this bill over here, the house republicans instead have continued to manufacture a crisis that does not exist but

exacerbate the insecurity of our country by their inaction. the fact is this bill that the senate has sent over has the support of every democrat in the house. roybal-allard-lowey legislation is co-sponsored by every democrat in the house. full funding for the full term for the department of homeland security. all of our members, democratic and republican, will have a chance to vote on that as the previous question in terms of the previous question, in terms of the motion to recommit, in terms of motions to instruct conferees. what we are missing is the ability, the speaker to give us a vote on this senate bill. give us a vote, mr. speaker. give us a vote. instead drip, drip, drip, drip. the republican leadership is

putting forth legislation, drip, drip, drip, drip for the resources. i want to read the words of the secretary of the department of homeland security who has been a great leader in the position he holds. he says in his remarks, he goes through all the reasons why a shutdown would be harmful, and to those who are -- want a shutdown, read his letter, please. but he goes on to say, as i have so noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. a short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my work force and puts us back in the same position on the brink of a shutdown just days from now. can our republican colleagues say that we won't be on the brink of another shutdown in the next few weeks in terms of the

legislation they are putting forth? what is the purpose of it? if the purpose is to oppose the president's immigration policy, the court has given you a face-saving way out. if the purpose is to have a better idea about immigration, bring up a bill. but if the purpose is to inject uncertainty into the security of the american people, shame, shame, shame. because it undermines our responsibility to the american people. it undermines the oath that we all take. it's really a very sad day. i urge my colleagues as they weigh the equities, we all want to make sure that the work force of d.h.s. is fully engaged, employed, and paid. i would just like to ask my colleagues who have been advocating for a shutdown or take us to the brick of a

shutdown -- brink of a shutdown over and over again, if they would like to live without being paid as members of congress. our work force makes much less than members of congress, most of them. they live paycheck to paycheck. why are we saying to them, come to work 160-some thousand of you. don't get paid. but get paid later. they don't have trust funds. that may come as a surprise to you. perhaps you do, and maybe that's why you don't think living -- not getting a paycheck is a big deal. then to the other say 30,000 just said stay home, don't come anywhere near here. and not get paid. some say, they'll get paid later. that's not the way it works. they have mortgages or rent. car payments all the rest. so what could you possibly be thinking? what equity could you weigh

against security, respect for our work force, morale of the people who are on the frontlines to protect our homeland security? it was quite a lively debate a number years ago, and i was part of it as member of the leadership, to establish the department of homeland security and the committee of homeland security in the house and hence the subcommittee on appropriations. the words were chosen very carefully. homeland security. home, homeland security. and the american people should know what this means to their home. security. the list is a long one, but i'll just do a few things. without the full year funding bill, d.h.s. cannot award $2.5 billion in grant funding. that means if you're in a high urban security area, a place

that would be targeted, maybe 40 you shalla areas in our country, $600 million in grants would be withheld. fema, $350 million in emergency management preparedness. $50 million in safer. safer is stack staffing for adequate fire and emergency responses. that's an acronym. safer. that means a lot in your neighborhood. . $120 million for food and shelter grants and millions in flood-related grants. all of this hit home and they hit home land security. so these numbers have an impact ramifications in the lives of the american people. beyond the workers. beyond the workers. but the people that they work for.

so i'd urge my colleagues to think another time about this. we have the paper. the bill is here. it's passed in a strong bipartisan way in the snafment every house democrat has endorsed the bill. we'll vote it with other parliamentary options that are available to us. how much better as we come together as the senate republicans and democrats did come together to to support certainty in our security. otherwise, the question is, why , why not, why are you not taking advantage of this great opportunity? the courts saved you face. what happened in paris added to the urgency. the examples of people being picked up in our own country make matters worse.

stop the drip drip drip of funds week to week. let's get the job done for the american people by doing it right, following the lead of the senate republicans and the nat democrats. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. i appreciate the concerns we all have about a shutdown of government. we can't let that happen. but this is not the way to go. with that, again, i commend congresswoman lowey, congresswoman roybal-allard, benny thompson, the authorizing committee for their great leadership on our side and the chairman of the committee mr. rogers know i have tremendous amount of respect for him. i feel sad for him that he's in this situation. i hope we can get out of it soon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. does the gentlelady have further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is

recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i'll be brief. there's no money in this bill to fund the president's amnesty program. there is money in this bill to keep the department of homeland security's doors open and in protection of the american people. this will give us time for the bill the senate has isn't over to us funding the department. this will give us time to reconcile the differences between the house version and the senate version. and we'll be prepared then to send the bill to that conference committee and hopefully then a bill to the president to sign. so madam speaker, i urge an aye vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution

129, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19 further consideration of house joint resolution 35 is postponed.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to support state and local accountability for education protect state and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children's schools and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, february 26, 2015, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 41 printed in part b of house report 114-29 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, had been postponed. the chair understands the amendment 42 will not be offered.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 114-29. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 114-29 offered by mr. thompson of mississippi. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 125, the gentleman from mississippi mr. thompson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the thompson amendment to the student success act is a commonsense amendment that ensures many poor, minority and disadvantaged students will not

be overlooked in the chaos that immolates from this rewrite of our educational policy. madam speaker, education is civil right. rather than develop quality standards that improve and enhance our system of education, this body has overlooked the harmful effects of h.r. 5 on funding and equal opportunity for millions of our students. h.r. 5 removes strong accountability provisions required to make sure that children who need the most help will actually get help. it is morally unacceptable and extraordinarily expensive to have 14.7 million poor children in our country 6.5 million of them living at less than half the poverty level. all of these children exceed the combination res. dense in all 50 state and the district of columbia.

the thompson amendment protects these population from this discrimination. the student success act has failed to set standards that ensure vulnerable, minority and disadvantaged students will be able to obtain a high school diploma. our nation has demonstrated the need for federal action that forces states to care about the achievement of vulnerable communities. more specifically, in black communities, the legacy and commitment to education stems from the days of slavery when blacks learned to read in secret and at risk to their own lives. even 50 years after brown vs. board of education these communities and schools are still very much segregated. however, the concentration of poverty has become more exacerbated. research has shown that school districts spend $733 per people less at schools that were 90%

minority compared to the schools that were 90% white. the task before this chamber is to improve our broken system of education. we must right the wrongs of past education legislation and insert accountability for the learning of historically underserved students. if the goal of h.r. 5 truly is to improve our education system for vulnerable students and increase the college readiness and career skills set -- career skill set, this amendment should be a no-brainer. the thompson amendment is simple. it directs the secretary of education to certify that this law will not adversely impact minorities students with disabilities, english learners and students with low income. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that h.r. 5 will improve outcomes for poor, minority and disadvantaged students. if so then a secretarial

determination of this positive impact should be something that every member of this body can support. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support amendment 43 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: madam chair i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you. i thank my colleague for bringing forward this amendment although i do oppose it. the student success act, the underlying bill, requires states and school districts to establish academic standards consistent with current law and require states to establish statewide accountability systems that results in students being prepared for postsecondary education or the work force when they graduate high school. the proper role of the federal government, madam chair is to support and empower state and local innovation so that education leaders are better

equipped to meet the needs of our most vulnerable students. back to the fundamental question of who do we trust here. we believe very strongly that parents teachers, principals superintendents, school boards and states have a much better understanding the needs of their students -- and this is about students -- than washington does. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the thompson amendment and support the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. i have no further speakers. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. kline: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, taken from the comments of the speaker in

opposition you want the states to certify but you want the federal government to provide the money. what we're saying, if the federal government is providing the money then they should have some oversight on the overall standards that are adhered to by the program. what my amendment simply does is to say the secretary of education has the responsibility to certify that all students will be provided the proper education and other things afforded this act. it's only a certification and before we spend any money, he has to do that, so if the states certify to the secretary then that's fine, but we're saying, as i understand the opposition to this amendment, that we're going to leave that certification to the states without any oversight from the federal government, all they want is our money, that's a poor way to run government and,

madam speaker, i asks support of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. . mr. kline: what we have now under current law is the secretary of education deciding what the secretary of education doesn't like or likes. will it provide money or not provide money. we believe that the language that's in the underlying bill giving the authority and the responsibility of the states, requiring them to establish standards and assessments for those standards to meet their needs that you will get a much better result than what we've seen now for year after year after year of the current law, no child left behind we have been living under and republicans and democrats all agree that no child left behind is not working and must be replaced. we want to put our faith, we

want to put our trust in people closest to the students. that's what this legislation is about. that's what this debate is about. so again, i urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment and support the underlying bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. thompson: madam speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 114-29. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report number 114-29 offered by mr. scott of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 125, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: how much time do we have? the chair: 10 minutes. five per side. mr. scott: i yield myself five minutes. madam chair, the unanimous decision of brown v. board of education, the supreme court said, in these days it is doubtful that any child may be expected to exceed in life if denied the opportunity for an education, such an opportunity where the state has undertaken to provide it is a right to be provided toll all. the fact is that equal educational opportunities are not now available in low-income

communities first because education is generally funded by the local real estate taxes guaranteeing that wealthier areas will have more resources for education and second because the normal give and take in politics low-income areas never do as well as wealthier areas. and in the all the studies conclude that in areas of concentrated poverty need more, not less, in order to provide educational opportunities. so in 1965, the enactment of the first elementary and secondary education act congress provided federal money to address and i quote from the original bill address the special educational needs of low-income families and the impabblet of concentrations that they have on the ability of local agencies to support educational programs. unfortunately today, only a small handful of states have taken steps to completely

equalize their education funding. esea was not and should never become a general education fund for all. the purpose of the law is to provide states limited supplemental funding that is targeted to schools and students left behind and what remained an unequal system. over the last 50 years, we recognize students with disabilities, neglected and homeless students and nonnative students all faced local educational systems unprepared and sometimes unwilling to provide the resources they needed. and we made a difference. improvement is real. graduation rates are are at all-time highs and we made real progress, but there is a lot more that needs to be done. the amendment before us is a substitute for the underlying bill because h.r. 5 in its current form retreats from the principles of the esea. no one has refuted this

assertion that this money takes money from the poorest school districts in america and gives it to the more affluent ones. baltimore city with a high concentration of low-income students will lose $5.7 million and 11% decrease in howard county with a lower poverty levels will gain $1.1 million and 25% increase. chicago city schools has a student population receiving with 85%, receiving free and reduced lunch. naperville has 13% of students receiving free and reduced lunch. it will lose 65 million. republicans call this portability. we call it reverse robin hood taking from the poor to give to the wealthy. in addition to the funding formula change, the bill reduces funding levels and reduces

maintenance of effort. maintenance of effort prevents states from reducing educational spending and replacing it with federal money. we should guarantee that the federal money will be in addition to state spending so the children can benefit from the federal resources. h.r. 5 further eliminates dedicated funding for english learners and disabled students. the amendment seeks to restore funding priority for concentrated poverty, english learners and disabled and requires the states to set standards for all student so those who graduate from high school will be college and career ready and able to pursue college or work without need for remediation. it supports our teachers by ensuring they will have resources and training they need to do their jobs. it addresses the concerns of too much testing by providing states support to improve state assessment systems and to

provide funding to eliminate all unnecessary tests. we are faced with a tremendous opportunity to bring our education system into the 21st century to ensure that all students are prepared for success in the global economy. democrats and republicans agree about the need for flexibility and innovation, but where we disagree is on the role of the federal government. we believe that there is a federal role in fulfilling the promise of the brown decision that all students must have access to equal educational opportunities. and so the choice is clear. we should reinstate the original purpose of esea by supporting the substitute amendment. i remb the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. kline: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. we have had a few days to look at the 851-page amendment that

the democrats brought forward, was a little bit surprising during the markup to have it brought up to us and i think one of my colleagues said something about not legislating by the pound. but if we had been legislating by the pound, there's a lot of pounds there. i appreciate the time we have had to look at this. it seems to me that the democrats' substitute amendment just doubles down on the policy we have now, that the gentleman from virginia, my friend the ranking member, talked about areas of concentrated poverty. we need to spend money there. that's what we do. we spend a lot more money per student in high poverty areas and yet in those areas, we have less than half the kids graduate. you talk about progress that has been made. but right now in america, one in five student will dope out. 26% of high school seniors are proficient in math and just over a third of high school seniors

are proficient in reading. the current system is not working. as i have said again and again, republicans and democrats agree that no child left behind is flawed and needs to be replaced. we have different ideas about how we want to go about doing that. we believe that the much greater flexibility that the students success act affords to superintendents and to local leaders to put the money where they think it can get the best results is a better way to do it than adding program after program as we have seen in amendments during this debate. fundamentally different idea about how best to achieve what we all want to achieve, and that is an excellent education for every child in every school. i think the underlying bill is the much better way to do it and i would encourage my colleagues to oppose the democrats' substitute amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. scott: madam chair, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him on being the ranking member on the education and work force committee. madam speaker, you know education is the single most important investment a nation can make in its future. a family can make in its children. nothing returns more money to a treasury than the investment in education whether it's early childhood education k-12, higher education post-grad, lifetime learning. and nothing contributes more to the success of our children than education, which gives them a chance to succeed.

that is why in 1965, congress passed the elementary and secondary education act one of the great pillars of president johnson's war on poverty. president johnson told the people gathering at the bill signing, that, quote, from our very beginning as a nation we have felt a fierce commitment to the ideal of education for everyone. it fixed itself into our democratic creed, end of quote. the republican legislation makes a mock erie of this legislation's legacy and hollows out the foundation of our democracy an educated and empowered citizenry and here's how. for the first time in more than 50 years, a majority of public school students in our country live in poverty.

too many children are getting left behind. this republican bill slams the door of opportunity for students striving to earn an education. how will students get equality of opportunity without equality of education? how will students be able to maintain america's introvacation leadership if they attend schools without a reliable infrastructure. this takes away our investments in the future and monumental step backward in keeping our promise to america's children. republicans are turning back the clock on civil rights protections academic achievement, funding for struggling schools, prep curriculum for underserved children and turning back the clock with students of color, students with disbilities,

migrant students and learning english as a second language. this bill guts resources for the most impoverished school and gives those funds to the richest schools. rather than increasing investments in schools takes critical programs away from our schools most in need. rather than provide a pathway for success to help our children prepare for the future, this legislation locks in the federal budget cuts for the rest of the decade rather than ensure funds are used for the classroom and teaching, this legislation lets limited resources be used for other purposes, such as tax cuts for the wealthy or sports stadiums. this bill does nothing to invest in early education or ensure lifetime learning or update classroom technology and infrastructure and does nothing

to boost the stem curriculum. president obama has already declared his intention to veto this recycled reheated retro grade, warmed up stew that lacks the rights of the second language community, teachers, education advocates and the u.s. chamber of commerce. instead, we should take up the alternative bill put forth by mr. scott. . his bill guarantees access to world class education for all students, sports teachers and school leaders with better resources, substitute legislation put forth by mr. scott empowers schools and districts to tailor to local needs and ensures states set high standards and goals so students are career and college ready. it is our moral obligation as a

country to ensure that all children have equal access to a well-rounded world-class education and mr. scott's substitute does just that. you know, i -- he has presented an alternative that fulfills the promise of this landmark legislation passed in 1965, another 50-year anniversary, which is to ensure that access to high-quality education is the right of every student and not just some. we must honor that responsibility. madam speaker, frequently people ask me, what motivated you to be involved in politics as i am a mom with five children and i want, of course, the best for my children, as every parent does. i wanted to see they had tender loving care, the best opportunity and the rest. we need to make sure that every other child has access to education. we do no favor to our children

and our -- my case, grandchildren, if we say we want the best for you and not pay attention to the needs of other children in our society. what kind of transitioning from one generation to the next is it if we say my kids got the best and in some cases in this bill at the expense of other children? it's just not right. it's not the moral thing to do. it's not the patriotic thing to do. it doesn't honor our founders' commitment to a democracy which is upon an educated population. we need to civically reject this bill to ensure that quality education is the right of every child in our country. i thank bobby scott, our ranking member, for giving us

that opportunity and urge my colleagues to vote aye on his substitute. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you madam chair. i'd now like to yield four minutes to the chair of the k-12 subcommittee and education and work force, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. rokita: i thank the chair and i thank the chairman for his leadership throughout this entire push. what do i mean by push, mr. chairman? i mean the fact that for the last seven-plus years no child left behind, the current federal law of the land as it is with regard to k-12 education in this country, has gone unrenewed. and for many of us, in a very real sense, that's just as well because after a decade of

living under no child left behind and more importantly our children being taught under no child left behind, we realized where its shortcomings are and where we need to go next. so we worked on this product and unlike the democratic substitute madam chair, that we're just now hearing about, this product has been four years in the works. it's so well reviewed that it passed this house in the last congress. and now finally, with the republican senate, we have a chance to move real reform that puts power back in the hands of our parents teachers, local leaders, local taxpayers so that we can, again make the child the most important thing in the school. so we have a -- we're sort of shooting with real bullets

here. again we can get a product to the senate. we can get that product, then, to conference and then to the president's desk. so -- yet, this democratic substitute really does just that introduced just a few weeks ago in our markup, seems to be an algomation every idea that most parents, most teachers and most local taxpayers and entrepreneurs found to be wrong with education ever since the federal government has been involved. and when i say wrong it comes with a good deal of data and a good deal of evidence that says no federal bureaucrat knows our kids better than that kid's teachers and parents and local school administrators. so the whole theme of the

student success act is to trust those people, knowing that they care about their kids just as much and probably every case more than we do here in washington. and as a father of a 7-year-old boy with disabilities and a 5-year-old boy i know that's how i feel. we need to act now to reverse the federal mandates under no child left behind and to stop the obama administration from coercing states into adopting its preferred education reforms, including adoption of these common core standards. if we fail to act, the secretary of education will continue imposing his will on schools unilaterally. in essence madam chair, a national school board. we have been working on this effort, like i said, for more than four years. our goal at the beginning has been to roll back the role of federal government and return to state and local leaders the

responsibility to deliver a quality education to their students. now, some may say the student success act certainly isn't perfect and as we know no piece of legislation is but we heard over these years the concerns, i would say, of every type of stakeholder involved in this debate. and we found the right way forward with the student success act. everything in the student success act is better significantly better than anything in current law. and so the question is to my colleagues, certainly my republican colleagues but also my democratic colleagues -- do you want to move the ball forward or not? do you want to do something or not for our children? or do you want the department of education to become this nation's school board? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota

reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you madam chair. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from oregon, a distinguished member of the committee on education and the work force ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank ranking member scott for yielding, for his tremendous leadership and for delivering a positive alternative to h.r. 5. and i'd like to thank all the hardworking staff for their expertise and work. since the elementary and secondary education act first passed in 1965, congress has stood beside its disadvantaged student in neediest communities, those with the highest concentration of low-income students. unlike h.r. 5 this continues the essential resources for students who needs the most. this substitution fixes in what is in no child left behind, and there's, a lot and it maintains the original equity. we have an opportunity to make

sure that all students have access to high quality public education and schools and educators have the opportunity to help all students reach high standards. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you, madam chair. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. now i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a member of the committee, a new member whose leadership has been very impressive, his passion unmatched the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. russell: thank you, mr. speaker and thank you, mr. chairman. for 200 years we educated our children without federal intrusion. during that time we not only founded our nation and strengthened it and held it together during a civil war we won two world wars and put a man on the moon and we did it with the innovative spirit that local educated states

families, people had without federal intrusion mandating how they should be educated. now we see an opportunity to preserve individual freedom, to preserve states' rights, to protect privacy, to allow our teachers, to allow our local school boards, to allow our local communities to continue to educate. some states think that some other states don't do a good job. that may be. but it's not their choice, and it's certainly not the federal government's choice to coerce and to put things out there. my state is often referred to in oklahoma as flyover country. but our unemployment is 4.2%. that's nearly half what many of these states that think we ought to have some progressive federal control over our education should be. we have no problem putting our

population and our work force. we also have the largest per capita population of astronauts and those in the space program. so much for lack of education in flyover country. this is a good measure because we all agree in a bipartisan fashion that no child left behind is bad and it is leaving children behind. but we get there, not by some collective coercive control. we get there by relying on teachers, school districts and local control. what this does, it repeals the one-size-fits-all accountability metric which will remain if we do nothing, and i think our colleagues, mr. speaker -- madam speaker, would agree. it eliminates over 65 wasteful programs that are currently authorized under law, which will remain if we do nothing. it eliminates mandates that force local schools to reserve 20% of their funds for activities that they don't desire to do. those mandates will remain if

we do nothing. and it will also prohibit any agency of the federal government from coercing states to adopt common core or any other set of standards through waivers, federal grants or any other authority. that coercion remains if we do nothing. and in bipartisan fashion, it eliminates the feds from having control of individual data from teachers and students, a concern that we all share from being set by the secretary of education and also controls tribal data protections which are often overlooked as well. it strengthens states' rights language that is absent under no child left behind where it says states may do this or that. it's not the federal government's authority to do so. instead, it says states retain the right to. and also importantly madam speaker, it makes provisions for military dependent children who currently are often overlooked as they move from place to place.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam chair. this bill is complex and could be discussed for a long period of time. mr. scott doesn't have a long period of time and i will be brief. but i want to point out that when we passed at the request of president bush no child left behind, which everybody has recognized does not have some of the components that it ought to have and has some components that it ought not to have and mr. scott's substitute fixes that which is broken. but i'll point out that that bill passed 384-45. this bill has essentially been on the floor before and got no democratic votes. how sad as an issue so

important to our country that we don't have a bipartisan bill. now, this bill had no hearings, notwithstanding the fact there are 63 new members. i'm very pleased, and i thank mr. scott that the democratic alternative includes the full service community school program that i've been promoting for years. these full service community schools bring the success and model of the judith b. hoyer centers to k-12 nationally. opportunities. there are 33 judy centers in maryland and there will be another three opening later this school year. my wife, for whom judy centers were named, was a strong proponent of this highly successful model which has helped in closing the achievement gap for thousands of students in maryland. sadly, h.r. 5 does not include provisions for those services, which will make a difference. and i thank the chairman for his leadership, the ranking member for his leadership and contribution and i yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: madam chair can i inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman has one minute and the gentleman from virginia 1 1/2. mr. kline: thank you very much. in that case i'll be pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from g.a.o., mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. allen: and i thank the gentleman from minnesota for yielding 30 seconds. madam chair, i think we all agree that no child left behind does not work. i think we all agree that every child deserves a good education. that's what h.r. 5 provides. it provides our teachers, our boards of education and our states the opportunity to innovate. isn't that what education is all about? that's what the business world is all about. that's why i'm supporting this bill and i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota

reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. . mr. scott: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. honda, 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. honda: i thank mr. scott for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the democratic substitute amendment to h.r. 5. this amendment builds on the lessons we learned from no child left behind particularly, vulnerable students without punishing teachers. it provides a wrap-around service promoting community schools and helps states giving data about individual student groups with the individual learning. it is innovative, and

encouraging evidence-based practices and i support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce the list of organizations, civil rights education child add vow casey and health organizations in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. scott: i yield to my colleague from virginia, former lieutenant governor of virginia mr. beyer. mr. beyer: i rise in support of the democratic substitute. it's our responsibility to make sure kid are safe at school. too often techniques are used to

seclusion and restraint in the classroom. the democratic substitute would protect our students by developing appropriate national standards on the use of seclusion and restraint. we cannot reduce the federal oversight role for the reason our kids need to be safe and educated. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: madam chair, could you remind us how much time each side has left? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. scott: i give 15 seconds to mr. polis. mr. polis: the democratic substitute does a better job getting it what works in public education and changing what doesn't work in public education. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: is the gentleman prepared to close? the chair: the gentleman has 15 seconds. mr. scott: i would like to thank a moment to thank my staff and introduce the list of the staff members who hard on this bill. denise jackie christian, kelly, scott and brett, theresa. they worked hard on this bill. we were given two legislative days to put a substitute together. we did the best we could. and i thank the gentlelady for her indullingens and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: i have to compliment the minority for in two days writing a bill that is a reem and a half of paper. that is quite an accomplishment and adds more programs doubles down on what are failed

policies. the democratic substitute is going in the wrong direction and i urge my colleagues to oppose that substitute and support the underlying bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: if you put the question for this amendment, i think you said -- the chair: the question is on the amendment of the the gentleman from from virginia. mr. scott: 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 virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee will rise. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole in the house of the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a rule 1

. >> good morning. this morning as we gather here, the united states senate is passing a clean long-term department of homeland security funding bill that if passed by the house this morning could be sent to the president and signed into law today. well before the midnight

deadline. instead in the house this morning, house republicans have a plan that is a staggering failure of leadership that will prolong this manufactured crisis of theirs and endanger the security of the american people. endanger the security of the american people. the department of homeland security secretary jae johnson, warned congress about the severe consequences of a shutdown and a short-term c.r. in an urgent letter sent last night. in the letter he said, "as i have noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts" -- referencing all the negative impacts of a shutdown. "a short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my work force and puts us back in the same

position on the brink of a shutdown just days from now." in addition to this, in terms of going to conference democrats will not dignify house republicans' toxic anti-immigrant riders by supporting going to conference. house republicans ineptitude in legislating is endangering our entire country. i thank the senate for their bipartisan action in passing a clean long-term department of homeland security bill, a clean long-term department of homeland security bill is clearly the only way to avert this crisis. we should be voting to pass a clean long-term department of homeland security bill that the senate is sending us today. they have done their work. we should do ours. with every house democratic -- democrat supporting long-term d.h.s. funding legislation

it's clear this crisis exists only because republicans prioritize anti-immigrant extremism over the safety of the american people. it's important to know if you're out there at home what this means to you. a short-term continuing resolution -- what's a continuing resolution? it's a failure. it's a stopgap measure. in this case, a failure to come to terms. it's a short-term stopgap measure which delays critical state and local grants. without a full-year funding, d.h.s. cannot award $2.5 billion in grant funding that includes the safety of your neighborhood, your community and your city and our country. for example, $600 million in urban area security initiative grants. this is really very important in terms of our homeland

security. mostly urban areas 40 urban areas that are the prime targets of terrorists. $350 million in emergency management preparation grants. that's from fema. they won't be able to give those grants for preparation. preparedness. $340 million in staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants. staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants. these safer grants are very, very important to communities. they rely on them for the safety of the -- of their communities. $340 million in firefighter assistance grants. $120 million for emergency food and shelter grants, and $100 million for food-related grants. that's what a short-term delay holds up.

it delays the critical state and local grants. the c.r. continues to delay that funding from going out. it's dangerous and it undermines the security of the american people. it's irresponsible and we should be taking up this. the senate has given the house in a bipartisan way -- the senate republicans have given the house republicans a path which they apparently are refusing to take. but i'm ever hopeful. any questions? yes, sir. >> you talked about your frustrations with the republicans holding the funding hostage. >> yes. >> yesterday, speaker boehner held a news conference and he said i just think it's outrageous that senate democrats are -- blackmail to protect the actions of the president and the president said he did not have the authority to do this. what is your reaction? >> i didn't hear it. i have pretty much lumped

together the irresponsible statements that are made by many of the republicans on the subject because some of it is just not true. i have heard some other things that some of their colleagues have said that republicans in the house are acting like crazy people. that i thought is something i could identify with. but the fact is is that what the senate democrats are doing is what the senate republicans are doing -- sending over a clean long-term department of homeland security funding bill. as he -- is he painting the senate republicans with the same brush? maybe i'll come back on how they're characterizing the president's actions. >> madam leader, if this is such bad policy and you made a strong case that it is, can you think of a plausible political advantage by republicans to do this, to stretch this out for three weeks? >> well, one is that they could

have benjamin netanyahu speak to congress. government is open instead of closed, i think they would look bad, don't you? and i think that's a reason for kicking the can down the road so they can accommodate their invitation to prime minister netanyahu. . when we are talking about homeland security, we are talking about what is so beyond politics. it is about the safety of the american people. and the bipartisan for an approach to get this done, get this done now. doesn't mean that you put every difference aside. means you take them up in other pieces of legislation. so far be it for me to figure out what goes on in the house republican caucus, but it's not responsible and not legislating and that's our responsibility to

legislate and protect and defend the american people. can you think of any -- i don't think it's a political motivation with them. i think that's who they are. they don't believe in governance . and this is a comfortable place for them to be. >> you just had a democratic caucus are you united in opposition to this? >> i think so. i think the republicans probably have the votes for this and any democrats that join them, that's not the point. i don't want democrats to give them the victory -- the people are very concerned about shutting down government. and they outweigh the proposals i believe if this were to fail, they would have no choice but to take up the senate bill. but instead, they want to go to

conference. this is really, really amateur hour to the nth degree. did you ever hear the story that somebody goes to heaven and he was disappointed that he had died in a disaster and say to the lord he said lord, i prayed to you all my life and when i was in danger and here i am and the lord said when you were on roof of the house and the can ue came along and the helicopter came and somebody swam up to you, i don't know where you are and here you are not among the living anymore, this is what the republicans have done. in december they decided to be irresponsible. the speaker made it clear when they were passing the omnibus with the cromnibus, with the c.r. on it, don't worry about

it, we'll take it up in january and we'll get it done. he wanted to get voted in as speaker first and then act as speaker of the house and take up the bill. so, ok along comes je suis charlie and bring up the bill. and don't do that. and court case says here's a path out for you, face safer for you, they ignore that. and now we have three people arrested in brooklyn with very, very dangerous intentions regarding elected officials police officers, et cetera. another reason for them to say let's just get this done and out. the court has put on hold our major concern, which was the president's actions on

immigration. so let's just use these other outs for the benefit of the american people. but i think there an element that wants to shut down government. no out will do. immigration for some is a reason, for others it's an excuse. for all of them it's a sad state of affairs for the american people. >> you are the only other person in the building who can really answer the question, what would you do if you are john boehner because you have been in his position and maybe nothing analogous to his position, but votes for re-authorizing the iraq war when you were lead, they weren't exactly a analogous and you resorted to some pretty tricky. what would you do? >> i told him right from the start when he became speaker, i said first of all, let me just

say -- this is nothing compared to the iraq war. you want to compare notes, put several hundred thousand people in the streets against the iraq war as one who was opposed to it. i said the intelligence did not support the threat. the bush administration took us into war on a misrepresentation. some people would call that a lie. so my sentments on my record on that war is very strong. but nonetheless, our troops are there and we knee to fund the troops. i said do what we did and do it every time and it works every time. put legislation on the floor. let people vote the way they want to vote. and then put another bill on the floor where enough bipartisan support is there that it can move onto the senate or comes

from the senate, move onto the white house. let them vote their hearts out. we are giving them a chance to state their attitude, opinion legislative priority whatever it is. and that's what you should do. if you do that, ridiculous bill they put on the floor, violence against women, unless you are a native-american or lgbt woman, put it on the floor and let them vote for it. put the real bipartisan bill that came from the floor and let that happened and that is how we got it passed over 550 days after its authorization had expired, but they finally came around. put the bill on the floor and

good bill on the floor too and let them both go forward and that's what he could do three weeks or full term and send them over and see what happens -- one of them could go directly to the president and others will have a chance to say i never voted for the full funding bill. that's so elementary. it isn't -- doesn't take much to know how to legislate. but we are the legislative branch and we have the responsibility to respect the opinions of everyone in our congress. the regional -- every kind of disagreement, see how we can get the job done for the american people. and when that job is to protect and defend, which is the oath we take and our first responsibility heightened need for the speaker to get the job done. but this is silliness.

kick the can down the road three weeks, get past netanyahu's speech and then go to conference. the senate has said they are not going to conference. the senate has come up with a solution. get it over with. you have some other issues you want to talk about in immigration, bring them up in separate bills. once again and every opportunity i have i will take to say they are saying it's unconstitutional and unlawful on the part of president obama is exactly what president ronald reagan, prpt george herbert walker bush, president clinton and president bush george w. bush and president reagan and president george herbert walker bush did a higher percentage than president obama. for them it was ok. for president obama it's unconstitutional. so understand what is going on

here. they have the trifecta going. there is an element that want to shut down government. they are anti--obama, so anything he suggests, they're against and as you heard me say. and they are anti-science. so they don't want to know what the factsr what's real in a situation, so they have a trifecta level going. the president has the legal authority under the written law he has the precedent set by previous presidents and he has the prosecutorial discretion to act in the manner in which they did. and they are saying no. we disagree so much, that we are going to jeopardize the security of the american people to make our point. if you have a better idea on immigration, put it forth, pass a law.

that's what the president has said to them. ronald reagan even when congress passed a law he said you didn't do enough to protect immigrants and he put forth his own executive action to do more, which he did and president george walker herbert bush carried out. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> homeland security spending law, the current measure set to run out at midnight. the house debated today a short-term three-week measure. nancy pelosi from this morning as the debate was getting under way. the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair. they have finished consideration of the homeland security measure, wrapped up debate on amendments to the rerevision of the know child left behind law. and they are in recess subject to the call of the chair. could be they are gathering votes together.

sean sullivan of the "washington post" tweeting that the house recessed subject to the call of the chair. republicans could have problems getting enough votes for d.h.s. c.r. one asked said they wouldn't forge ahead. they may need some time to figure out the sequencing of the upcoming votes. no word when the house will come back in. but live coverage on c-span. in the senate, at about 11:30 eastern today, they passed their spending measure which would fund homeland security to the end of september. shortly after that vote, democratic snars spoke to reporters. -- democratic senators spoke to reporters. >> good morning everybody.

i would like to thank the vice chair of the appropriations committee, senator my cullsy, senator shaheen, ranking member of authorizing committee -- >> she's subcommittee. >> homeland security subcommittee senator shaheen. appropriator shaheen and senator stabenow my comrade in arms. we worked hard with the republicans last year to put together a bipartisan bill with the support of members in both houses of congress to fully fund d.h.s. for the rest of the year. finally, after weeks of unnecessary drama, the senate has spoken in a loud bipartisan way and passed that bill. it's time for speaker boehner to

summon the courage and put it up for a vote. now is not the time for game playing or politics. now is the time to fund the department of homeland security. many republicans are saying they'd pass a clean bill, with one house republican saying there would be dozens and dozens of republicans to vote for it. so we say to speaker boehner, rather than set up another cliff in three weeks, it would have been a lot better to just vote for the full funding bill now. skip the drama and pass our bill now. we have not -- it looks like he's going for the worst alternative. better than shutting down the government, but a lot less than full funding. the speaker's short-term plan would bring us right back to groundhog day in three weeks instead of ensuring the safety of the american people. for weeks, speaker boehner has

been lost at sea, torn between what's right and the hard right. today, the senate has thrown speaker boehner a life preserver and refused to take it. we hope over the next three weeks he comes to his senses and takes that life preserver or we will be in the exact same position we were this morning with homeland security mainly not funded. or nearly not funded. this d.h.s. funding fight is the first new test of the new republican congress and so far they are failing. we shudder to think what's going to happen when they have a full appropriations bill or we have to raise the debt ceiling. if this is prelude, this country's in trouble. if the republican party, which has traditionally prided itself on homeland security and national defense can't even fund

department of homeland security, how are they going to address these other issues like debt ceiling or funding the rest of the government? speaker boehner, what you choose to do will set the tone for the rest of congress this year. please make the right choice. i call on senator mikulski. >> i'm proud what the senate did today. we passed a full year funding for the department of homeland security. it means we did our job so that those men and women working in every agency can do their job to protect america whether it's securing the borders whether it's the coast guard doing search and rescue or interdifficulting or doing the ice breaking on the channels,

whether it's the people doing cybersecurity or protecting other attacks on us and also the grant funding that goes to our local community to deal with our fires and other natural disasters where the funding is going today. the senate has done its job. now the house has to do its job. the house has chosen to do one more three-week funding as they get ready to take one more break, so they can go out and talk to their constituents about how they are going to fight president obama's executive order. well, they can talk about how they want to fight president obama's executive order. we not only want to talk, but we want to fight to protect our borders. therefore, we want full funding for our border control, for all

of those programs that we have to protect our borders. while they talk, we do. we really call upon speaker boehner to really reconsider next week, will get us over the weekend. we consider next week that they're done. that before they take one more break, let them fund the department of homeland security for one full year. now what they are going to do by a short-term three-week funding is keep some of the doors open at the department of homeland security. the door that's closed is the door to sending grant money to local communities that are left in defending our borders.

under the law, no grant can be shoed during a continuing resolution -- issued during a continuing resolution. no grant can be issued for a three-week c.r. what does that mean? it will not include customs and border protection for upgrading video surveillance systems to protect our border. it will not give grants to the local communities for the daytime surveillance systems and also those grants will not be going to the port security, like in my hometown of baltimore. it won't be going to the volunteer firefighters that use a fire grant program to buy the equipment they need to protect us. so that grant money for their protective gear is not going out. so that door's closed. you know what? we want to protect america. we took an oath to defend the

constitution to defend america against all enemies foreign and domestic. the senate did its job. i'm so proud what senator shaheen has done as the ranking member member on homeland security and our leadership found a path forward. we broke the ice in the senate. let them have their actions in the house. >> thank you, senator. today, the senate did what the american people expect us to do. we passed on a strong bipartisan vote a bill that will fund the department of homeland security to provide the resources we need to protect our country, to protect our state, to protect our communities. and we put partisan politics

aside. now the question is, whether the house is going to do the same thing. and what we have seen so far is that they continue to insist that they are going to have a partisan vote and that they are not going to fund the department of homeland security for the remainder of this year. and as the senator said, passing the continuing resolution not only puts us back it's like groundhog day, it puts us back in the same situation three weeks from today. and in the meantime, it creates serious issues for all of those who are trying to defend this country. so fema, the office of emergency management can't award new grants to help local governments not only to protect against terrorist attacks, but the snow removal in the northeast, all the efforts to get to people who are trapped in their homes.

fema is not going to be able to help us with that in many cases. coast guard operations would be delayed, jeopardizing maritime security. as you heard the senator said, customs and border protection can't award contracts for new investments in border security especially in key places in texas and along the southern border and long -- law enforcement training grants will be hampered. i have been all over new hampshire in the last month and what i have heard everywhere i have gone from local law enforcement, firefighters, e.m.t.'s and emergency responders that it is the department of homeland security funding that allows them to be better prepared to do their jobs that make sure in new hampshire that they have communications equipment that can talk to each other, that they can do planning so they are prepared for attacks, that they

can respond when they need to. and all of that is going to be interrupted because the continuing resolution does not allow those grants to go forward. so the question is is the house going to follow the senate and do the right thing for the american people. they are counting on us to put their safety ahead of partisan politics. >> my congratulations to the senators for helping to recraft the same legislation that was passed with bipartisan support last december to fully fund the department of homeland security. we did the auto pilot on every flight that we flew. flew a lot of missions around vietnam. and we flew missions after that.

auto pilot works fine some of the time. works fine some of the time unless you run into weather. unless you run into a file foon, unless you run into turbulence or incoming fire. the problem with the continuing resolution that the house of representatives appears to be ready to adopt, is it puts us on auto pilot. not forever, but for three weeks. and the problem with that is this. the turbulence, the weather the incoming fire may not be quite the same with respect to the c.r. but what is different. just like the weather changes and the theater you are working in in an airplane changes, the threats that we face in this country torks our country here and around the world continue to evolve. and what might have been a threat that we faced three weeks ago, month ago, a year ago is not the same threat we face today. three weeks when i was down on

the texas-mexican border in an airplane, not a navy plane but homeland security aircraft, we were looking for bad guys trying to get into our country, with contraband, drugs, sometimes with human beings. you know what, we need in order to make our folks more effective on the border, we need to have go up in the air and look far away and folks on the rivers, fast boats that can outrun the bad guys. we need to have fixed cameras that are mounted to be able to look down into mexico and up and down the rio grande river. unfortunately, a c.r. whether three weeks or three months doesn't allow us to do that. we can't provide the force multipliers. my best take away, three weeks ago on the texas border, with

all kinds of -- the key to securing our borders is technology. the key to securing our borders is technology. the c.r. does not allow us to provide a safer country. last word i understand that our republican friends are unhappy with the president's executive orders. i get that. the way to address that concern way to channel that anger is not to degrade our security, not to degrade the capabilities of the department of homeland security. go to court. the courts are there. they are waiting to hear you. they are waiting to have you make the argument. use that. in the meantime, let's fund the department of homeland security so the men and women there, the 22,000 people can do their jobs and protect this nation.

>> thank you very much. i'm so proud to stand here with a group of people who have fought so hard to make sure we have the tools and resources and the people to keep our country safe. i thank senator shaheen hob leading us every step of the way. the bottom line is this. with threats all around us, the republicans have been willing to play politics with homeland security funding. it's wrong. we stood together in a unified way to make it clear that it was wrong. and today we succeeded in the senate. and now it's up to the house. there's two possible ways that funding is shut down. one is a complete shut down of the department, which we have averted and we are asking the house to avert and if they pass a short-term c.r., at least that

will be averted. but the other that is equally important is the question of first responder funding. and if we don't fully fund the department we are effectively shutting down first responder funding. these folks have been waiting in communities across america since october -- this budget was supposed to be done in october. it's just not three weeks. this is keeping something going that has too many communities in limbo. in michigan alone 84 different communities fund just firefighter salaries and equipment and initiatives. 84 communities. i was looking -- it doesn't count police, and last week we had an attack in a coast guard office. he drove a truck what he said were explosives.

it was called domestic terrorism. luckily, he didn't have explosives, but they didn't know that. there are cases every week now, if not every day where people on the front lines in communities that we all live in and represent all across this country are counting on funding for homeland security. so let's make no mistake. if you continue funding at last year's level you do not support first responders in our communities and we are not doing everything possible to keep us safe. the senate did it today. no shut down of first responders, no jutdown of the department of homeland security. it's time for the house to step up and do the same thing. >> i love what secretary johnson said, when you do a c.r., it's like taking a 300-mile trip in

your car and filling it up with $5 worth of gas each time. >> senator schumer and for the others two quick points. you are willing to accept the reluctantly accept the three-week c.r. that is coming over from the house and also do you have any thoughts of the timing of the lynch nomination? >> on the first one we much prefer they would pass full funding and let's get to work on other things. they are going to repeat the same thing that they did now, three weeks from now if they keep at it. we want full funding. obviously, we are not going to shut down the government and if that's the only choice we are given, we'll support it but very are you luct antly. the worst choice, shut down the government. best choice, fully fund the

department. they are sort of in between and not giving us much choice. as to loretta lynch, that is up to mitch mcconnell. i salute senators graham, flake and hatch overcoming any sort of partisanship because she is qualified and the objections to her had nothing to do with her. >> stop and go government, short-term c.r.'s is an inefficient way to run the government. coast guard cutters, we are trying to update our coast guard fleet, we have a contract for construction under way for one of those cutters. the problem with a c.r. is this, it interrupts the production and puts it on hold and the folks that are building that coast guard cutter, they will renegotiate the contract with us and it won't be for less, it will be for more. >> other questions?

ok. thank you very much everybody. have a nice weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> senate democrats from midday today following the passage in the senate by a vote of 68-31 of the homeland security spending measure that would fund the homeland security department. homeland security department through the end of september. here on c-span we are waiting for the u.s. house to gavel back in. and when they do -- we'll tell you about that. while we are in recess, we'll open up our phone lines and your thoughts on the department of homeland security spending as there a midnight deadline. for republicans use the numbers on your screen.

>> couple of notes where things stand. the current homeland security spending measure expires at midnight. the house has debated a three-week extension. this would be without any sort of immigration riders, amendments that would block president obama's executive orders and call for negotiations with the senate. and that's where things go next as the house has passed its measure. here's a tweet from the "washington post" of what we can expect when the house comes in. house republican plan this afternoon, they will vote on a motion to go to conference. democratic motion to recommit and final passage of the three-week c.r. the other issue the house was working on today education bill looks to have been officially pulled from the house floor conservatives hated it and ran aground state interests. house has 433 members 245

republicans and 188 democrats, 217 is the magic number. g.o.p. can only lose 27 of its own before it needs democrats. a republican from indiana reports that he will vote for the three-week c.r. my list of people against is down to 30. i think this passes. what do you think? we look forward to your comments. >> the senate is still in session. the measure from the senate came over to the house. it came over quickly by 11:45. the senate is waiting for the house to act on this short-term three-week. let's go to your calls.

democrats' line. >> i just want to comment on the funding for the homeland security. i wonder whether or not john boehner, mitch mcconnell, the people of the house and the senate are aware that isis, the terrorist group isis is watching we're doing. it's not like a 9/11 attack, the attack on the homeland because of the lack of funding, who gets the blame? are they going to blame president obama for this because they can't get their act together? they can't agree whether or not funding should be put forth for

the homeland whether or not we just allow another attack and first responders and others not able to respond, the f.b.i. and c.i.a. not able to track people that want to do things against the united states of america, why can't they agree? it's sad that the united states is in such a bad position where democrats and republicans cannot agree as to whether or not we are going forward or going backwards. to me it really feels like this. since obama has been elected in 2008 the republican party has not voted for anything that he was for, even things that they first put forth like the romney care. >> let's go to illinois. this is dan on our interests line.

-- independents line. >> i have a question for c-span. why don't c-span ask the american people why the democrats put a poison bill in that they have to have immigration tied to this homeland security bill? i think c-span should be asking the american people, if you want a clean bill, take it out and i'm sure homeland security will be passed. this is a question that c-span and the reporters have not asked the democrats why don't you just take it out and have a separate bill to vote on that? this is something that c-span -- you sit here and say you are speaker for the people, allow them to speak, a lot of people

have called in to separate the president's order and it would pass. >> just to let you know, there were a series of votes earlier and part of the moving forward with homeland security and the senate was on the measure by senator collins that would have blocked a couple of those executive orders by president obama. i don't know the exact figure on that final count on that vote. it was blocked. they needed 60 to move forward. and it was blocked mainly by senate democrats in moving forward. that was the piece that was stripped out of the original house bill that the senate has passed a homeland security bill that would fund the department through the rest of the fiscal year. next up, james who is in alabama on our democrats' line. >> i have a solution. all we got to do is to let the

republicans contract it out to blackwater and give them a ship load of untraceable money. thank you. >> back to your calls in just a minute. we are joined on capitol hill at the moment by someone who covers the appropriations process. now the senate can say they have done their work. what's the holdup in the house? >> they do not appear to have enough votes at the moment to pass a three-week c.r. just to punt this fight into mid-march. seems like a group of conservatives is concerned that this measure would not be blocking the president's immigration policies and there are a group of moderates that is just fed up with this approach. they want to fund department of homeland security for the rest

of the year and get it over with it. there are bunch of closed-door meeting figure out whether they have the votes to pass it today. >> let's assume they get the votes and push this forward and the house is calling for a conference with the senate on homeland security measure would the senate agree to that? would the senate agree to go to conference with the house? is it likely the senate will take up the three-week measure this weekend? >> looks like the senate is sticking around. so once the house does pass the three-week stop gap, that they could very quickly accept this three-week stopgap by voice vote and wouldn't need to be in the chamber to do it. as for a conference committee, yesterday, harry reed said it was off the table and would not agree to it and does require 60 votes in the senate to adopt the

motion to go to conference, looks like republicans might be in trouble since mitch mcconnell has 54 republicans in the chamber. >> talking about closed door meetings you can't be a fly on the wall, but who in particular is leading the effort against supporting even this three-week measure on the republican side on the house? >> steve king saying no way, we shouldn't be doing this. there was a federal court ruling over presidents' day staying the president's executive actions but they say they need to take a stand with this stopgap. there is no guarantee what the court will do. the strategy with doing a three-week stopgap is to be timed along when we could see more federal court action on this. they are saying we don't trust the court on this. they are saying let's double down on this to make sure there's no funding for the implementation of the immigration actions.

>> this is spending for fiscal year 2015. the senate passed its measure the end of this fiscal year. the president submitted his budget for 2016. why wouldn't homeland security appropriations committee just include that language in the 2016 measure? >> i mean, the 2016 measure isn't going to be considered in either chamber until later summer. and with funding expiring at 11:59, they have the incentive to get it done. >> i know you need to wait outside of door ways and find out what is going on with the members of capitol hill, but stay around for a couple of minutes, i'm sure our viewers might have questions. we are joined by the appropriations reporter for "roll call." and next up is greg on our republican line. greg you there?

>> it occurs to me that the senate is blocking a bill that will fund over an issue of funding something that the courts have declared at least temporarily, declared illegal. so maybe the solution would be to pass a bill or to offer a bill that says that the funding would be reinstated if the courts rule obama's actions are constitutional. write a bill saying it's not funded now but if the courts rule in favor of obama, then the funding will be made available. >> what do you think? >> that's an interesting idea. i have not heard that being floated at all. >> particularly the ruling by the federal judge in texas last week and members have talked about waiting for the legal process to play out.

>> yeah. the federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the executive order. the administration has asked for injunktive relief. i believe they have until next week for the courts to decide whether they are going to grant that. if the court doesn't give the administration that, they said they will appeal this ruling to the sixth circuit court. and if they don't get their way, it will end up at the supreme court. >> thanks for being with us. we appreciate it. and we are going to move over next to the white house, the -- being asked by reporters and how things will go on capitol hill. >> it has earned strong bipartisan in the united states senate. it is now sitting on the floor of the house of representatives. and the speaker of the house has one fundamental question. is he going to put that bill up

for a vote. if he does, it will pass with bipartisan support and the agency that is responsible for protecting the homeland of the united states will be fully funded for this fiscal year. the secretary has made it clear how important it is and both parties have made important. the question is whether or not the speaker of the house will deliver. and i was -- before i came down, i was delayed because i was printing out something you have read. on the day after the election the speaker of the house, john boehner, and the senate then minority leader, mitch mcconnell wrote an op ed in the "wall street journal" that was titled "now we can get congress going." they have made pretty clear today, the speaker has the chance to pull us out of the fire but we'll see if he is

willing to do it and make the promises to the american people on the day after the election with republicans with a lot of fanfare took the majority of both the house and the senate. >> what happens if he is not willing to do that? where does it go from here? >> you are so pessimistic today. if the president is faced with a choice of having the department of homeland security shut down or fund that department for a short-term the president is not going to allow the agency to shut down. but, let's remember how exactly we got here. we got here because back in december, the speaker of the house had on his desk a compromised proposal that had bipartisan support to fund the entire federal government through the end of the fiscal year through september 30. and he made a strategic

calculation that he would fund the entire government through the end of the fiscal year except for the department of homeland security. and he said we are going to hold back the funding for department of homeland security until we can figure out how to maximize our political advantage. we want to figure out how to score political points with the passage of that budget. here we are two months later the say of the self-imposed deadline, the deadline imposed by republicans and apparently over the course of the last two months they have not figured out how to maximize their political advantage and it exposes the danger of playing politics with our homeland security. and it represents an abject failure on the majority of the republican leadership not to get this done. is the president between the choice, he will sign the short-term extension.

that is not the choice facing the speaker of the house and should not be the choice facing every member of the united states congress. are we going to fund the agency for three weeks or fund it for the full year and do it at levels that are agreed upon by democrats and republicans as clearly in the best interest of the american people. so the truth is, the choice for the president is a little difficult, but the choice for the speaker of the house is really easy. let's hope he makes the right one. >> on another subject wisconsin governor scott walker has been taking some heat for comments that some have interpreted -- >> some of the white house breesk under way live. continue watching at cspan.org. there is a pause in the debate on the spending debate. they have gone into recess at

1:00 eastern or so and we expect them back in in just a little bit. we'll have live coverage. if you want to join the conversation -- >> pelosi and hoyer news conference. we will have that live if we are able to, providing the house doesn't come back in. james is next up. thanks for waiting. newport, kentucky on our democrats' line. >> first time i have ever called in my life and i want to make a brief statement. if the republicans have the homeland security for three

weeks, they will have thrown the american people into the hands of terrorists. and if anything happens to kill americans, they will not have an office in the white house, in the congress or in the senate. for two generations they will be thrown out because of their terrorist leanings and their trite voting. >> next up is betty on our republican line. betty, make sure you mute your television or radio and then go ahead with your comment. >> what i don't understand homeland security and immigration shouldn't be linchinged. i live in california. and we had a big problem with people coming over the border and illegal people coming over here and shooting people in the

head. i don't understand any of it. they need to close our borders. they need to have somebody there to see who is coming through those borders. that's why everything is so jumbled up. people have already come through. they shouldn't have gotten through. they have said terrorists have gotten through. what's the big deal about closing those borders? we had immigrants coming in it's not a big deal. but they need to check who's coming in. >> the immigration amendments were initially attached to the homeland security spending bill that passed in the u.s. house back in mid-january and came over to the senate. u.s. senate blocked it four times. mitch mcconnell separating the two. and clean department of homeland security spending bill passed. they did try to move forward on senator collins' bill that would

have blocked a couple of the president's immigration orders. that fell short. and the issue of immigration has been the key issue all along. senator rubio talked about that. he is at the conservative political action conference. here's what he had to say about that issue. >> it's a serious problem that has to be confronted and it does. and we don't have the mechanisms in place to enforce our immigration laws. we don't track -- 40% of the legal immigrants come legally and overstay. we have to put that in place. there are three sectors of the border, one in particular that are completely insecure. it needs more patrols. we have a legal immigration system that is the most generous in the world. a million people come to this country but all based on whether or not you have a family member

here and can't continue to be based on family alone but some sort of merit or economic contribution. that has to be dealt with as well. and yeah, you have 10 to 12 million people who have not violated our laws. i get all that. but you can't begin -- what i have learned, you can't even have a conversation about that until people believe and know not just believe but it's proven to them that future illegal immigration will be controlled that is and brought under control. that is the single biggest lesson. >> as the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair. they have gone into recess because they haven't finished work on homeland security spending and not sure when they might move forward. here's a tweet with fox. house expected to come back to session soon and will move to disagree with the senate. the d.h.s. bill to go

conference. boehner told house republicans yesterday they couldn't pass the three-week bill, they would get jammed with a clean one. will it come today? we are going live with a news conference with democratic leader pelosi and democratic whip steny hoyer. we will continue with your phone calls and hear from long view texas. this is doug. >> ok, i'm just -- i'm just baffled by the intelligence level of the voter today especially after hearing the last democrat call. are people not aware at least 95% of d.h.s. is -- essential services will continue, ok. my question is it's homeland

security, the security of our homeland is so important to the democrats, why are they using this immigration issue -- holding the d.h.s. hostage based on that. i just don't understand that. the fact it goes without saying that washington is already screwed up. it's one big mess out there. but both parties are playing with our security overall any way. i'm just amazed -- if the voting public were a lot more intelligent that would help. >> how things will be affected if indeed there is a shutdown or partial shutdown of homeland security this was retweeted by the interior department. d.h.s. shut down means agents from border patrol will work without pay. democrats' line. >> i'm just confused.

i watched the president the other night and he said that he had put a bill up and boehner had it a year and a half and did not pass it. the way i feel is we are being punished because they don't want to go to work. they could pass the bill and go to work on the immigration bill and everything would be all right. all they have to do is go to work and do their job, like i have to do and all of america has to do. they only have to do is do their job. pass the bill. go sit down and do their job and get this comprehensive immigration bill and pass it so we can move on. because we've gotten mies out there. >> leroy may have been referring to the measure that passed in the senate 11th congress which

was a bipartisan immigration bill that never came up for consideration in the 113th in the u.s. house. james who is in ohio on the republican line. >> yes, sir. i would like to know didn't we elect a republican senate? i know that we did. harry reid in a nuclear option where it could pass with 51 votes. why don't we republicans we put in office and do what harry reid did, go back to the 51 votes. also, why don't the republicans get something on board to get obama out of office? also it's one thing right after another with obama.

one thing pops up, they try to take care of it. before that is fixed, something else pops up. you can't run a government like that. obama needs to be impeached. >> linda from the independent line in georgia. what do you think about the debate going on on capitol hill? >> well, you are probably going to hear a statement you probably shouldn't have heard before. i think we should scrap the d.h.s. and they are not working for the american people anymore. the president has been able to negotiate with terrorists, muslim brotherhood laraza and all the other immigrant groups and even invited them to the rose garden while he has gone --

veterans permit for protesting was denied. he has invited them to the white house. the d.h.s. has been subverted. i don't think we should fund it at all. i think we should scrap it because it's been perverted. >> we continue to take your calls and comments. >> the house is in recess subject to the call. reportedly as republicans are trying to gather votes in support for this three-week short-term homeland security spending measure. and we expect them back in this afternoon. no word on when that will be. we expect just in the next couple of minutes to hear from democratic leader nancy pelosi and the democratic whip, steny hoyer. a tweet from a couple of viewers, who says -- no one is

advocating a shutdown. >> that was earlier today in the senate before they passed -- after they passed the homeland security measure and their version of the homeland security bill, the full-year funding passed by a vote of 68-31. let's go to ohio, tony on the democrats' line. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i'm all for the immigration thing. but i'm not for the illegal status of it. my problem is, the president was put in office to protect american people. he vetoed a bill which was a clean bill to fund the homeland

security. vetoed because the immigration was not in there. he is there to protect the american people. why isn't he protecting the american people? i mean he wants to shut down and let d.h.s. shut down over illegal immigrants. just don't make any sense to me. i have been doing a lot of research i think i'm going to withdraw my democratic card. it's too outrage oice right now. host: it's about 2:00 eastern. we hope to hear from democratic leader nancy pelosi in a minute or two. and word is tweet here from chad who covers the hill for fox, he says, the house to return to session around 2:15 eastern. he's told that they are working toward getting the votes on the three-week bill, the homeland security bill, but they are not there yet. so we'll continue to take your calls and comments. just got word that the bells

are going off on capitol hill. that means it's 15-minute warning for members and staff that the house will be coming back into session. so we'll have the house coverage here on c-span. and may be able to get that briefing from nancy pelosi too. vern in new york and sara, good afternoon. caller: hi how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: i got to tell you the caller before last, the lady that wanted to do away with the department of homeland security , and you had another caller about 9:00, same thing. they don't realize the department of homeland security and the department of immigration are kind of -- they're not exactly the same thing, but they do share some moneys. and another thing is -- the department of homeland security was formed because we did not

share information, the f.b.i., the c.i.a., i.c.e. etc., with each other. we kept it to ourselves. so when 9/11 happened, after that, we made the department of homeland security which would make it easier to track people. host: thanks for your comments. to atlanta georgia. democrats line. diana. hello. caller: hi. i love my country, but i have been so damn discouraged watching all the fiasco going on. we need to have a system -- host: going to let you go. here comes our leader pelosi. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> good afternoon. we are coming to the end of our second recess. day. we don't know how many other recesses are in store. but the clock is ticking. in 10 hours, the government

will either be shut down or not. of course we hope not, not, and the senate has sent us a bipartisan bill strongly supported by members of both parties to the house. the papers here they could take up the bill, send it to the president immediately. instead i'm going to yield to our distinguished whip for describing the see consequentialing of the bills -- sequencing of the bills they have on the floor and the choices that they are making are not in furtherance of solving the problem. the security of our country is our first responsibility, to protect and defend. there's enough uncertainty in the world without injecting more uncertainty as to when and how we're going to fund our homeland security. i'm just saying to the speaker, get a grip. get a grip mr. speaker. get a grip on the responsibility we have. get a grip on the legislative possibilities that are here. he can bring his three-week bill to the floor and the senate bill to the floor, let members vote on both send them

both forward one to the president, the other to the senate. and everyone will have been able to express himself or herself on how we protect the american people. but instead, because of the course of action he's chosen, we will be limited. and i'm going to yield to our distinguished whip on that score. but really it's time to end this. this is drip drip, drip, drip. a few weeks, from december to january and now to february and then to march. a whole quarter of uncertainty in the time of this. now, remember that this funding that they have, want to continuing resolution to go forward until march 19, whatever it is, is money at rate of last year's spending. of funding. last year's funding. it's last year's funding, that does not meet this year's threats. so for every reason we should

take up the senate bill and move forward. i yield to our distinguished whip. >> thank you madam leader. first, let me explain, and i think all of you know this, what we are considering. the senate has sent us a bill, 68-31, over 2/3 of the senate, which is the bill that the republicans agreed to out of the appropriations committee in december. it was agreed on both sides of the aisle. it is not controversial. it could pass overwhelmingly in the house of representatives if it were put on the floor. they've sent us that bill. unfortunately the republicans have changed the sequencing of the consideration of legislation so that if we pass a motion to go to conference the legislation which we could pass, which would be the september 30 funding, balance of the year funding for the department of homeland security, would no longer be in

the possession of the house. so before they take the vote on a short-term c.r., a resolution which keeps the homeland security fund, they're going to send back to the senate a bill which does exactly that, which was supported 68-31 by the united states senate. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> leaders pelosi and hoyer speaking to reporters just outside the u.s. house. you can continue to watch that live over at cspan.org. the u.s. house coming back in about 10 minutes or so, at 2:15 eastern or so, we expect. and here's news from the white house in terms of the passage of a three-week measure. that's what the republicans are planning to do this afternoon. the short-term homeland security spending measure. this is a tweet from rebecca shabat of the hill. a retweet from this afternoon -- >> we'll continue with your

calls up until the time the house comes in. now is next up, dalton, georgia, and bruce, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: yes, i would just like to make a comment. my comment is, the voters of the united states vote for the house and the senate. i wish the senate and the house caucus would start working for the people of the united states and instead of working for the rich and the powerful, the ones that get -- send their money, get them elected. there's no sense in what this country has went through since obama was elected president. it's like -- and i hate to say it like this, but it's like the g.o.p. is the k.k.k. instead of being in the business of the people. thank you and you have a nice day. host: here's martin in california. democrats line.

caller: my question is, why can't we just bring up the bill that funds the department of homeland security? we're all focused on defending our homeland. and we'll debate immigration in a separate bill. republicans, democrats need to focus on our security, not immigration today. immigration come up in another bill tomorrow, whenever they want. that is what i have to say. host: keep in mind the senate has passed a so-called clean department of homeland security spending measure. without those immigration amendments attached. that passed in the house -- in the nat, rather, 68-31. that would fund the department through the end of september. the measure the house considered, they've already debated it by the way, when they come back they'ring going to take up what's called the motion to go to conference, in terms of negotiating with the u.s. senate. but the measure the house debated is the three-week short-term measure. here's sullivan, indiana. we're going to take you back now to nancy pelosi.

>> it undermines all that we want to do to protect the american people. you can't plan, you can't hire, you can't protect three weeks to three weeks, drip, drip, drip. that undermines security. so he has -- the speaker has a different choice here. give us a vote. give us a vote on the bipartisan bill that passed the senate. it has nothing to do with the choice we'd like. we could turn around within an hour, could you go home because the president will be signing the bill. or you could go down there and watch him do it. but this could be over very shortly. again, we are continuing funding from last year's funding level, which do not meet this year's challenges. >> we have a crisis today, friday the 27th. we have a crisis which we created. and we created it in december to mullify those who are angry

at the president. but who were not in my opinion, focused on the security of our country. senator reid has made it very clear that we will be in that same crisis three weeks from now. because for the fifth time in a row, they will not agree to what the republicans are going to do today if they had the votes. which means they have done four times, unsuccessfully, an effort, they control the senate, they control the house, four times unsuccessfully attempted to pass the house bill. you would think at some point in time the republicans would get the idea that that bill is not going to pass. so all they are doing, yes, the president may sign it, but all they are doing is postponing for 21 days the crisis. creating -- there are enough

crisises frankly that happen that we don't create. creating crisis is a bad policy. and we ought not to do it. >> the manufactured crisis, the sad part of it is that we're going down a path which is already blocked. leader reid has already said, we're not going to conference. we're not going to conference. going to conference at this point on these issues with immigration and the rest is really a very bad idea. they know that's not going to happen. when will they ever learn? just take the shortest path to get the job done for the american people. >> [inaudible] >> i don't have any intention of getting involved in the politics of that caucus.

they have enough trouble getting along with each other. i don't think i should inject myself into that. thank you. thank you all. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the democratic leader speaking to reporters just outside the house, as the u.s. house will gavel back in. we expect in two to three minutes here. we'll have live coverage on c-span. obviously we'll continue with your phone calls up until the time they do come in. when the house comes in, we expect them to debate a motion to go to conference with the senate. the house is yet to pass the short-term three-week measure funding the department of homeland security. it passed in the senate earlier today by a vote of 68-31, so here's where things stand. the funds expire tonight at midnight. the house considered the three-weeks extension. they have yet to vote on. it like we said, this motion to go to conference, negotiations with the senate, and the senate itself, that's a clean, what they call a clean spending bill. it doesn't have the immigration

provisions in there. whatever happens this afternoon in the house session and the senate, weekend sessions in the senate are likely. and we'll just have to wait and see when they come out and see what comes up next. let's take to your calls until the house does come. in washington, independent line ed, go ahead. caller: hey. i think the poverty situation, the religious groups, having them tellinging people go go out and have babies when you can't afford them i mean, they are telling them to have large families we are going to east asia, whatever, i mean, you know, the mideast, i'm sorry, we can go to central america and stop them from coming up, you got both parties are guilty

of power grabs. the line-item veto we could do or have a third party. host: let's get another view from laggerow, florida. and this is paul on our republican line. caller: as a former grants administrator for public safety i found it very disingenuous of senators to focus in on the fact that the failure of the part of republicans to pass the homeland security bill's going to block these grants. well, these grants just aren't arbitrarily just given out. they take sometimes six months, eight, nine months before the government even considers grants available to public safety. and the same thing for nancy pelosi and steny hoyer. they won't focus on the real issue and the real issue here, very clearly, is that that bill contains funding for illegal -- for an illegal executive order

that the president said was illegal, that everybody has said is illegal, and they will not own up to it and in front of the american people and they are picking on issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the heart of this particular legislation. and maybe the house ought to just pass the thing and defund it later if they think they can get away with that. but they're trying to back the republicans into a corner, to make them look bad in the eyes of the american people and that's not fair because they're not owning up to what the truth is in this. host: thank you for your call. one more call here. maybe one or two. tucker georgia, and pete democrats line. caller: hi. thank you so much for being there for the people. just wanted to say that too many people are listening to a propaganda company that went to court to prove that they're an entertainment company and not a news company, even though it says news in their name. host: what are you talking about? who are you talking about?

caller: i think it's obvious i'm talking about fox. it's legal for them to lie and misrepresent and propagandize. they do great when they stick to the news but it's 2% news and 9 % opinion. and -- 98 prps opinion. i have a real problem with the jerrymandering. you used to have to be a moderate and take both sides to win an election. now it's so polarized that you can say any crazy thing you want and you can still get elected. host: pete, appreciate your calls. a couple of comments on twitter. some tweets -- host: all of that ahead momentarily. and manu raju --

host: here comes the house. live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] e eaker, house of representatives sir. pursuant tote permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representativesrk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 27 2015, at 12:59 p.m. that the senate passed, senate 527. appointments national historical publications and records commission. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition 1234 mr. carter: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 12, by direction of the committee on appropriations, i move to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 240 with the senate amendment thereto disagree with the senate amendment, and request a conference on the

disagreeing votes of the two houses. the speaker pro tempore: did the gentleman mean to cite rule 22 and not rule -- mr. carter: oh, yeah, i read it wrong. 22. sorry. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. carter: madam speaker, we need to go to conference in order to move the process forward. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

>> i ask for the yeas and nays, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause of rule 20, -- 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the motion will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreeinging to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 191. the motion is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the

journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the journal stands approved. >> madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 186. with one answering present. the journal stand as i proved. -- stands approved. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid -- the vote on adoptioning the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is laid on the table. the house will be in order. please take your conversations

off the floor. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i have a motion to instruct at desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. roybal-allard from california moves that the managers on the part of the house on the conference on the disagreeing votes on the bill be instructed to recede from disagreement with the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, and the gentleman from texas, mr.

carter each will control 30 minutes. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from california deserves to be heard. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i yield myself what time i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker my motion would instruct the conferees to recede to the senate position which is the responsible position of providing a full-year funding for the homeland security department. secretary johnson has warned over and over again that the republican leadership's refusal to allow a vote on a clean, bipartisan funding bill such as the one sent to this house by the republican-led senate is threatening the national security of our country.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman from california deserves to be heard. the gentlewoman will continue. ms. roybal-allard: without a full year of bills, the secretary tells us he is unable to move forward on key homeland security priorities, including new investments in border securities technology more aggressive i.c.e. investigations related to transnational criminal organizations that engage in drug and human smuggling and human trafficking enhanced preparedness for responding to surging -- surges in illegal migration such as the one experienced last summer acquisition of