the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 203, the nays are 224. the joint resolution is not passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the -- the house will be in order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> members are advised that additional votes are now possible late they are evening and maybe this weekend, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct on h.r. 240 offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h r. 240 offered by ms. roybal-allard of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. 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 housof rntes any use ofhelod-ped vef e us proceedgsol o coerurisxpss prohibid uus reprens.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 201. the nays are 218. the motion is not adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will appoint conferees on h.r. 240 at a later time. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to clause 5-a -- 4-a of rule x and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the rolling members of the house to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of the energy -- committee on ethics for the 114th congress. the clerk: mrs. blackburn of tennessee, mr. collins of georgia mrs. comstock of virginia, mr. forbes of

virginia, mr. hultgren of illinois mr. cacko of new york, mr. latta of ohio, mr. olson of texas, mr. ratcliff of texas, mrs. roby of alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to clause 5-a 4-a rule 10 of the rules of the house of representatives, i designate the following members to be available to serve on an investigative subcommittee of the committee on ethics during the 114th congress, the honorable john c. carney of delaware, the honorable gerald e. connelly of virginia the honorable janice hahn of california, the honorable brian higgins of new york, the honorable hakeem s. jeffries of new york, the honorable william r. keating of massachusetts the honorable ed perlmutter of colorado, the honorable terri a. sewell of alabama, the

honorable jackie speier of california the honorable dina titus of nevada. signed, best regards, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives sir, pursuant to 44 united states code 2702, i am pleased to reappointment mr. john a. laurence of washington, d.c., to the advisory committee on the records of congress. thank you for your attention to this appointment. signed sincerely, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair.

security continuing resolution

vote breakdown, depen they needed 217 and they only had 203 for the continuing resolution. to fund the department for another three weeks. john harwood says this is the biggest repudiation house speaker john boehner has suffered yet and then "roll call" says g.o.p. leader says additional votes now possible late they are evening and over the weekend as the shutdown continues to loom. we also heard from a retired member of congress john dingell who says congratulations, house g.o.p. this is one hell of a way to run a government. again, taking your phone call, want to know what you think about the funding for homeland security failing tonight to move forward and again the sticking point, the president's immigration executive actions. those were attached to a lot of the legislation that both the house and senate were working on. they could not agree on whether they should go ahead and fund the department with those provisions or without them.

eric is on the line in medford oregon. erica, go ahead and share your thoughts, you're on the air. caller: my thoughts are basically that they've been elected to doha a job and they need to do that job. host: sort of echoing what our

caller said there lydia in denton texas son the line. your a republican, what are your thoughts. what do you think the split between the republican party here? caller: thank you for taking my call. i am closely watching what is going on with our country, with our congress and senate and if i may soy -- say so, bottom line is mr. president if he never wrote this bill on his own and if he never come up with this idea that he can be above law and make his own decisions in how it's going to be financed and how it's going to be executed if he didn't put this in this bill, we will never -- we were never going to be here and he himself put the burden on congress and senate and that's where all this begins. that's how i see it. and i do believe that we have a lot of good people in congress

and in senate and i am praying that they will come to the point where they will conclude something that is best for our country regardless if they are democrats or republicans. but i believe that republican party has to stay and do not move on this issue. host: all right, lydia, thanks for your call you did mention the senate again, they did pass a funding bill for homeland security that would have taken the department up to the end of the fiscal year, september 30. they sent that to the house and we're not quite sure what could happen if the house might take that up, or if they will not if they're working on their own plans for the department of homeland security at this point. don is calling from california on the independent line. don, you're on the air. caller: i'm a little confused. looking a -- at this bill objectively, the funding for immigration comes out of

homeland security. so the funding the money that obama would need for his executive action would come out of homeland security. so if voting for a funding bill for homeland security, you can improve something -- include something to keep him from spending that money on his execive action in the funding bill because it's all funding. i don't see why this is not a clean bill. what they're doing is lawful. what they're doing is constitutional. and all i hear is really lies coming out that this is other than legal and sane. the executive action has been put on hold by a judge. it's not looked at by the american people in the polls as something worth doing. so i just don't understand what all this hull ba loo is. -- hullabaloo is. it's not about hating obama, it's about not doing the right thing for the country. we need to step back and look at

it. the president doesn't make laws, the president enforces them. and the congress has the power of the purse and they are using their -- they're flexing that power of the purse right now and i see a lot of people trying to make it something else. an it's really not. it's -- it's what it is. host: don, thanks. democrats' line, russell springs, kentucky, laura, what are your thoughts. caller: my thought is i would have thought we would have been able to get rid of this to begin with if they'd brought the immigration bill up in the house for a vote a year ago. would have been taken care of. the immigration problem would have been handled and we wouldn't be playing gails in court and the republicans would have to do something other than fighting against the president on everything he wants to do to put the country forward. i wish mr. boehner had gotten everything together and been able to lead the people in his caucus. he cannot lead. it's a shame.

i wish he could. he should have told them that you sit down and watch what goes on they all don't need to get to speak at the same time and nobody hears anybody. everybody has to work together. it's a shame they can't. but if they brought up the immigration bill we wouldn't be fighting it now. host: thanks for your call, lawyer rasm let's look at a tweet from congresswoman martha roeby who talks about what the senate has done on its end. the department of homeland appropriations bill that the senate sent over was unacceptable why? no prohibition of funds for executive amnesty. we're talking about the president's executive actions his execive order on immigration. she said they voted to send it back. and a look here, too, congressman eric swalwell says, new season streaming now on c-span, don't shut down our security. a play there on a polar tv show. going back to your calls, ron on

the line from pinkerton, ohio, on the republicans' line. ron, what do you think about what you've seen so far, the house and senates' actions on homeland security funding? caller: i think it's very important and i believe the representatives are doing the right thing trying to protect the constitution. without a constitution the country has no true security. that is our bedrock of security. d.h.s. selectively enforces borders and the president and the department of justice selectively enforce laws. if we cannot let -- we cannot let this continue. otherwise the president will appoint the next president in 2016 instead of an election. he cannot be allowed to act outside the law. and his executive action is not comparable to historical executive actions. he is creating new law. he is not using prosecutorial

discretion. he's creating whole cloth law. it cannot be allowed. it's a shame that d.h.s. is not funded but both the house and the senate had a bill that fully funded d.h.s. except for the illegal action of the president. it is too bad for those who will be hurt in the short-term, but the entire country would be hurt in much more severe ways if we let this constitutional abuse continue. host: on to the indent line, richard from newbury, michigan richard, go ahead and share your thoughts. caller: i wonder what governs the time limit on the vote. i heard the chair person call for a 15-minute vote and i watched the clock and it went to 50 minutes. it seems like they all know they have to vote on something, so what's the reason for a 15-minute time limit if they don't abide by it? host: right, richard, sorry i

couldn't tell if we lost your call, but you're right that vote, which was a 15-minute vote went for about doctorfish about 50 minutes system of let's see if we can get another call on the line as well. elliot calling from east syracuse on the democrats line. >> thank you -- caller: thank you for taking my call. quite honestly i don't know where to start. i've been watching c-span every day, all the arguments in congress i really feel heart broken for our country because we have from day one the republicans made the determination to block this president any way they could. at the cost of the american people. and none of us are -- that are calling in, or constitutional scholars but the president is. ok. this is disgraceful.

and john boehner should be -- if he could be, i don't even know impeached. our country is going downhill very quickly and if we don't wake up and get rid of these unbelievably childish people, and elect them, i feel very sorry for the republicans because anything that the republicans pass now that they have the majority, the republican constituents are going to have to follow the law. it's sad it's really sad. host: thanks for your call ellie. let's look at a -- at an article here actually it's a tweet. we've been covering the cpac conference, the conservative political action conference, and jeb bush, one of the possible political contenders, says, it makes no sense to let the department of homeland security's funding expire. read more at "the hill." and nick glavin talks about the

impacts of a potential continuing resolution or lapse in appropriation. find more at the department of homeland security on its website, talking about what they might be seing if this continues. their funding expires tonight at midnight just about less than five hours away. ginger get -- gives us a sort of behind the scenes view of what's happening on capitol hill right now. capitol press is in stage five hallway stalking mode, trying to find out what's going to be happening for us as well. we're taking your phone calls right now. you can let us know what you think about what's been happening on capitol hill, how it might be affecting you and the phone numbers up on your screen, republicans 202-748-8921. democrats, 202-748-8920. all others, 202-74 -8922. next call waiting for us is don in bing, washington, on the

republicans' line. caller: thank you for taking my call, it's benjin, washington. host: sorry. caller: it bothers me as a republican to listen to the democrats throughout our country and on the hill up there that they cannot possibly think that our constitution is not being violated by this president and how badly it hurt ours country. the last call you are -- caller you had said america is on a downhill slide, she's correct. and for the last six years democrats put us on that downhill slide. when i listened to nancy pelosi shaking her fnger at him, i was appalled she was trying to hoodwink the country into believing that america is going to fail, you know, homeland security is going to fail if they don't get funded. the bigger picture is obama lawlessness, he's going about all the other presidents that

were mentioned all did theirs legally and with the law in mind when they passed their resolutions about immigration and stuff. but here we go. the democrats are just blind to the fact that they're killing our country. and i can't understand how they can't see that. so thank you for the call. host: you bet, don. on to mike in shepherdstown, virginia, on the independent line. what do you have to say about what you've been seeing in the house, the senate and department of homeland security funding? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it's quite a mess up on capitol hill today. i think it all points back to the executive branch. i just had a quick question for clarification, let's say that in the next five hours the house of representatives comes up with yet a new bill, something that's different than was passed from the senate earlier today would then within the next five hour, if that passes, would it have to go back to the senate? host: right. we've seen some of this action

before, house and senate do go back and forth sometimes they even pass very short-term, 24-hour extensions as well system of we will have to see what's going to be happening. again, not quite sure at this point, the sthath has has given the department of homeland security funding bill back to the house, that is waiting for the house if they do take action on that or not. we also heard from the majority leader, kevin mccarthy of california in the house, saying that possible votes perhaps even over the weekend. we'll be bringing that to you right here on c-span. we take another call here. this is richard in glen oaks, maryland on the democrat's line. richard, you're on the air. caller: thank you. i find it amusing that they don't realize that all of their relations and ancestors were all immigrants and some of them, a lot of them, were illegal immigrants. but all they're interested in is blame the president for doing what they should have done themselves. and i think that the republicans

, from day one, as that lady said, wanted to blame the president for everything that he did, even if it was wright or even if it was wrong. so i think that the american people have to realize what is important here. are these senators and representatives elected as themselves or to represent the people that, in their own state? it seems to me that they, both of them vote what they're told to vote and not, you know representing their own districts. thank you. host: thank you. republicans' line, tom is waiting, in texas. go ahead you've got the floor. >> i'm glad to be with you this afternoon and i'm really bewildered at our president, thinking he is above the law and he certainly isn't. and i'm proud of the ones that stood in his way this afternoon.

and for any of the democrats that think that he should be above the law, they need to rethink their position. we have a nation of laws and we need to abide by them. and he can't -- he can't do what he said he couldn't do many many times. and i've seen it recorded over and over again that he said he couldn't do this, and right after the mid-term leches he decided to do it on his own. and i'm proud of our people that stood against him. >> ok, tom, thanks for your call. gerald son the line in california. for independence -- for independents. go ahead. caller: what i'm seeing, i'm a veteran of two conflicts, retired naval commander, it's not so much that we don't want illegal immigrants coming into the country, just do it legally. they don't come for jobs. this is what the politicians don't realize.

jobs are secondary because as a former building inspector, all the craftsmen on the construction sites now are illegal, except for the supervisor, and they come for benefits free health care schooling, food stamps, send them to college. why should you do it on my bill? i think all the senators and congressmen should have the illegals live in their home, you'd have quick action. have them come into their home and live, let them support them, and then let's see how favorable they are to illegal immigration. it's just gotten out of hand. we have a foreign army in our midst. when i was in uniform sucking our systems dry. host: this is lee in del rio, texas. caller: good afternoon. and it is indeed a good afternoon. the republicans are showing some backbone. they're not going to let obama go ahead and destroy us. you democrats need to remember you guys had the first two years, blanket. you could have done whatever you wanted to do and he made all

these promises about immigration then and he didn't come through. all he was interested in doing was taking over our health care system and you want to talk about fair play, we've got that jammed right down our throats. mr. obama is the one who should be impeach the lady two or three times ago talked about boehner. the ones who need to be impeached are the ones who don't stand up to this guy and don't try to destroy him. i live one mile from the mexican border by golly, when people come across there, they have broke the law if they don't do it right. some of my family are legal immigrants. and they did it right. they complied with the law. some of them came out of mexico some from other countries, just like we all did. it needs to be done right. the democrats ought to allow a vote on the homeland security bill which we all support and then a separate vote on the immigration bill and they're the ones who are blocking the whole

thing and i appreciate you letting me talk. thank you. host: thanks, lee. yeah, some of that did happen in the senate. they did try to split up a separate vote for -- a separate measure for lawmakers to vote on the immigration, the president's immigration policies, whether or not to block those. and then send -- they sent out a separate department of homeland security funding bill. again, that's action in the senate in order to fund the department through the end of the fiscal year, september 30. and what just happened a short time ago in the house they failed to move forward on their plan which was a three-week extension of funding for the department of homeland security. take a look, we just had a caller from texas and one of the issues involved here is the texas immigration case california can up end the case. texas leading a coalition of 26 states got what it wanted from a federal district judge, a preliminary injunction halting the november 20 executive action

on immigration. it's opened a powerful rebuttal from states that have a different spin on the immigration plan. so happening at the state level as well as here on capitol hill. we're taking your phone calls. on the line from democrats from lafayette, georgia, gigi. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. number one i would like to say, we all have to blame ourselves why we don't go to vote for a change. this is why the mess, we keep on going electing them back into office. secondly how did home health -- i mean the homeland security have something to do with immigration? these are two separate subjects. it should be separate to be

voted on. the punishment they give to each other all the time it's like little children. i came here legally, i love this country, and what are they doing to each other? can they not do the right thing? nobody is perfect out here but for god's sake have a little courtesy. if you cannot agree with each other, sit down with each other some things need to be taken out of the bill, see if you can change it to something else but your priority right now is homeland security or number one is also just education. nobody get hired unless you have education, when this is only talked about the keystone pipeline. so don't kick yourself. thanks to homeland security we need homeland security, it's urgent particularly now when everybody is at war with each

other. host: thanks for your call. moving on to clarksville, virginia, on the democrat's line donald is waiting. donald, go ahead. caller: first of all, i do believe we need this homeland security bill passed and all of you people who want to blame obama for this and obama for that, i get sick and tired of that. you need to talk about the homeland security bill. you need to pass it,on boehner, you need to pass -- you need to pass it, john boehner, you need to pass it you need to bring it up for a vote get it passed and then talk about the immigrations me. i'm not for all the immigration mess myself and i'm a democrat. but let's stop blaming obama for everything. the man has done some good things. ok. let's stop this mess, get the homeland security bill passed and then we can talk about the

immigration. i'm finished. host: all right, donald thanks for your car. from ohio, calling on the republican line,ierry. caller: yes, i don't know why they -- he went ahead and executive order and done that to start with. he knew what was going to happen. he knew it was going to backfire on him. i don't know why the republicans don't just pull the nuclear option like the democrats did, 51 votes, pass it and set it up there and let him veto it. he's to blame for it anyway. that's all i've got to say. host: all right, jerry, thanks for the call. patricia is on the line from pennsylvania. what are your thoughts about the homeland security funding that failed to pass earlier. caller: are you talking to me? host: are you patricia? host:

caller: i am but i'm from muskegon, michigan. i have been listening to this all day, i have to say i'm embarrassed at the lack of education shown by the people in america. so many things that people say don't make any sense. obama is to blame for this mess osmba ma said that he would try to do this. he said it. reagan did it. you didn't hear the republicans taking him to court for it. bush did it. you didn't see republicans taking him to court. this is about race. when the writer said that there's nothing in this world that is not about race he was right. there's no way to avoid it. people can say, i like obama, i love obama, the man is a dog, whatever, but this is act race. and these -- i look at this, i'm

69 years old, i look at this, back when i was a child, and we had one-room schoolhouses, books that my father had used, and when it came up that the integration -- the school separate but equal came up that was fought tooth and nail. if you go back to those times and look at to this history, you'll see that what these people are doing is very similar to what they had then. host: all right patricia, thanks for the call. i want to get to a couple more calls, edward is on the line many liverpool, texas. go ahead. caller: i have been watching this pretty much all afternoon, the homeland security problem. it seems pretty easy to see that the christian right are very immature about this.

like the last lady said, as the brown skin thing, they don't want this to happen because they're not americans yet. they're not going to be getting amnesty, they're going to be getting a card, we're going to be able to register these people, collect tax money from these people, but they're not going to get citizenship, they're not going to be able to go see the doctor unless they pay cash for it. i don't understand what the problem is that they can't separate the two, have a homeland security vote and then after that do the immigration thing. they were supposed to do the immigration thing, they said eric with want it just like it is, the way it is, it's wrong. too many visas coming in. host: edward, the senate did try to take that approach, split the two, the immigration provisions to block the president's executive action on immigration away from the department of homeland security funding. at this point, about four hours before the department of homeland security funding

expires. and we're going to talk with a reporter on capitol hill, christina marcos is joining us, she's with the hill. you can follow her reporting at thehill.com and christina, let us know where we are at this point on capitol hill, if you can. looks like we're going to try to work with getting to our reporter on capitol hill. we'll try to get back with her in just a moment. still taking your phone calls. sara is on the line in north hollywood for the independent line and sara, go ahead and let us know what you think about the department of homeland security. sara, are you there? one more time for sara? >> thank you very much for taking my call. host: sure, go ahead. caller: i'm an old senior, i guess i remember an awful lot

and i'm from california. and i watched -- i have watched very carefully what ronald reagan did on -- he called it amnesty, what he did. he didn't kid anybody and he put that through. and there was a woman who spoke just a few minutes ago and i -- the only thing i ask how come that it was ok for reagan, who the republicans adore, beyond belief, and you know, quote the ronald reagan on everything under the sun, and yet when ronald reagan did amnesty nobody was yelling and screaming and this was terrible and they've broken the constitution and on and on and on and on. and i really would like you to verify what i'm saying is fact. and it seems to me i'd like to

hear some republicans say reagan was wrong then. and also bush did it. but you never hear that. i just -- i just like fairness. i'm an old senior and i remember ronald reagan because i was a parent with him, we fed our kids at the fairs together so i know all about ronald reagan. host: all right sara, thanks for your call. we've heard a number of callers make those comparisons with presidents on both sides of the aisle and of course questioning the politics perhaps behind that. steve is on the line in hudson, florida, and steve go ahead and let us know what you think about the house-senate action so far and the soon to be expired homeland security funding. caller: hello actually my name is lee. host: lee, go ahead. caller: ok, thank you. today's activity in the congress was a true embarrassment. unbelievable what they're doing. they're kicking the can down the

road once again. and there's been a couple of people talking about ronald ray depan and other republicans that gave amnesty to the immigrants in the country at that time. there is a problem with immigration controls and regulations in this country that need to be amended. there was a bipartisan committee assigned to come out with a newly designed bill on immigration. they just said it was too difficult to do. did not accomplish the job. the new senator from florida was one of them. talked about reagan. reagan should have been impeached himself he directly violated a congressional mandate of the iraq -- it was called the iran contraaffair. he should have been impeached. but oh, he was, republicans loved him too much to do anything against him. well this president that we currently have has done

remarkable things for this country. when he took office back in -- after bush and the republicans destroyed what was -- what this country had, they started off with a surplus of nearly $1 trillion, nearly $1 trillion in surplus, that's the money -- extra money for the american government to operate this wonderful country. and in a short time, they did -- they invaded the country which was all lies, and now most of the people who watch what goes on in this country see what goes on and here the republicans which are nothing but greedy, want everything their way, they don't want fair taxes, they want to reward the rich by cutting taxes, the governor we have today he has cut taxes here, take them away from the education programs down here, it is continuous. host: thank you for your call. calling from florida. we do

>> this is before the house vote that failed to move forward with final passage of a three-week extension for funding the department of homeland security. we'll take a look at what the minority leader in the house, nancy pelosi, had to say as well as texas congressman gohmert. >> to be a judge in texas to be a chief justice in texas and to be in congress. it means something. and protecting the constitution means that if we don't preserve the balance of power, then this little experiment in democracy

or the republic, madam as benjamin franklin referred to will be lost. so i appreciated what my friend from maryland said and i wrote it down, because it was profound. and i quote, we gave up the opportunity to act responsibly. and i would humbly submit madam speaker, that that's been going on for the last six years. now, some of it went on during the bush administration, as the president used executive orders and took powers that probably shouldn't have been his. but in talking to people that have been in congress over the last 35 years or so, they have told me that whether it was geraldford or richard nixon, when -- nixon carter, ronald reagan there was a willingness

on both sides of the aisle to get in a car together and go down pennsylvania and say mr. president, you have you supered far too much -- usurped the constitution. we are taking a stand and we have missed that opportunity to act responsibly. but fortunately, it's not too late. this will act responsibly to say and if you don't what irresponsibility is then look at the judge's opinion. he spells it out. this president didn't even have the gumption and sign it. he spoke his new amnesty law into being and jeh johnson did a memo. that took the power of congress away from us.

so the question on acting responsibly is, do we make that message clear? we're not having laws spoken into being in this country and having some bureaucrat unelected come around with a memo that undoes laws by different congresses all these years signed by different presidents. with a memo. come on. it's time to act responsibly. now is the time. i know party divisions run deep, but stand with us for the constitution. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from california the democratic leader of the house. >> the gentlelady is recognized

for one minute. >> i commend the ranking member to accept the senate language. i wanted to address what some of our previous speakers have mentioned but go to the most previous speaker. if you feel so strongly -- because i don't know if this is about thinking or feeling -- so strongly about the immigration issue and executive actions taken by the president, i respect that. but why are you jeopardizing the homeland security of the united states of america by attaching your emotions to this bill? that's what this is about. you have an argument about immigration, have an immigration bill come to the floor and let's have that date. it is totally irresponsible, and you did say we have given up the opportunity to act responsibly. well, that's exactly what you

are doing today. policy differences about immigration are a legitimate debate in this great marketplace of ideas which is called house of representatives. but for you to hold hostage the homeland security of our country, to jeopardize the opportunity to prepare, to prepare to have what is current and necessary for the realities of the threats that we are facing now instead of three months, three months since december to march 19, three months old funding carried over from last year. a lot has happened since then. in paris, in the middle east threats in our own country. get a grip on our responsibilities. get a grip, mr. speaker. give us a chance to vote on a bill that passed by more than 2/3 in the united states senate with a strong bipartisan

support. and as far as your criticisms of president obama, nobody said boo over there when president reagan when rightfully so used his executive orders on protecting immigrants in our country. george herbert walker bush, the same. president clinton. president bush who is one of the best presidents on immigrants. wasn't able to convince his colleagues. but nonetheless, he led on that subject. you've made a mess, you have made a mess. we have so many bills, counterbills c.r.'s, all the rest of it coming back, forward and all the rest. and every time i asked all of you what's happening, everybody says i don't know. well it's only eight hours

until the government will shut down. that can't possibly happen. and i want to address that point. someone has said to me, the president has said he would sign this three-week thing. that's a bad choice we have given the president to shut the government down or extend for three weeks when that three-week extension is undermining to our national security as a shutdown in government. that is not right. so i say to my colleagues, if you want to go down that path of poor choices, let the republicans do that, because they have multi-agendas here, anti--obama agendas here, let them go down their path. and put that 218 on the board. and just because the president's person says of the two bad choices, he would choose if it

came to his desk, the three weeks, don't let that deter you from voting no on that. and yes on what congressman roybal-allard is putting forth and congressman lowey as well. yes, we do take that oath, the gentleman said, whether you are a judge, whether you are in the military whether in congress, president of the united states, to protect and support the constitution of the united states. we're not protecting anything with what you are doing here. we're not protecting anything. we're dragging it out and sending a message. that fosh some historic reason, we are now taking it out on barack obama, because we are angry about what the gentleman said on the republican side that reagan bush, clinton, bush have done. bring it up under another

circumstance. keep it off the protection of our protection of our country. your chairman, mr. rogers, working with our ranking member, congresswoman lowey were able to put together 12 bills, which were a compromise compromised bills that everyone was prepared to support until you decided you were going to use immigration to hold hostage the national homeland security of our country. and so, kick the can to here. now you have kicked the can to here and now you are going to kick the can to march 19. what do you think is going to happen on march 19th. we have had two recesses today on this very day of congressional deliberation. what do you think you are going to accomplish if you are not going to grow up and bite the bullet. you made your point.

your republican senators do not agree to drag this out. they have given you a face saving path. the judges have have given you a face-saving path. the urgency is very, very clear well, clear to e except those who happen to except in this chamber when your negative attitudes to president obama have so overwhelmed you that you are willing to jeopardize the homeland security of our country, the homeland security of our country, whether it's firefighters or fema or anything that comes in contact where the federal government comes in contact with people, you are standing in the way and using immigration as the excuse. for some of you, it may be a reason. maybe for some of you, but some

of you, it is an excuse and for all of you, it is the shame. one of the gentlemen said if we accept the senate language, we aren't living up to our responsibility to have a bill in the house and then you expect them to accept your l language? doesn't it hold true both ways. why do you expect them to accept your three-week language. do you not understand the legislative process, this constitution which we value has the legislative branch, the first article of government, the legislature, preeminent. president can't sign what we don't send him in temperatures of making the law. he can take executive action, but the law is stronger. let us honor our responsibilities and stop, stop

standing in the way of protecting the american people. it's about the security of the american people versus the philosophy that you have going over there, which is perfectly to be respected in another piece of legislation. let's have that debate separate from protecting. it's about time it's about time for us to come together to get the job done. the senate did it. we can. please support congresswoman roybal-allard and congresswoman lowey's motion to accept the senate bill. with that, i yield back. >> and in the house earlier house failing to pass a three-week extension to fund the homeland security department and waiting to see what the house or senate will do. the senate passed a clean bill that would fund the homeland security bill.

we will be talking your phone calls. and join us on the line. >> joining on the line is with "the hill." . and what can you tell us about how this three-week extension failed and what it means going on moving forward? >> well, in the end, 51 house republicans voted against this three-week extension of department of homeland security funding. and only 12 democrats voted in favor of it. and there was too much of a deficit for the bill to still pass and the deficit was so

wide, no way leadership could have twisted a few arms on the house floor to save it. it is complete chaos as no one knows what's next. and the deadline is less than six hours away. >> what do you know or what have you heard about the possibilities of the senate bill that passed earlier? what action could the house take? is that a possible way out? >> well, complicating matters is earlier this afternoon, the house voted on a motion to go to conference with the senate on that clean d.h.s. funding bill that doesn't have language on immigration. until the senate acts on it and sends it back to the house, the house cannot take it up again. the option for the house could be passing another shorter stopgap funding bill or alternatively they could simply

create another legislative vehicle as the exact same text. >> let me see if we can show a tweet here. and he talked about the possibility of well, possibility of a one-two-week continuing resolution. >> go over again what the sticking point is here and why we are seeing the threatened shutdown in a few hours away. >> you have many house republicans, most of them hardlined conservatives from the far right who refuse to support a spending bill that support president obama's immigration bill. they won't go for any bill that

revokes those actions and even a bowl that lasts for as little as a week is objectionable because they don't want to be voting for anything that would allow these executive actions to go forward. >> are we hearing from house democrats or the white house what kind of power they might have in making this move forward, if any? >> the house democrats have said they would support a clean spending bill that would last for the rest of the fiscal year through september 30. as you saw during the vote a couple of hours ago. they held their votes to the very end. democrat leaders told their members to vote being that they wanted them to hang on their votes and before they started voting. >> and then the white house side of things, what do they hope to see come out of this?

>> the white house would prefer that the house take up the same bill that the senate perhaps earlier today that would fund homeland security through september and doesn't include revoking the president's executive actions. the white house indicated they would be open to approving a short-term stopgap bill. >> what is the atmosphere for you and the other reporters up on the hill? >> complete confusion. we are at the point that lawmakers are asking reporters what's going on. the trade is what is going to ask, i don't know. when lawmakers are asked, what is going to happen, the common refrain is i don't know. it is a huge question mark right now. >> and we have been seeing reports that this is the new

congress, republicans in charge. how is this going to be making them look in future stories that you are going to be writing? >> this is a major stumble for house republican leaders. earlier today, the house also had to pay their replacement to no child left behind that they have been working on in the last few days. that bill is in trouble from conservative groups. not only do you have the short-term funding bill meltdown and on the same day you have the education bill get pulled because the votes didn't seem to be there either. in the last several of months, they had to yank four security legislation as well as an anti-abortion bill. it is not headlines they want for sure. >> she is with "the hill."

and christina thanks so much. we will get back to some of our callers, hanging on the line for us. sandy in west virginia, on the democrats' line. >> thanking you for taking my call. i have been watching this all day and so has the rest of the world. and it's an embarrassment an embarrassment for our country to be going through this right now. the president has asked that this matter be taken up many times. he is in his right for executive order. he didn't ask for amnesty like president reagan did and it's in the courts now. let the courts settle it. pass a clean bill and get on with governing. >> mike owe on the line for independents from alabama. >> i thank you for taking my call. i'm kind of confused. one thing is, you know,

president obama, him and his wife are both lawyers and i don't really think he would make this kind of action without knowing he could do or couldn't do. i also believe that the judge in texas and the republicans know this is going to be overturned and this is why they are still going with it. and i thought they wanted to have a conference with the senate, but every last one of them voted not to have a conference. thank you for taking my call. >> connecticut peter is on the republican line. share your thoughts about what you have seen in the house and the nat. >> thank you very much for taking my call. first thing is, i hope that the people who take the time to go on the internet and read and

look at success and collins' presentation -- susan collins' presentation. brilliant. and she brought up two points. this is not just a an executive order. it is an extension of an executive order and the point she made and made it very clear, the principle is absolutely excellent. nobody wants to do anything harmful to immigrants and especially and i'm an immigrant and just don't know it. i would like to point out that

the law says, obama was correct. he could do that executive order. i have gone into the constitution and i have gone into article 2, what makes an executive order legal. and the one is, if he feels that congress is failing, he has the right to say i'm going to pushing him along. he went from one executive order, which congress said is a memo -- that's sort of an insult -- and it's the extension that makes it illegal. so the president was right in the beginning and i would support him 100%. but i would disagree with him making the executive orders in the extended form that he did. >> susan is on the line from

louisiana. you got the floor. >> thank you for taking my call. i also have been listening and watching all day and i am embarrassed at the american people who do not number one, know their own united states constitution. and number two go read the bills that are on the floor. we do have separation of powers. no one i believe or that i know, has anything osh any disagreement with immigrants coming into this country. but we want it done lawfully because as everyone knows, i, myself, as a business owner and a taxpayer, somebody has to pay the bill. and it's going to fall on the

taxpayer. and i'm just embarrassed that the the executive branch has taken it upon itself by our laws and the constitution -- just because he agrees with everything -- let's look at a couple of tweets. chuck todd with nbc talks about this.

>> i'm very concerned about homeland security. but borders are wide open. they let everybody in. they didn't immune is the children that came in. and they release gitmo prisoners every day. they say they are worried about homeland security, but they let gitmo prisoners go. they can't even buy ammunition to protect our home, our home, because they are attacking the

ammunition manufactures. i don't understand -- homeland security ok, we need homeland security, but when it comes down to it, the democrats and obama, they don't want homeland security. that's just my thought. >> i don't know if the president's actions was illegal or legal. i got no idea. i do know that when people call in for representatives or senators say that it's legal or illegal, they are making an opinion. they're not making a fact.

this will be handled in the courts. and eventually, it will get down to nine people. and they will decide. now the only thing i don't disagree -- i disagree with is that the republicans for some reason it's in the courts, but they're afraid of letting the courts decide and they want to decide now. and i think that's wrong. thank you. >> thank you for all your calls tonight and want to let you know that the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair after earlier failing to pass a three-week extension to fund the department of homeland security and their funding runs out tonight at midnight. and we could see some votes we heard earlier tonight from the majority leader, kevin mccarthy of california, we could see more

votes tonight and over the weekend. we'll keep you posted tonight. we are going to look back at some of the action before that house vote happened and here's a look.

>> the house will not proceed until the conversations on the house floor and in the aisles. both sides in the back, please so that the gentleman can proceed. the house will be in order.

>> this would create instact at the department tasked with one of the most functions of government risk 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.

>> i believe we should and can a continue the fight on the president's intrusion into our constitution. but we must also maintain the functions of government that protect the rights and safety 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 legitimated us and to defend this great nation. so i urge an aye on the bill and reserve. >> the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> we learned 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 departments of 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 discouraging. 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 disagree 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. ironicically means that borders and customs protection and

enforcement, the agencies 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 full year clean bill the house plan would. delay terrorism preparedness and response grants to 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 initiative designed to improve coordination in our security, limit the ability of the secretary to move ahead with the southern border and approaches campaign, create incertainty to detain and deport criminals, complicate the department's ability to deal with uncommittee kpped children. delay security upgrades at the white house and necessary hiring of the u.s. secret service. my colleagues, i am simply at a loss. i am misstive eyed. i can't understand the wisdom of

this strategy. i know some of our colleagues are upset with the president. i understand how it is easy to take out your frustration on the appropriations process instead of on an immigration policy bill. and we know we must have a serious debate on immigration policy. i support immigration comprehensive 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.s.'s, police

officers and 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 are mad at the president. we are adults. i left my eight grandchildren home. we are adults i hope in this body. it's not rational to fund an important government department week by week. i really hope that the house gets serious by immediately taking up and passing the clean bipartisan bill as the senate has done. >> the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. speaker. the gentlelady from new york is

a good friend and i respect her so much and she asks important questions that the house has to answer. and she's been here a good while and i have been here a good while. while we would 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. fl is 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. they have had this will question before 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 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 are offering that and also the opportunity for a little bit of time to go to regular order to make the process work. why shunlt 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 is abusing? mr. speaker and my colleagues, i think we need to do this in regular order and there is good reason to act in the fashion that republicans are advocating. i yield back.

>> the gentleman yields back. the chair will members to refrain from all inappropriate references to the president. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. >> 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 degs on probable one of the key bills at this time, when we are threatened when terrorists, my constituents they worry should they go to the malls. 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 will 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. >> the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from kentucky reserves. >> i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the homeland security committee for as much time as she takes. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, 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 though once again leaves 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 crisis, a crisis of the republicans' own making. does anyone really think that 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 many 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 force the

department 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 extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts of a shutdown. it exascerbates the uncertainty

for my workforce 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 peopler 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 gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> let's review, let's just review briefly where we are and why we are here. 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? what are 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. that's the recommended way. that's what is 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 until tact 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 how to do it. maybe they have a better idea to reconcile the differences between the house and senate other than a house and senate

conference committee. a lot of members of this body are new to the process and never seen or know what a conference with the senate is. and i think there's some confusion in that regard, because people in thr 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. and i reserve. >> the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. >> 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 gentleman is recognized for four minutes. price >> i thank our ranking member. and 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 and i rise in opposition to that. but this is 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, that 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. we got our conference report. it's an agreed-upon bill that the majority deliberately left out of the omnibus bill in december and why did they do that? they did it for political purposes because they didn't like what the president was doing on immigration and want to poke him in the eye and want to enact these riders with a radical anti-immigration policy and 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 regularly negotiated bill, they sacrifice the increased funding for things they profess to care about. they are all about border

security. they are all about immigration enforcement and 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. in my state of north carolina, that means $9 million in emergency preparedness grants and $5.5 million in-state grants. that is true of every state. the security upgrades at the house on hold of the the acquisition of the coast guard's national security cutter on hold. the ag grow and defense facility 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 to

undertake the innovations or to make the grants that our homeland security requires. now, the house majority is still unwilling, still unwilling in this case to follow the lead of the senate and put that negotiated, bipartisan homeland security bill on the floor and 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 gentleman's time has expired. >> where does this end? some kind of conference? we have the conference report. we have the conference agreement. and 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. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> keep the homeland security department operating at full strength. >> i yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee orp appropriations judge carter from texas. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. history is something that we ought to try to get right. so we have referred to some versions of history. let's talk about exactly why we're here today. we are here today that because, yes, the appropriations committee on a bipartisan effort put together a whole series of bills to fund this government, one of which is a homeland security bill, and it's a good bill. i agree with high colleagues on the other side of the aisle. it's a good bill. i'm glad to have had a part in

that. but there's a piece of history that is missing in this discussion. right after the last election, the president wsh --, 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 laws that have been on the books for almost generations and they're going to do what they want to do for i will gracious -- immigration reform, which includes the proposal that somewhere between four million and six million people though are in this country illegally are allowed to be in this country with benefits.

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 is supposed to run. . . it became quite a tidal wave of people who are very concerned about the action. in an effort to try to engage that fight, we came up