tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 13, 2015 3:00am-5:01am EST
you >> mr. chairman, if i may be heard. i will give you my personal opinion. i think that was distraught that broke the camels back. i think back in may and june, inactivity in the senate slowed things down substantially and we were not in a position to bring -- normally, homeland is one of the first bills to come out because we were not getting a lot of response at that time, it was slowed. the president conversation that he was going to do this, i think put brakes on it too. >> i just want anybody to think -- >> i truly believe the lead up to it where he said he was going to do it and when he did it, we probably would've been part of it.
>> i don't want folks to believe it was because of a lack of production. if you all were ready to go, the whole congress would've been ready to go. >> i would agree with that. >> with great respect the last time i checked your party controls the house and the senate. it seems to me that homeland security bill that was negotiated in good faith between the house and the senate should move on its own merit and then you can bring up legislation anytime to deal with the immigration issue. i would welcome that. i support comprehensive immigration reform. certainly, you may disagree with the president's actions but there is no reason when there are such threats in the world today. just look at what happened in paris last week.
that you would hold up a homeland security bill because of the immigration issue. let's have a real debate. i welcome it. >> with respect, it is true the last time you checked we did control both houses. after time we passed the on meet omnibus bill, we did not. what i thought to understand the gentleman from texas to say, i don't want to be confused -- i don't want anybody to be confused. we are having an article one article two constitutional responsibility discussion. we are having a discussion about whether or not if the president who is charged with and lamenting -- implementing the law can just decide he is not going to do any of those things. that is the discussion we are having. we turn to you for the
prerogative in those cases. it is disappointing to me. you all did a tremendous job. starting into may into june, i wish we could do it before september 30. we would have done it. it was in the omnibus package that would've gone to the president's desk for signature. the president forced folks who believe in article one and its responsibilities to stand up for constituents across the country. >> we clearly have a different view, but i would like to say again, bipartisan support for the homeland security bill -- every one of us understands of the urgency of passing that bill. i would just respectfully ask you to report that bill and then have another discussion next
week. we can have a full discussion of immigration reform. i am ready for that. you can challenge the president. but, don't mess with that homeland security of the united states of america. your constituents and mine. i was in times square and when i saw people back to back thousands and thousands of people just as it happened in paris. it could come here and i don't want to be part of any effort to hold up the homeland security bill that protects each and every one of our districts. that is my request. >> i appreciate the gentlelady support. my great expectation is we will have bipartisan support on each of these amendments and i hope we can carry that right on through to the end of the process. >>, where we have only -- i am aware we are missing about 90
members right now, but i would like to see if anybody would like to have questions. >> i want to thank you for being here and your patience because listening to this debate, i cannot help but feel it must be maddening for you to sit here and listen to this kind of talk about why we are in the situation. we are in this situation because the republican leadership decided to hold the homeland security appropriations bill hostage over immigration politics. you were way too kind when you said this was a partisan game. it is an ugly game. that is at the heart of why this whole thing is being held up. what is going on in the world today, what happened in france, with all the chaos and the world that anybody would full around and play political games with this bill of all bills to me is unconscionable. we ought to pass this bipartisan product that i think what passed the house overwhelmingly if not unanimously and send it to the
president desk and be done with it. if you want to fight about immigration, let's have a debate. for six years, we have tried to bring immigration reform to the floor of the house. the senate passed the bill. we have yet to even have the opportunity to vote on it. the fact that we are holding this will hostage is disgraceful. i think the american people watching this are scratching their heads and saying what the hell is going on here? no wonder why people hate congress. >> judge hastings? we will look towards the other end and then we will all go vote. we will come back and debate after this piece and that is the amendments.
i hope -- we have been in here a long time. the gentleman from texas. >> i just have a question for the ranking member. did the president consult with you before he issued his statements regarding immigration in november recognizing that it may impact the bill and upon which you were working? >> i did not have a discussion with of the president but it is so clear to me as i have said bipartisan homeland security bill is essential that we passed. . let's have a discussion on immigration anytime. >> it is the president's actions that have brought us to this point, not anything that has happened to the congress. >> there seems to be real disagreement on that.
>> i do have a specific question and comment. the question is dealing with oversight of secret service. it seems to be there is sufficient room for the secret service to improve their act so they can protect the president and the first lady. do you agree with the funding? >> of course. >> before my colleagues raise indignant about who started this, i have had it to hear about what we did with immigration when we did it. i remember you controlled the house and senate a few years ago. you had the presidency. you put dodd-frank in front of us, obamacare. many things that had no republican support and now the same indignance when you could've done it for two years like you did everything else without republican support? this is not it.
at this point in time, there are problems and i as a member of the united states armed services know one thing i would not stand with what we are doing here. the problem is this got thrown in when you did not do it if years ago when you could and now you have the president who wants to his -- insert his politics into this. this is about article one article two. it is about roles and responsibilities. to have this debate and seeing we could of done this debate on immigration, this republican party will have a debate on immigration but it will not be dictated on the terms of someone in the white house saying this is what i am going to do without you. >> don't play politics with the national security of this country. by tying this issue to the homeland security appropriations bill, that is exactly what my friends are doing.
i think that is a big mistake. >> i reclaim my time. don't play politics with the american people on what you wish you would've done. >> a want to thank all the members that are here. we will now be on recess. we will call to chair at the end of the third vote. [indiscernible] >> the committee will come back to order. thank you very much. we were trying to wait for several other members but it looks like here we go. as i was reminded, there is a football game tonight that
also is on our schedule. so as we bang the gavel down, it is my hope that are other members on both sides will want to appear. i want us to know that we are now having the second panel related to h.r. 240, the homeland security appropriations act for 2015. previous to this, we had the appropriations committee representative. we have john carter, the subcommittee chairman, who spoke about the bill. now, we are reconvening at the rules committee tonight to hear about the amendment process. i recognize that we now have mr. gutierrez, ms. castro, i did not have you on the list but i'm delighted you are here.
you have been here for a couple of hours. i would like to go to you first. i will go back and forth. pitchers normally go last in the batting order anyway so it is nothing new here. without objection, anything you have been writing will be on record and we are delighted you are here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. noting that my friend judge carter and the ranking member spoke on the underlying registration, i will limit my comments to the five amendments that were released on friday night. the first amendment offered is designed to prevent all but one of the executive actions announced by the president from taking place.
this includes the deferred actions for parental accountability initiatives that would offer temporary protection from deportation. and the expansion of the deferred action for child arrival initiatives for people who were brought to the country as children web extensive ties to the -- who have extensive ties to the community. it would ensure that we continue to support the parents of u.s. citizens and send many thousands of these children into the foster care system every year. the amendment actually goes farther than that. i will touch on just a few of the initiatives targeted by this amendment. the amendment would prevent dhs from using formal rulemaking to include the provisional waiver on unlawful presence. these waivers were created by congress in 1996 to help u.s. citizens from avoiding extreme hardship that would result if
their close relatives were forced to remain abroad for three or 10 years as part of the process of obtaining a green card. the changes the initiation tends to make took the waiver process would actually bring the waiver more closely in line with the terms of the waiver enacted by congress. the amendment would prevent dhs and the department of defense from taking steps to ensure that u.s. citizens who once served in the military will be permitted to do so notwithstanding the fact they have an undocumented parent, spouse or child. that amendment would prevent dhs from spouses were waiting for a green card to get work permits. it would include work affordability which helps raise wages and reduces exploitation. the amendment would prevent the administration from using its
parole authority and national interest waivers. both created by congress to capitalize on the innovation of foreign entrepreneurs and make green cards available to accomplished entrepreneurs and generating revenue. the amendment would block a series of initiatives designed to promote the integration of immigrants and refugees into our community's and to help lawful permanent residents complete the nationalization process to become u.s. citizens. the only november 20 executive action not blocked is the one pertaining to pay increases and workforce realignment. the message this sends is that pretty much the administration has done over the past six years is the removal of the parents of u.s. citizens, to promote legal immigration, citizenship promote immigrant integration spur entrepreneurship was
somehow an unconstitutional use of power but giving more money to officers to track down immigrants is right. the second amendment is more targeted but no less objectionable. this would prevent the use of funds to further implement the memo and any succeeding memo or policy. because there have been some confusion in the past, this amendment explicitly applies to new applications previously denied applications and applications to renewed. . it prevents hundreds of thousands of young people who have already come forward and received action from renewing their deferred action and would again put these young people in a deportable status. the third amendment states that no fees or funds may be used to implement any immigration and force a policy that fails to treat any person convicted of
domestic violence, child molestation, exportation as the highest enforcement priority. this amendment is largely unnecessary. nearly all of the crimes described already are treated as top priorities by the department. that is the case for crimes involving sex abuse of a minor child pornography, rape, any crime of violence and nearly any felony regardless of the terms of imprisonment. the only crimes that do not fall into the priority are deemed significant misdemeanors under dhs and they are in the second highest priority and still preclude the relief. all the people that are talking about is high enforcement policies for dhs and they are all ineligible. this amendment is not a necessary, it is also harmful because under the dhs policy it
would explicitly make clear that careful consideration of domestic violence conditions must be given because we want to make sure that victims of domestic violence are not treated as a high enforcement priority. here's the situation that could occur. in some jurisdictions where there is a domestic violence call all the parties present are arrested. the fear he being, -- the theory being sorted out not in the living room but on a later date. often times, one of the victims may simply plead guilty to a minor offense to get out of jail. we believe and the president has directed that there should be scrutiny to make sure you are not sending a victim of violence being treated as they are a defendant. this amendment would nullify that. the fourth amendment is based on a premise that i believe is
false and that the president's immigration actions creates an incentive for employers to hire deferred action recipients instead of american workers. that is not true. all businesses which are the vast majority of all businesses are generally exempt from the employer mandate because they have fewer than 15 employees and person to have deferred action -- larger employers that provide insurance cannot pick and choose which of their employees get health insurance and if they do not provide adequate insurance the penalty they pay is generally based on the total number of employees regardless of immigration status. let's not forget that the alternative to allow people to come register with the government and get right with the law and obtain deferred action is the status quo. millions of workers living in the shadows and working under the table where they are more
likely to undercut american workers and lower wages for everyone. the final amendment filed last friday says it is the sense of congress that they should adjudicate positions of individuals and lawful status before adjudicating positions of individuals in unlawful status. i believe what the amendment is trying to get at is there ended up being wait times for other petitioners and that was unacceptable. however, the amendment ignores the fact that they are in a much better position to avoid delays than in 2012. it is also very broad. it handles many petitions filed by people in unlawful status. asylum applications, adjusting to status applications, people married to american citizens requests for visa for people who
are victims of sex trafficking or crimes -- these are all people who would be harmed by the amendment. i cannot believe that was the intention but that would be the impact. i believe congress into have a discussion about immigration policy. i'm always open to that discussion. i was part of a bipartisan group that met for 4.5 years to try to draft a bipartisan bill. but, i don't think these amendments really solve our needs to reform our immigration system. last time in committee, the chairman asserted he did not want to the portal 11 million people. that is exactly what these amendments would accomplish. only if you'd abort the parents of american citizens should you make these amendments in order. thank you for listening to me. these are many issues i've devoted many years of my life too. >> thank you very much. i said i did not want to slow it out.
there was a suggestion that we should let them out on cattle carts and that's not what i want. it was the assertion. on from the party of abraham lincoln, teddy roosevelt and ronald reagan. we follow process. >> i certainly did not mean it's a mistake you. >> the gentlewoman does understand iand i appreciate. you are normally up here on appropriations time with agriculture. do you still have chairman -- you did. >> thank you for your -- >> of the gentleman is -- the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you for having me here this evening and allowing me to speak on the memo which i am cosponsoring.
to the apartment -- department of homeland security appropriations bill. i want to recognize the work of the representatives for their partnership on these important issues. i want to keep my comments brief. please allow me to highlight some of the purposes of the amendment. the amendment that is before the rules committee approves any fees collected by the agency to be used to carry out the executive actions on november 20, 2014 by the president which would grant deferred action to an estimated 4 million people in this country unlawfully. it declares that no funds may be used to implement any substantial similar policies to those that the amendment does. the amendment defunds the obama administration prosecutorial --
my colleague will speak to that more directly in a moment. the amendment clarifies that the programs we are already funding have no statutory or constitutional basis. again, i have kept my comments to a minimum because i know we will be here for several -- we will hear from other members this evening but thank you for allowing me to be with the committee. >> thank you. welcome, mr. gutierrez. you are a very valuable part of this body. your testimony is welcome. you know we had some words with each other. i'm glad the gentleman has come back. >> last month in this room at this desk and almost exactly at this hour, i testified on this committee. the next day my testimony turned
into a remarkable exchange between the chairman on myself on the issue of immigration. the question was from congressman yoho. that the president announced the executive action on november 20. i argued in my testimony that undercutting the president's executive action for childhood arrival programs from 2012 was tantamount to calling for the blanket deportation of every undocumented immigrant. indeed, anyone out of status who comes in contact with our immigration system. i tried to lay out the logical extension of that policy. the more than 55,000 jumbo jets that would have to deport millions of people. if we were to send 5 million u.s. citizen children and the millions of legal residents. i discussed that the fruit wood rot on the fields if we took
every undocumented immigrant on the agricultural. the vast majority of those with who work on her fields are undocumented. illegal aliens in this coutnry. ntry. you were not too happy with me thisat evening. no one in reasonable republican leadership said anything of the kind. you assured me you would never come would d never contemplated deporting any citizen unless they committed a crime. now, we are discussing legislation designed to make certain immigrants a priority for deportation. they are one dreamers who came to this country as children and submitted their fingertips -- fingerprints for background checks and passed it. no crimes.
most of them spent three years working in filling out tax incomes and got right with the law. the mms taken together with dhs appropriations bill say they would not only be treated as deportable but be a serious priority equal to you poor taste people to any criminal. the spouses of military service members would no longer be protected from deportation while her husbands and wives are fighting for this country overseas. spouses of those who have fought or are currently fighting. we have this incredible broken immigration system that on the one hand gives a man or woman in order to go protect the nation and at the same time receives an order for the deportation of their spouse. actions taken by the president to grant them areparole will be lifted because they will be a priority for deportation. victims of domestic violence will come in contact with local police will be lumped in with the men who beat them up and abuse them.
they would have the same priority for deportation. the abuser and the woman abused. that is something that this administration is taking care of. the gentlelady from california said that earlier. dreamers, military spouses and victims of domestic violence -- these are the three groups that republicans feel is getting too easy of a ride. a president that is the ported more people than any other in the history of this nation. a president who has protested at every event of immigration activists or deporting too many people. in the new york times, my colleague from arizona said what the republicans have put forward is trying to satisfy the most conservative element of the republican party on the immigration issue. he said he was very happy that republican leadership was able to give them all they have. this is as close to 100% as we
have ever gotten on a tough issue like this. here we are reaching back to the president's first term to make to reamers, military spouses that the very idea enshrined in american law that prosecutors should apply the law so that the real threat and criminals are the top priority and noncriminal and non-threats are not a top priority the whole nation is thrown out the window. wait all of the president's actions are unconstitutional and he is overstepping his powers in the minds of republicans. they make one exception. there is one exception. the president was absolutely acting within the law when he addressed the salaries of a large force and officers and put them on par with federal enforcement officers. he did that together with the dreamers and the parents of american citizen children.
republicans agree with that so therefore the president has the constitutional authority but when the republicans disagree, he is a dictator. i find it hard to believe after the incidents we saw unfolding overseas this past week -- bombing, shootings and hostagetaking -- they want to plate political theater with the entity charged with charging our airports and borders. i don't see how this is good politics, good policy or ensuring the american people that the united states congress is in the hands of the republican party that is doing everything to keep us safe. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm delighted you are here, mr. castro. the gentleman from san antonio. that is where i consider to be my hometown. i want to tell you we are delighted you are here and with us.
i hope your brother is well. are you upset about football? there you go. we are talking about ohio state texas tech today and now we are talking about the dallas cowboys. the gentleman is recognized. your mic. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members. i submitted amendments in a will go through it briefly. the first one is a $1 million increase to u.s. immigration and customs operations to supply administer and test victims of rape using rape kits and decrease within the same subheading by $1 million salary and expenses account within the united states immigration and customs enforcement. many of you on the committee may have followed in the news that there have been many instances
of both alleged and verified sexual assaults at detention centers in different parts of mostly the southwestern united states. as we did our investigatory work, we found that according to the agency, some of these detention centers may have rape kits and some may not. often times, victims of sexual assault are sent over to hospitals but because some of these detention centers, many of them are in more remote areas those hospitals are sometimes long distances away. this would simply provide a budget for rape kits to be at the facility at the detention centers to be used by the medical personnel there. my second amendment would be essentially a raise for border patrol agents. i know in the build there is a raise that is included, but we know for a few years, the races were frozen -- raises or frozen. it would increase $5 million for
border patrol salary. the third one is a $1 million increase for tsa specifically for the screening of airport employees. a few weeks ago, there was an alarming story about gun smuggling -- an employee who was gun smuggling out of the left the airport -- out of the atlanta airport smuggling drugs to new york. you could imagine that if an employee can smuggle guns, they can be smuggling drugs, other contraband or even explosives. this amendment highlights that issue and request an increase of $1 million to address that situation. the fourth one is the biggest amendment i have which is essentially contravenes or offsets what they are trying to do with their own amendment.
>> thank you. we are delighted you are here. the opportunity for you to come to the rules committee is exciting for us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> before i came to congress, i was the mayor of my hometown in pennsylvania. it is 2000 miles away from the nearest southern border. it is not a town you would expect to have a problem with illegal immigration. but we did. i saw our population increased by 50% which is a large growth for a city. however, our tax revenue stayed the same so can you imagine trying to provide services to a city that has grown by 50% but no more tax revenue to provide those services. i saw illegal immigration from a
different perspective than many of my colleagues because i had to do with it firsthand as a mayor of a small town with limited revenue. our school district, just to show you how it affected all aspects of life, ou school district in the yearr 2000, the budget was $500 for esl. just five years later, the budget was $1.5 million. yet, we were not seeing any more revenue. we were seeing a whole different side of the problem of illegal immigration that many have not seen. i remember we arrested a guy who was selling drugs on a playground. it took our detectives five hours to find out who he was. he had five social security cards. i realized that law enforcement is not know who they are dealing with many times. i testified as a mayor at the time to senator kennedy and senator specter that this is a
national security problem. in our little city, we had taken down a fraudulent documentation rings where for $1500, you can get a whole new identity. i saw a different side of the problem and very few people recognized that. i remember back in 1986, president reagan gave amnesty to 1.5 million people which turned out to be 3 million people because once people realized, more people rushed to come in. there was a man who was given amnesty as on it -- as an agricultural worker but in reality he was a cab driver in new york. he was involved in the 1993 plot to blow up the world trade center. the only thing he ever planted in america was a bomb. my problem that began my crusade
is that we are not going to be doing face-to-face interviews when we do background checks. any time anybody says we are doing background checks, there is no face-to-face interviews with any of the applicants. we will have no idea whether the information we are getting is the truth whether it is a good person that wants a better life or somebody that came here to do something wrong. i saw firsthand how illegal immigration can affect a community trying to provide services with limited resources. i believe my stance against illegal immigration was the reason i was elected to congress in the first place. let's be clear about something right now. the president amnesty program did not just begin all of a sudden with his announcement on november 20. it goes back well beyond that. he goes back to the so-called morgan memos of 2011.
that led to the deferred action for children arrivals program. i believe we must do everything we can to defend the amnesty program. stopping enforcement of the directive contained in the morgan memos go straight to the heart of it. those memos instructed immigration officers to review broad categories of illegal immigrants and halt deportation hearings. . it told immigration officers rather than how congress actually wrote the law. this gut's immigration enforcement in the united states. i spoke to agents about it and many told me they are afraid to do these jobs because of the eminence. i have done with that i have dealt with illegal immigration as his multi-mayor. i know what it looks like when the federal government doesn't do his job. the amendment is about making sure at long last we enforce the
law. thank you. >> thank you very much. i want to thank each of you. i believe mr. gutierrez -- spoke about what happened last time we were here. i don't need to recharacterize it. i only slightly disagree with some of the recollection but i do know it was a difficult time. today, we have had a chance to think about what we are doing. i believe there have been perfected amendments to see about the actions that are taking place. i myself will have to make a determination about where i am in this issue. i feel very strongly that we should as a congress, a body and
as a party, my party, address this issue. we have been placed in this position right now, i believe rightly or wrongly at a disadvantage. i believe the president of the united states took advantage of the circumstance. he has been taking advantage of things of what he believes in but i do not believe this president nor any president should go and your hourly -- unilaterally do things which do not seek the promise statutes and laws in this country of this nature. i find myself as a member of this body believing that we can address these and we should address these. i believe it is wrong about what the president has done earlier when we opened up the hearing. i spoke about what i thought was aillegal and unconstitutional. my party has taken a few minutes
and thought about this over the last few weeks. i think you have seen a fair presentation on both sides. balanced people that could sit on the same table and recognize what we are doing. what our party is not doing is attempting to do things at the last minute. my party is not nor is this body doing anything without agreement from the diet state senate. we recognize and support that process but i believe my party and its people do understand that once this process is started and done, we are going to have to deal with it in an effective and honest way and i believe that is what we are doing. for the five of you who have showed up and have disagreements, i applaud you for coming to this party and for speaking your mind. i'm delighted you are here. german col -- chairman colt?
>> i just want to thank the members for being here. i know all of you well. maybe not so well mr. cap tro but a look forward to getting to know you better and working with you. we all know what a challenging issue this is. and how high the emotions run. and how difficult the debate is likely to be. it is an important discussion for us to have. i appreciate you playing leading roles in that. we are beginning that debate this week and i associate myself with the chairman's remarks about recognizing the role the united state senate have to play in this. it is important that we proceed legislatively which i think is what we are try to do here. over time, that is what works the best. that is why i disagree with the president.
i think he is short-circuiting that. i think we will get to a national consensus and there has to be a national debate and a legislative process. i know all of your positions well. another legislature well -- i know the legislature well. i think each and every one of you is playing a very important role in this process. it is time for us to have this discussion. i expect this is not the only piece of legislation we see this year about this. i do think addressing the president's unilateral actions is the place to begin. i think that is what this legislation does. i take considerable pleasure in the fact that in the art -- underlying base bill, we are close together. the base bill is a preconference bill accomplish between the democratic senate and the republican house with the president playing a role.
a lot of the spending, we are not too far apart. i think this will both clarify the differences in these amendment debates but also move is closer toward a legislative solution which is where we got to get to. i don't think unilateral actions are going to solve the questions. i just want to thank each of the members for being here. with that, you'll back my time -- i yield back my time. >> i appreciate your comments very much. for a man, who is engaged in the heart of this battle, i think it is important for us to speak clearly about a chance to work together which you have done. mrs. slaughter? >> this is just a testimonial. i hope you will forgive me. i will tell you the way i see
this whole thing is a peek. if the president did not take any action, no action would of been taken. there is no option here to move things forward and get things done. there are so many special orders president obama took compared to ronald reagan. nobody on my side, everybody went screaming to the court and said he cannot do that because we don't want that done. i'm at a loss to try to even understand why we are being so awful about immigration and not being able to do it since this is a country of immigrants. i can't understand the constant tangle to try to take health care away from people. i don't know where this country
is going to but there is a mean streak that runs through all of this. i find it very distressing. we can do all this but we are playing with homeland security today. what we saw last week, how could we do that to the american people? just because you don't like what barack obama did. i wish to goodness there would be some possibility that does not exist that we would have a rule to fund the homeland security department which we should've done in the first place. secretary johnson said he could not make a plan. he didn't know how he was going to run his agency without a budget. we dangled this out here for month. enough already. think what we look like to the rest of the world with all the people marching in france. if they knew that the united states congress was here about to destroy homeland security because most of us cannot vote for it because of what you are
doing to a large section of children who we all said live here minas no harm -- mean us no harm, need an education. mr. gutierrez has pointed out all the reasons we cannot support -- deport 11 many people -- million people. we have been at at it for hours with this. it is emphasizing the futility of the united states congress to being unable to step up and do its job. i appreciate your efforts. we keep trying. thank you all for coming, all of you. i think very highly of every one of you. we would all be so much better off if we would stop these games. it takes too much energy.
we would be much better off doing many other things. thank you. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i wish the gentlelady from new york had been here through all of the testimony. i think it really sells us as it into duchenne sure to describe what is going on here as meanness. when i listen to that testimony i heard a public servant who was trying to serve his folks as a mayor back home. somebody that is struggling to provide for families the services and requirements that they have to live their life as we as americans wanted to be done. you didn't hear a bit of meanness, of anti-immigrant conversation. what you heard is somebody trying to find answers and solutions. the other gentleman offering amendments on our side of the aisle as a former chairman of
the homeland security appropriations subcommittee. to suggest for a moment that someone who was born that burden of responsibility is here today trying to undermine national security defies what i would've said we have developed. it makes me sad because this is an important issue. i have a district full of first-generation families. i doubt there is someone that has been in congress more than five years who did not try to work a case for a constituent family who had loved ones passed away and wanted to bring a young family member in from overseas to be with the family at the funeral. the u.s. consular officers had to say no, you don't meet the qualifications for coming into the country. you cannot come to be a part of your families grieving. you have to stay away. as it turns out as the president has to find things, if you
defied american law, stuck in to be with your family, smuggled into be your with your family there is now a pathway to the american dream for you but what there is not a pathway for still as we sit here today are those families and my district who also want to be reunited. those families in my district who want to be together. i know we can find solutions to these things. to suggest if we don't do it the president way, it is never going to get done -- it rejects a whole group of folks who have exactly the same challenges in their district as the gentlelady has an her's. having sat through two years four years of rules committee hearings where the definition of futility was passing a bill in the house because it is what we believe, it addresses me --distresses me that the new definition of futility is the path.
now if the president rejected, that is an exercise in futility. sadly, if that is the way we define things, that what the house does is that matter and what the senate does does that matter. what matters is what the president believes. it is no wonder some of my colleagues are not as outraged by these november actions as i am. this is not an immigration issue. it is the separation of powers. it is tremendously important that we have both of those conversations. not a conversation about rhetoric, but a conversation that leads to solutions. we need to solve our article two issues and immigration policies that impact families in my district given the composition of my district as any member on this dais. for those with folks working independently to make a difference for those families in
my district and there is, i am grateful for folks to doing that. i believe we have 218 votes for a solution. i believe in my heart that what the president did in november is making it harder to provide those solutions not easier. i regret it because it is an academic conversation. >> i do think that given the importance of homeland security -- i think it was a drastic error. the secretary said he cannot run an agency if he didn't know what his budget was. so i certainly agree with the importance of that but by attaching immigration to it, sur ely you knew what you were going to draw as a veto -- is a vet and not many votes on my sideo..
frankly, the poison pill that we had in the banking bill that brought it down to the floor last week. we are going to have to be very alert to make sure dodd-frank -- completely off the books here with soderling things left and right -- saddling things left and right. i think it is almost a childish thing to add something like that to make -- poke him with a stick. >> i hope we can come to an agreement that the offending article one prerogative is not synonymous with poking the president with a stick. i hope it is bigger than that. i hope it is more substantial than that. i don't intend to dissuade the gentlelady of her views, i only wish to dissuade her that she is in an institution surrounded by meanness.
i suggest her she is in an institution surrounded by caring and compassion and a deep, deep love for this country on both sides of the aisle. i think if we focus on the commonality, we are more likely to come to solutions than the other way around. i yield back. >> mr. hastings. >> thank you very much. first, madam chair i would ask unanimous consent to include the statement. >> without objection. >> i lifted the third paragraph -- however, the administration strongly opposes the addition of any amendments to the legislation that would place restrictions on the department's ability to get smart enforcement priorities focused on criminals. national security threats and recent border crossers hold
undocumented immigrants accountable and modernize the legal immigration system. the president immigration accountability executive action strengthens our border security, ensure undocumented immigrants who are parents of u.s. citizens or lawful permanent residents pass background checks are to obtain temporary relief from removal and require everyone to play by the same rules. if the president with objectionable restrictions is presented with objectionable restrictions, his senior advisers would recommend the -- that his beat -- that he veto this bill. following a discussion with my good friend from georgia, i would just ask him if these five amendments that were so
adequately explained on the position she takes after years of going to congress on this issue and being a county official also at some point -- do you see these five amendments as the solution to our immigration problem? i asked my friend from georgia. >> i thank my friend. i see these five amendments as a solution to the constitutional separation of power problem. >> i hear you on that. i have been around here a long enough time to see and know the effects of other presidents' executive actions. i believe you outcries to appointr.
-- a point. i want to mention what happened in france but this particular measure, the base homeland security measure makes a decrease of $39 million in the national program and protection directorate for cyber security. now, let's bring us to january 12 and the early portions of this date that most of us awaken in addition to the many retail establishments many of whom we do business with and have credit cards with and the sony cyber invasion now we wake up and learn that some portions -- it is very good it was unclassified
-- at the central command of the united states was attacked on cyber security. i ask my colleagues how do you feel syncing $39 million away from the directorate? i don't know how many of you other than fighting bureaucracies and being involved yourself if you don't have money and you start tinkering with it, when you do get -- i might add a footnote -- we would be back here when the deadline for this, we will be right back here talking about this same measure again when we could very well have passed an appropriations measure and indeed it could have the discussion that we need to have in this country about immigration. toward that end i just for the
life of me cannot understand why we would not want to fully fund the directorate for cyber security. all of us knowing that we are likely to be confronted with many more issues of cyber security or concern to all of us and we will live to see that because it will happen no doubt sooner rather than later. i want to direct my attention to one of the newest members. i also want to see ohio state get on with this business. i won't spend too much time but i do want to address mr. collins. i hope mine and his become a similar friendship to that that i share with your fellow
>> i don't speak for mr. mcgovern. you will be here enough to hear from me until sometimes you wish you had not accepted this position on this committee. but there is no time that i can think of in the long period that i've been on this committee that i have fained indignation. nor do i feel that about my colleague mr. mcgovern. we all speak very passionately as you did. and we have that prerogative. but you will hear from me sometimes real indignation about ideological attacks like what's going on right now with these amendments. but i'm not fanging and i just want to make it very clear that this is a pretty serious. >> will the gentleman yield? >> of course i will.
>> i do appreciate my friend from florida and do look forward to that relationship growing. i think probably you're right. it probably is not right. i was probably trying to be politer than i should have been. i believe that the perception of indignation, i believe the perception that something that we on this side many of us believe to do, and then to bring up the fact that instead of talking about what is in this article 1, article 2 separation what we truly believe is the issue -- which i believe should be the bipartisan problem, a bipartisan issue for congress, i go home all the time and the really the root that many time my -- i represent directs although very -- democrats and republicans, they feel like congress doesn't matter any more. they say what are you doing anyway?
it doesn't seem to matter because we run on continuing resolutions, we run on executive orders and executive memoranda, which by the way has been used a great deal in this and often overlooked because we focus on executive order. so i will say this to my colleagues. i appreciate the passionate debate, one of the reasons why i agreed to come up here. but also please accept my -- when i say probably should not have used fein because i believe it was diversery. for us to talk about immigration is what we really need to do and not have those discussions when it's the same point being at times felt passionately spoken to when it could have been done. when we've already had other bills talked about on this committee today that were forced upon minority at that time our party. that was our purpose and that was what i was trying to say is let's deal with the real issue here. and don't say in the essence it's not about immigration.
it's about a president who oversteps his bounds. it's about a president. and that's our focus here. and i work with many of these folks on the judiciary committee. sometimes we agree, many times we don't. but the real issue from my side, at least from this gentleman's perspective, is we're dealing with something that was an overreach and an overstep. and for it to be characaterized as anything less is really a retelling of history. and that's where i was coming from. >> i understand. and what led you to that was something that i hope that i can help to clarify for you. and that is that -- and if you recall when you were speaking you commented that democrat -- and you didn't say democrats. you said you all. and i say you all a lot too. hey, hey. where do you think i'm from? but anyway what you were
saying was that we had control of the house and we had control of the senate. and you were correct. and you say why didn't you all do it then? it sounds so simple when you say it that way. it's almost as if the minority leader at that time, who now is the majority leader did not have one of the most nuanced programs to ensure that nothing was done, not only on this subject but on any subject. now, let me tell you what the horror of that is getting ready to be as we move forward and the 2016 election is going to suck up all the air in this place, and we all know that in a few minutes. what you're getting ready to see is the flip side of the united states senate. we call them the other body. and i can assure you that not much -- never mind about the president's veto. and i do understand the distinction between article and article 12.
i don't have any problem with the distinction that you have the ability to bring that here as you see it. but we could have done a bipartisan appropriations bill that chairman rogers and ranking member loyie came up here and brought to us. and now we have this immigration attachment which can't reasonably help the argument on immigration. now, let me turn to mr. barleta and mr. mayor. you represent hazelton, i guess is the correct pronunsation. how many people at the time when you left the may orty lived in your constituency? >> approximately 30,000 at the time. it was estimated about 30,000 at the time during the court case it was also estimate that had about 10% of the population
was there illegally. if i can make a point. i think it's very important. because i know it comes up often. enforcing or standing up against illegal immigration is not anti-immigrant. our city was 49% hispanic. i took probably at the time one of the strongest stances against illegal immigration. i won with 90% of the vote of that city. our hispanic population has grown every year from the time we passed the ordinance which defies the theory that hispanics would not come to hazeltown, in fact they wanted to move their families there. so i think it's important. it sounds good but it's not the reality of what happened. >> the reason that i ask you is you went -- well, went sort of
into depth not with any rhetoric about the flip side of immigration and having dealt with it from the stand point of a mayorty where you had a substantial influx of people who were not here legally and were not being productive as far as taxes coming in and services needed to be rendered. i just want you to understand that you don't have to come from a small town to know that flip side. i come from broward county. i can't begin to believe that there are too many congressional districts in this country that have as many persons who share the spanish language as the congressional district that myself and eliana ross leighton. and quite frankly i think i have more diverse group because i'm not limited to any one segment. i have a school that has 53
ludges in that school. -- lunls in that school. i have 50 that have 40. i don't know how pennsylvania is set up but you left out hospitals. and the people that present. and when you spoke about -- and i agonize with you. when you spoke about the amount of money for your 30,000 citizens, i could fit them in my life with the beginning of persons coming to this country from cuba. and point to you the amount of money that we utilized in assimilating some of those persons and rightly we did. the same way that we assimilated at some point and use anecdotal information doesn't wash with me. because i can use anecdotal
information to justify just about any one of these situations. and let me give you a, for example. i don't know you well. i hope i do get to know you well. but by having an -- a vowel at the end of your name, i suspect that your parentage may very well be from europe somewhere. and i would more than likely suggest -- >> my nose gives that away, not the vowel. >> but i would suggest your grandfather or great grandfather are they italian? >> they are. >> and you see let's use something i shared a lot of the territory of italians who came here, 29 of the 31 mafia families lived in the congressional district that i represented previous to this one. and to talk about harm done by illegals, i can begin to tell you that we should never shun
the harm that was done by certain immigrants that came to this country. >> talking about the it langcomb grants? >> no. i'm just talking about one aspect when it comes to crime. and i was going to ask you and want to ask you -- >> i wasn't talking about the nation nal of any -- see and the illegal immigrant can come from anywhere, sir. i wasn't talking about italians. but most times in these days when we're talking about it we're talking more about people that share the spanish language than we are russian immigrants. ok? i got my share of them, too. so i would just go into it with you. i want you to reconcile for me if you you can president obama having the reputation for deporting more people than any president in history. >> sure, i can do that for you.
what he is counting is turn arounds at the borders. not counting about deportations on the interior where they never counted a turn around at the border before as a deportation they now included them in their numbers. so talk about trying to make -- shine a different color light to make somebody buy a different color suit, that's exactly what you're talking about. >> i would like for mr. gutierrez to respond to that. >> let's be very clear that we are not fixing the problem that the gentleman from pennsylvania raised. we're not fixing that here today. he spoke about people that didn't pay taxes. i've got 600,000 young people that are on the books, social security cards paying taxes and getting right with the law. he's talking about people that the police didn't know who they were. i've got 600,000 kids who went through a background check, paid $59,000.
that's what he is talking about. but that's not what we're talking about here. we're talking about people on the books paying taxes and contributing. if the gentleman has come forward and said look at these thousands of people who aren't paying taxes who are criminal. but that's not who i'm talking about. i'm talking about the armed forces of the united states of america, members of the armed forces of america, who when the president saw that their sponsors were being deported while they were receiving orders of deployment there's an order of deportation, said that's wrong. that's what you're eliminating here. so i can't understand even casually what was going on in your city in your town, what we're addressing here. i don't want to address immigration reform. >> i have the time but i'll yield. >> i just want to say we're here to address immigration
reform. we could take care -- look, there are bad people out there. let's go get them. we only put enough money to go get 400,000 people. there are 11 million of them. so why don't we set aside the parents of american citizens children -- 5 million of them -- parents of american citizen children. why don't we set them aside? and all of them have to go through a background check, get right with the law, get on the books, so when they come across a police officer in your town he shows them a registration, where they're working, and working legally. so i don't think one has to do with the other. and here's the other thing. they used to say when they came to the border and when they got caught, it was catch and release. so the anti-immigrant forces in the congress and the nation said that's and -- catch and release. now they catch them and don't release them.
because the argument was they were caught joust be caught again. the number one crime prosecuted under barack obama's administration, the number one felony crime under barack obama's administration is illegal reentry to the united states of america. and yet people will sit here in this venue and other venues, that he hasn't done anything. it's 2 million people deported. maybe for others it's simply a turn around at the border. i suggest that you simply come into our neighborhoods and see the real fear, and many of us know, we have held the hearings we have been out in our communities and state to state. it is real. >> let me yield and give an opportunity to respond. >> thank you. i appreciate yielding the time. that's what makes this issue such a difficult issue. you're talking about some good people, some children. i know some great people that
are here illegally. what makes it such a tough issue is how do you separate salt from sugar? how do you separate the good from the bad? how do you separate the young child from somebody who is here thapts to do harm? the 9/11 commission report which congress passed and the president signed was very clear that the terrorists, people that are in the country that want to do us harm they want primarily two things. number one they want to gain entry into this country and then, two, they want to be able to stay. my point is with the president giving unilateral amnesty without face-to-face interviews without -- you can't do a background check on a person -- as a mayor -- >> just reclaiming my time for just one moment. does that include fringer print when you say you can't do back-to-back background checks and mr. guteruzz just talked
about people who signed up? >> we have no -- you can't prove that. you can't prove who that person is. >> but in many instances their country of origin, they are finger printed at the schools and other places where they've been. they cleared background checks. we're talking about people who came here their parents brought them here at age 2. >> the person that's here -- we're talking about two different people. >> perhaps so. perhaps that's what we should be doing. and i won't belabor it. i hear you but my colleagues want to be on about their business. i'm going to do one other thing and stop right here. and that is we've been using the figure 11 million for 11 years. there must by now be 123 million people in this count -- 12 million in this country. so let's begin to get it right. and then if we couldn't get rid of 11 we sure aren't going to get rid of 12. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman mr. stivers.
>> i appreciate the witnesses being here. i've got a question for the gentleman from pennsylvania and the gentleman from alabama. nothing in your amendment suggests that you don't want to address immigration issues. does it? >> let me just speak to that. and i think that's something that congress realizes that we have to address. this, as i mentioned earlier in my opening comments, simply prevents any funds that are appropriated and user fees to be used to carry out the executive actions announced on november 20, 2014, which will grant deferred action to an estimated 4 million people in the country signed by president obama. >> i agree that nothing in there. >> so the real argument here is
not whether we take action on immigration to secure our border reform legal immigration, deal with folks who are here illegally, but how we do it. and that article 1, section 8, clause 4 of our constitution says that we all took an oath to protect and defend says congress has the power. and i'll quote here. to establish rule of naturalization and uniform laws about the subject of bankruptcies through the united states. those two things are not intended to be together but the whole point is uniformed laws created by congress. and that's really what the fight is about here. and i don't think the gentleman from pennsylvania or the gentleman from alabama are saying we don't want to deal with this issue. we do prefer to deal with it in astep by step approach. i think that's these two and 3,000 page bills have not been very good for america in most cases because they're hard to implement and they don't seem to work.
changing until congress chasening it. and i think what this executive action tries to do is say let's focus on keeping americans safe. let's focus our enforcement resources on criminals. on criminal aliens. and we know we don't have enough resources. congress hasn't given us enough resources to enforce the law across the board. and i would like to ask ms. love grep with regard to
prosecutorial discretion. it seems to me it's already being used in immigration. it's just used in a very disorganized haphazard way at kind of the local level. all that seems to be happening here is there's just a set of rules replacing a selective enforcement that has to occur because there's sonl -- only so many beds compared to the number of people. it's applying more organization it seems like to the manner in which we use our prosecutorial discretion. i want to ask her about that use and how it fits into precedence of use as well. >> i thank the gentleman for the question. and in answer i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record an analysis prepared by 135 scholars and law professors and confirmed by four former general counsels to the immigration and naturalization service
including a general counsel during the bush administration that outlines the precedents for this action pointing out that there is nothing that is unconstitutional there's nothing that is a departure from past precedence, and some people may not like what the president did i understand that people can disagree. but it is not unconstitutional and it is not a massive departure from from what prior presidents have done. i would note this although i very much disagree with the litigation. it might be wiser for people who disagree on this subject to allow the litigation that's currently pending in the federal district court in texas to proceed and find out the answer to the question, rather than tying up the entire budget of the homeland security department. >> ms. lofgren, again, i heard whether it was -- i think it
was the gentleman from pennsylvania refer to the president's actions as amnesty. i just ask has the president granted amnesty to anyone? >> the president does not have the legal authority to give amnesty to anyone. what he has done is to defer prosecution to on a case by case basis to people who are eligible to apply in some categories. for example, this has been the case for some numbers of years, the spouses of american soldiers in active duty. when we came across cases where wives were home and soldier husband was in iraq and they were going to be deported. and who was going to take care of their children? and the defense department was greatly concerned by this. so the president said in that case we're going to give some deferred action. he can't give a status. he's going to say those cases fall to the bottom of the list.
we're not going to round up the wives of the american soldiers and deport them. we're going to go after the felons instead. and i think that's smart enforcement. >> if they have violated our laws, immigration or otherwise, that stays on their record. this is not cleared out. it's not amnesty. >> the president lacks the authority to do that. and i would note that the memorandum specifically exclude people from relief who have committed crimes. >> so given that the president doesn't have the ability to do this amnesty, do you agree that it's a mischaracterization to even call this amnesty? >> it's a prioritization of enforcement. >> and in the absence of executive action isn't there some way this prioritization occurs anyway? >> what's going to happen in a chaotic way. and on the street so that individual officers will be making determinations without a national strategy.
and i don't think certainly that's not what the constitution requires. it's not what we would want. we want a national strategy that's smart and that is directed in a cohesive way. and that's what the president was attempting to do and i think succeeded in doing. >> the final note i want to make before yielding back is i believe it was mr. hastings entered the statement of administration that this would face a veto into the record. it's rather ironic because we're dealing with a bill about homeland security at a time of increased risk of terror. we saw the recent events in france. we have a president who disagrees with some of our colleagues in congress over this. if this were to lead to closing down the department of homeland security and putting americans at risk over an unrelated policy issue it would reflect
not only poorly on this congress but it could really put the lives of americans in danger. and i urge my colleagues to change course and to pursue a department of homeland security appropriations bill that the president will sign or that has two thirds support if you're able to get two thirds support by all means. i doubt this bill will have anything close to two thirds support. but one way or the other i hope that the policies being pursued by my republican colleagues do not put american lives in danger by closing down the department of homeland security over an unrelated policy issue. one that i will be offering an amendment to address given that both democrats and plibs agree that regardless of the contents of this bill it does not solve our broken immigration system. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess does not seek
recognition. mr. collins do you seek recognition? >> i seek recognition. i think the i want resting here, let's take it back to the real heart of this. i think as we came to the heart of this is a general disagreement on how this is carried out. and i think one of the things is that -- and even in this discussion on attaching to a funding bill. as we saw in the occurrence of the of of just a little bit ago most of homeland security is deemed essential. this is an issue that would not play out in that vain. it goes back to what was done and how it was laid out. i believe again in the context of where we are working. and ms. lofgren you brought up a point. we talked about this before. that other administrations have done this. all i will say to that is if it
was wrong it's wrong now, it was wrong then. and to simply point back to a wrong action to make it right now is not the way to play this out. >> would the gentleman yield? we worked often on the judiciary committee. my point would be it wasn't wrong when eisenhower, reagan, bush took certain actions any more than it is now. it wasn't wrong before and it isn't wrong now. >> we just disagree. when it is done unilaterally no matter who does it. and i think that goes back to my point i tried to make earlier. this to me and many others on our side of the aisle is simply a matter that should concern all of congress both sides of the aisle about the state of this body doing what it was elected and constitutionally required to do. and that is do our job. that is work as hard as make the hard votes and hard decisions. and when we're sidetracked by this it makes it very difficult
to have these conversations when you have this kind of a process before us. that is the problem we have right now. and with that i yield back. >> thank you very much. i want to thank not only meshes of our committee but also this panel. you have both done yourself proud tonight. but you have also i think represented the spirit of what we are really trying to accomplish here, and that's the sharing of ideas in this process. i thank all of you. we're going to move on to the next panel. i thank you all very much. if you have anything that you had in writing if you will please leave it for our awesome stenogfer who is here trying to stay up with all the words that we give here, we have that i'm aware of two additional members . i would also like to know that
the gentleman from wisconsin has been attending this hearing for a couple hours and i think it's rather telling of the new freshman who has taken time not to try and barnl their way up here to try to get up in front of the camera but rather who is taking a good view from the back row today and i would like to pat him on the back for coming up to the rules committee and watching us as we proceed. ms. lee it's all yours. and we're now at the end of about six hours. we're going to try not to show it but i would hopefully express to the gentlewoman if she turns on her mike, that she is welcome to the committee she knows she is welcome. and we hope that she would get to her point and the gentlewoman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman very much.
certainly with the time frame and i thank you for the opportunity just to briefly make known my opposition on the amendment that has been put forward. i assume these amendments will be taken separately and i will not at this time ask for an open rule for which i would typically ask. i would like to offer as an amendment comprehensive save america act which has been introduced since the 1990s. i want to respond from the perspective of the homeland security committee and i know that representatives have been here from that committee but just want to make a brief point and then yield my time back. i thank the committee for its courtesy. i want to cite two points that were made in a cq article.
one from the chairman of the appropriations committee that said it's a very dangerous time. of course he continues in that by saying he wondors whether the president would veto the homeland security bill. but his most potent point is that this is a very dangerous time. and secretary johnson came before our committee. obviously could not fuverages first with a cromnibus but more importantly with a homents bill that was going to be delayed. and i think with the testimony that he gave and the acceptance that we live in a world of franchised terrorism i would caution our colleagues with the kind of amendments that will draw a veto. i will finish by saying that as my colleagues indicated, as i have introduced immigration bills, have watched these processes without the executive
order working with ice prosecutorial discretion is not new. and all that is in the executive order is a framework that is more stringent that the print strung tur that ice utilized because it requires a detailed process for anyone who would be granted not legal status, not an immigration status, but permission to be in this country. and i think that we are clearly going in a direction that jeopardizes the national security of this nation if these amendments are allowed to be in in extra vention of the secretary of homeland security who says that he will have a very difficult time planning he will have a very difficult time dealing with the atmosphere in which we are in, and he will be short changed on some of the major elements like coast guard secret service and many others that are necessary. so my -- scuke to put my statement in the record. but i clearly want to emphasize
the climate of franchised terrorism that we are engaged in, in this nation at this time. and that i would hope that these amendments would be rejected. we will vigorously oppose them on the floor. and i suspect that we will have a veto. i don't think the shame would be on this president. it really would be on us as a congress. i finally close by saying the president put in place the executive order he said it is there until we pass legislation. this is not a permanent entity or document. and all we have to do is proceed with regular order of funding homeland security and begin a process of passing legislation that may be bipartisan. it may not. but it would be a legislative initiative that parallels the very need of funding homeland security which i think is a must today in the backdrop of what we're facing. with that, mr. president i yield back. >> thank you very much. i am going to yield myself one
minute. as you finish reading the bill you will see that there is some $10 million that is also withheld from the secret service. pending which they provide which has been requested the information about how the secret service is going to adapt adjust and change their overseas operations where we have dignitaries including the president of the united states to be a part of it. we have found in the united states congress, i can't tell you why the president of the united states and this administration doesn't like to respond back to us when we have questions. this is one of the avenues withhold money so we're going to withhold $10 million. i think that we were pretty wise and smart to do that. we care about the president we care about the security issues. and we care that they're -- the president is running the government right now, the administration, but they should be required to come up with a
plan and tell congress, not just whatever they choose to do. does anybody have -- does anybody on your side have a question for the gentlewoman? ok. does anybody have a question for the gentlewoman from houston? seeing none, thank you very much. if you will please make sure that you leave anything that you brought in writing for your statement we appreciate it. >> i will do so. i thank the generosity of my ranking member for her humor. but let me just make sure that i correct it and say executive actions and not executive order. and i hear your point about the secret service. this would be an overall veto in all aspects of it including i think the misdirected approach of abolishing or not allowing them to use the fees which have been a main stay of homeland security for many, many years. so with that let me yield back.
>> thank you very much. i appreciate the gentlewoman. we have that i am aware of one additional person whose a member of this committee who would seek time. and if the gentleman choose to be from the dais that's great. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be offering an amendment from the rule to add a section that will require the house to consider a bill consisting of the text of a bill that we talked a lot about in the 113th congress. it will be new in this congress. and that is h.r. 15 which was passed in the last congress by the senate by more than two thirds looking at the changes in the senate there should still be enough votes to reesh the 60 vote threshhold. it should have north of 60 votes and i do think it would pass the house. i hope our members can have the opportunity to vote on it. if it doesn't, at least we know that we tried to bring a solution to immigration. one thing that i am really
struck with is both everybody who testified acknowledged that whatever we're doing here with homeland security this doesn't fix immigration and people on both sides said they want to fix it. i'm offering a solution. and i hope that we make it in order. and i hope that we make other solutions in order. i really think that what our frustration here is that we're dealing with this underlying issue of a broken immigration system. there's no easy answer about how you use prosecutorial discretion, whether you use it or not there's still 11 million people here illegally. it doesn't go up or down through the executive action. i think it's a more organized to deal with it. and for the reasons ms. lofgren and others supported it i think it's a reasonable thing to do. but i agree just as they do and just as everybody has that it doesn't fix our broken immigration system. so i do have a bill to fix it. i hope that we can -- i hope my colleagues will agree to amend
the rule to simply allow an up or down vote on that. i am happy to dwreeled for questions. >> thank you very much. >> seeing none. questions from the republican side. the gentleman is recognized. >> just one brief comment. this is not an immigration bill. i don't think s 15 is going to fix anything anyway. i think it's going to further create a broken immigration system. but the only thing that would compound the bad process that has gone on because of what the president has done would be if we try to stuff an immigration debate into this homeland security bill. and i would hope that my colleagues would vote no on the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back his time. thank you very much. mr. stivers how close to kickoff time are we? >> oh, thank you very much. i'm sure you're not paying attention. thank you very much.
mr. police thank you very much for your amendment and discussion. this now seeing no additional members who are here to seek time this now closes the hearing portion of h.r. 244 homeland security appropriations act 2015. the chairman will now be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman of north carolina. >> i move the committee grant h.r. 37 the promoting job creations reducing small business burdens act to close the rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on financial services. the rule waives all poirds, the rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. against all point of order against the bill. the section two of the rule provides h.r. 185 the act of 2015 a structured rule. the rule provides one hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member the committee on judiciary. the rule waives all point of orders and shall be considered as read. the rule waives all point of orders in the bill. the rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part a of the rules committee report each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by member designated in the report shall be considered as read shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. the rule waives all point of orders. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section p of the rule provides h.r. 240 the department of homeland security security appropriations act. 2015 a structured rule. the rule provides two hours of
general debate equally controlled by the chair and ranking member. the rule waives all points of order and shall be considered as read. the rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question. the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part b of the report, one motion to recommit with or without instructions finally section 4 of the rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record not later than january 14, 2015 such material as he may deem explan tri of h.r. 240. >> you've now heard the motion from the gentlewoman.
so i would ask if there's amendment or discussion? >> mr. chair i do have an amendment. i move we amend the resolution to remove the special waivers of points of order for the amendments to h.r. 240 the homeland security appropriations bill. the rule says the republicans don't have to comply with the rules of the house. the five amendments could not be offered on the floor without the rules committee giving them waivers of certain points of order. these five amendments are designed to sabotage a bipartisan deal to fund the department of homeland security . and if they became law they could throw their already broken immigration system into even greater chaos. it is irresponsible to give this poisonned pill amendment special protections from the rules of the house. and as we noted last week in the last congress this committee handed out 97% of
these kind of waivers through the republicans and 3% to democrats. i ask that we give an affirmative vote on this amendment. >> thank you very much. the gentlewoman is correct. that i have made a determination that i believe that they should be in unless they're in the rule. but the gentlewoman also recognizes that she has an opportunity to amend that with a vote. further discussion. the gentlewoman from florida. >> no. >> we're now ready for the vote. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the nos have it. roll call is requested. >> calling roll.
>> three yeas seven nace. >> the amendment is not agreed to. further amendment or discussion? the gentleman from colorado. >> i have an amendment to the rule. i move we add a section to the resolution that requires the house to consider a bill consisting of the text of h.r. 15 from last congress. it's from the 113th. a text of that which is the bipartisan senate passed comp hebsive immigration reform bill. >> thank you very much. the gentleman has made strenuous and regular comments related to this. i believe the committee is aware of the legislation the gentleman speaks of. further discussion? the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. >> i would just like to put in the record that it's my
understanding that that bill although it was passed was never sent to the house for its conversation because of the concerns of constitutional issues. >> if the gentlelady would yield. this is a -- this bill this congress 114th has not yet passed the senate. it passed the senate in the 113th congress. we are now in the 114th. if we were to pass it and this amendment were made in order and then were to pass on the floor it would still need 60 votes in the senate to become law. i joined last congress. >> i was referring to the last congress not to this congress. i was well aware that that bill passed in the last congress. and that's what i thought i said. and if i didn't, i was -- i was correcting the record that it's been made often that this bill had passed the senate and been sent to the house.
it was my understanding it was never sent to the house. >> not received. >> not received. >> it did pass the senate with more that two thirds. in fact it's not been received for action by the house. that's the only point. >> if i can -- there was a discharge petition filed on this bill which -- about over 190 members signed that discharge position unfortunately just short of the people we needed to sign it. had we passed that bill, and i should point out the bill has a couple improvements from the senate version that it replaced for instance the border security language from the senate with a board of security language that had been passed out with democrats and republicans changing that. it is slightly different than
the version that passed the senate. if we were to pass this it would go to the senate and they would need 60 votes for cloture. >> further discussion? seeing none the vote will now be on the amendment. the no's have it. >> roll call vote. >> calling the roll. >> three yeas seven nace. >> not agreed to. gentleman from colorado. >> i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee make in order for an amendment to h.r. 37 by representatives elton, issa and myself number 8 which
would strike title 7 of the bill. this is a move towards transparency provides an amendment that simply provides the bill frankly u.s. regulators lagging behind with regard to implementing new technology for markets to function people need to be able to search for financial records filing. unfortunately the provision in h.r. 37 would make it so that public companies with revenues less than 250 million would not use standardized digital reporting when submitting paperwork to the s.e.c. we all benefit from standardized digital reporting. it's less physical paper. when done correctly it should reduce costs not increase and investors benefit by being able to search in data bases. unfortunately this bill is written without the issa amendment would reverse the progress towards transparency and towards efficient markets that we've made since 2009 when the s.e.c. implemented a trial
program that allowed companies to submit their report in digital format. so digital formatting helps businesses helps investors can actually reduce cost whence the tools are available to do it correctly. this amendment would simply strip the hurt language out of h.r. 37 and improve the bill. and i urge my colleagues to allow a vote on this amendment. >> you've now heard the amendment from the gentleman from colorado. further discussion? seeing none the vote will now be on the amendment. the nos have it. >> roll call. >> roll call.
>> the clerk will report the total. >> three yeas seven nays. >> further amendment or discussion? seeing none the vote will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina vice chairwoman of the committee ms. fox. the ayes have it. the gentlewoman asked for a roll call vote. >> roll call. >> the clerk will report the
total. >> seven yeas three nays. >> the motion is agreed to. i want to thank all the members of the committee. i am well aware that this is a difficult hearing. i am well aware that a lot of staff time went into this. i'm well aware also that a number of the members of this committee had lots of things they wish they were doing other than sitting here. or at least mr. stivers wishes that. but with that said, the committee had a duty and an obligation. and i believe our witnesses in many instances took the clues directly from the members. i think that we were judicious. i think we were careful. i didn't agree with everything said. i'm not sure you had to or not but i thought we handled all the witnesses very well. and i appreciate us making this committee work for the betterment of the body. i think that's what we are about. i will be handling this for the majority. mr. police my dear friend as we
have referred to each other from colorado will be handling this for the democrats. i do not anticipate nor expect that we will have further work this up up at the committee. so we have now completed our work for the day. i thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org
>> next, congressman van hollen, ranking member on the house budget committee, talks about wages and economic policy. the maryland democrat spoke at the center for american progress. >> as congressman van hollen knows, the federal budget knows is more than about dollars and cents. it's about our nation's priorities. although it is true that the budget is a blueprint of how the nation will spend its dollars, also the type of nation we want to be.
we will be a nation that invests and supports a vibrant mcor won't we? -- middle class or won't we? >> here we believe every american should share in our country's prosperity. last year we really felt the squeeze and looked at a typical family and how they've been doing over the last decade. we found that a family that makes $80,000 a year, two kids, two pearnts working has really faced the middle class squeeze. that's because their incomes have been stagnant over the last decade, basically no rise in income from 2000-2012. and they've faced higher costs, higher health care costs higher education costs, higher child care costs. they have $5,000 less disposable income today than they had a decade ago. if you wonder why people are
still a little angry i think that's part of the reason that they are. in a world where we have promised an american dream if you are actually falling behind it doesn't feel that way. so that's why we are so excited to have congressman van hollen here today to actually discuss ideas about what to do. and these ideas i think will contribute critically to our nation's discussion later this week cap will be releasing its report the prosperity commission report which will discuss as well how to raise incomes and wages and how to grow the middle class. because we believe that those ideas are critical for economic growth over the long term. the congressional budget committee have a vital role to play in charting a long term economic course and that's why we're excited to have the congressman here today. since 2002 chris van hollen has worked to expand policies of
economic growth and shared prosperity. he played an instrumental role in freing alan gross imprisoned by the cuban regime. also helped clean up the chesapeake bay for critical investments in capital area infrastructure public transportation education. he has been a leading voice on having budget policy priorities that really address the nation's challenges and a key fighter for the middle class. so we are very excited to have him here to detail how we can have an economic growth agenda that expands opportunity and invests in the middle class. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank the entire team
here at the center for american progress for the opportunity to be here with you this morning and most importantly for the contributions that cap makes the great public policy debate of our time. you are a great incubator of ideas and just as importantly how to implement the ideas in the real world. many of the proposals you will hear today have their roots in ideas that have been percolating here at cap for years. today, i want to present an action plan to respond to what i believe is the defining economic challenge of our time. how america can lead the world in sustained economic growth in a way that provides a for more broadly shared prosperity. we must ensure that all americans that work hard and play by the rules are rewarded with a fair share of a growing economic pie. there are competing ideas for
how to do this. as neera said, we are going to have the budget season shortly in congress over the next couple months. in the next couple of months the president, the republicans democrats in congress will put forward their budget blueprints for the nation. while these budgets are loaded with numbers at their core, they reflect the plans for the future direction of the country and at their best, they should reflect the values of our nation. after i discuss the major economic challenge we are facing, i want to review the highlights of the budget plans that republicans and democrats have put forward to date and see how they measure up against the challenge we face. then i want to propose a new action for your consideration and the consideration of my colleagues.