carolina commerce and walter jones talks about the military's political and diplomatic options available to the u.s. in iraq. [video clip] >> we have had advisors in iraq through our embassy and are prepared to send military advisers to support iraqi forces going forward. ♪ host: military advisers are headed to iraq. onwant to get your views what the president had to say yesterday here on "washington journal." 202 is the area code. (202) 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3880 four democrats. for) 585-3882

independence. our third line, (202) 585-5883, set aside for iraq war veterans. you can contact us via social media, @cspanwj. facebook.com/c-span if you want to make a comment and participate that way. you can send an e-mail. of the "financial times." obama to send 300 troops to iraq as sunni rebellion grows. that is how they headline it. inside, they have an editorial. where the blame lies in iraq. the instinctive response of many western is is that the us-led invasion of 2003 is the cause of today's turmoil. the invasion is judged to have been a mistake.

host: "all this was bound to create long-lasting turbulence your custom of the editorial in the "financial times. of "the newront york times." obama orders 300 advisors to iraq. a story below that about prime minister nouri al-maliki and potential replacements. challengers emerge to replace maliki. three members of the shiite majority have emerged as possible candidates to take over as prime minister. it says that the kurds want the iraq central government to

recognize kirkuk as part of the kurdish territory in the north. the kurds want assurances they can sell the oil from kurdistan without oversight from the government. host: the foreign minister of

the curtis region -- the kurdish region agreed. host: a little bit from "the new york times." military advisers to iraq. i what your impressions of what the president said yesterday. we begin with artie in new orleans, a democrat. caller: good morning. going topresident is do with 300 people and send them to iraq advisers -- that is not very many people. was is going to happen, i looking at television yesterday. one of the news people had a photograph of how the american embassy is set up over there.

it was telling them where everything is located and what the walls are made of. thatnly thing i can see would benefit, i am a vietnam veteran, that they have to have a free fire zone within .5 mile of that embassy to keep that lays say. if you are in the middle of a city and you have 300 people, that is a drop of water in the middle of a busy interstate and expecting it to make ia f lood. the rules of engagement have to be changed for them to be successful. what we have been doing, they have to let someone shoot at them first, which causes casualties, before they can return fire. ie, are you saying you support the idea of sending military advisers or troops? they are goingr to be stationed, they need a free fire zone around the embassy. anytime these people see a threat, they can react. host: are you a veteran? caller: i served two tors in

vietnam. the rules of engagement got people killed, we had to wait for someone to fire on us before we could fire back. our: we have set aside fourth line for iraq veterans. in case you would like to call him. (202) 585-5883 is the number. sue on our independent line from harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: hi. yeah, i just wondered. areard this before that we debating allocating $370 billion to the defense industry this year. thend of wonder whether usual idea that money talks. how would obama possibly be the one to make this decision when the military in our country completely controls $370 billion of our money. i would wonder if it would not be good for us to have some completely independent country

helping us to make this decision trying the as usual pentagon and military industrial complex making our decision for us. host: thank you. curtis calling in from georgia on our iraq veterans line. when did you serve? caller: 2005-2006, which would convoyi was doing escorts to the jordan border and the syrian border. got hit thanksgiving 2005. got hit by our own american 2155nition, which was rounds. provinceem in anbar was syrian foreign fighters. we will have to deal with the syrian problem.

as far as our advisers going over there, our special forces, i hope they go there and use aircraftnters for our drop munitionsto on isis. too -- hdad, we thought from baghdad, we fought too hard for this. host: thank you. "washington post" has three op-ed concerning iraq. david ignatius, michael gershen, charles krauthammer. here's a selection from each of them. we begin with mr. ignatius. targeting the insurgents is the name of the op-ed. requirelicy cannot military force alone.

host: that is david ignatius. michael gershon writes, iraq threatens to become a mirror of syria. shiitepports a proxy government in the gulf states siding with sunni islamists.

host: finally, charles krauthammer. by 2009, al qaeda in iraq had not just been decimated but humiliated by the u.s. surge in anbar.

host: a little bit from charles krauthammer. here's a little bit more from the president yesterday. [video clip] >> the u.s. will increase support to iraqi security forces. we are prepared to create joint operation centers in baghdad and northern iraq. to share intelligence and plan to confront the terrorist threat of isil. through our counterterrorism partnership fund, we will work with congress to support and provide a commit. a rock through our embassy and we are prepared to send additional advisers, to

assess, train, advise and support iraqi security forces going forward. american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq. if they takeiraqi the fight to terrorists who threaten the people, the region, and american interests as well. maryland,tsville, democrat line. what you think? caller: good morning how are you? democrats have no representative. obama has no -- [indiscernible] -- not just for legal -- [indiscernible] obama has members. a black supreme court justice -- thank you. host: jesse from michigan, hi. caller: thank you for letting me

speak. [indiscernible] we should just keep going over there. what are we gaining over there? we have been there for eight years. now we are going back over there, spending more that we should be spending at home. you can always find money for these works -- these wars. we have people unemployed in so many people are going wrong. obama wants to go into syria. bomb over there. people did not like it and he changed his mind. he's doing the same thing again. -- they -- it is disgusting. it is just, yeah. leave it there,

thank you for calling. a couple facebook comments, a lively conversation going on there. again, the majority opinion ignored." eric says "whatever he does, it will result from a political calculation." toin, if you want participate in the conversation, facebook.com/c-span. that conversation will be posted all day long about the military advisers going to iraq. "what adviceer, are these advisers going to relate?" --andeaux says here's bill --

here is @marietweets -- aaron says -- here is another tweet -- today, there is a hearing and the ways and means committee on the irs e-mail situation. and the last e-mail situation. today" had this article in yesterday's paper -- "how the irs last lois lerner's e-mails."

what is the focus of today's hearing echo guest: the ways and means committee is going to try to figure out what happened to these e-mails, why they were lost, when they were lost, where they are, how many of them there are. they will have the commissioner of the internal revenue service in to give testimony about the missing e-mails. host: what happened to the e-mails? we are talking about 111. -- about 2011. guest: lois lerner is the central figure in the irs controversy over the targeting of tea party groups beginning in 2012and going through the elections to 2013. her e-mails are going to be central evidence and trying to figure out what the motive was for this targeting scheme and who else was involved. her hard drive crashed in may

2011, right in the middle of all that is going on at the irs, that is how the irs lost some number of her e-mails. it is not just a hard drive, it is the fact that the irs has a limit on the number of e-mails one mailbox can have. i don't know about you, i can go through 150 megabytes in a week. thatolicy at the time was if there is an important record in your e-mail, you have to delete it out of your e-mail box before you do that, you have to print out and save it in a file. the other problem, the e-mails were backed up but only for six months and then they would recycle the tapes. there was a lot of mismanagement at the irs with a male system that led to the e-mails being lost. host: has this reignited the

controversy? guest: absolutely. orrin hatch get a speech on the floor of the senate yesterday. vocal not been the most player on capitol hill on this issue. this really energized him, he wants to get to the bottom of what happened. a renewed call for a special prosecutor to look into this. republicans on capitol hill has been trying to do -- since the story broke more than a year ago goes beyondut if it the irs. if it goes to the justice department and two other executive agencies. there was some coordination going on between the irs and the to figure outment whether any of these social welfare groups that applied for tax assistance and violated the law by engaging in tax evasion.

they want to know if this goes up to the white house. there has been zero evidence so far in any of the congressional investigations that the white house was involved in this targeting. republicans are going to say as long as we do not have all of the evidence in this case, it is impossible to know who else might be involved. besides johnte, koskinen, is anyone else testifying? guest: he's the only one. host: gregory korte he of "usa today." t 9:00 a.m. is a on c-span2 at the ways and means committee. back to iraq. david, ohio. what do you think? of ar: probably the least bad choice among bad choices. callers saying -- it is pretty obvious, our forces

have been crippled by restrictions, ied's and rpg's. we are going up against things we were not equipped to deal with. the enemy calculated the best way to take on our vehicles, our humvees and all. we kept repeatedly sending them out to be blown up. that did not make a lot of sense to me to begin with. we have proven you cannot impose democracy. you cannot stand in the middle of a religious war. that is what we pretty will have proven. the tragedy of the irs situation is, the irs lacks the resources to due inadequate job of enforcement. prosecution of tax cheats. this director, he was not aware this was going on. he was not even there. host: that is david in ohio. tweeting in about military

advisors. "u.s. policy still seems confused, semi and military advisers to help maliki government without taking sides in a religious war." "the washington post" has an article this morning. , as is on the inside, a10 focus on links between iraq and syria is the focus of the article. a little bit from here.

host: "everybody here recognizes that you cannot silo was happening in iraq from was happening in syria," said one administration official. next call is bill on our republican line from norfolk, connecticut. hi. caller: how are you? host: i'm good. caller: here we go again. ever bringsobody up. we have been through this in vietnam and never learn. we started with advisers. two of the biggest problems i see, these are corporate wars. the corporations are making big money out of keeping pretextua -- out of keeping perpetual war

and dumping it on the back of the taxpayers. number two, i never served in the service, we have all kinds that have never served before and the service on congressional committees. they make all these decisions to start wars. they went to yellow or ivy league schools and never served themselves. on top of that, we have people like john mccain who want -- his idea of a victory unalike the other neoconservatives, is endless wars with troops going everywhere, all over the place. i do not even know what to say. i am so mad, i don't even vote anymore. host: thank you. marco rubio spoke on the senate floor yesterday after the president made his announcement. [video clip] >> i am hopeful that what this is designed to do is set the framework for the u.s. to achieve a number of important that directly impact the

national security of the u.s. the first, of course, i believe that the u.s. working in conjunction with others in the region need to do everything we can to cut off isls's -- cut off isil's supply lines. isis, the same group involved in syria, is not just a bunch of sunni iraqis, these are foreign fighters. including hundreds that have come from the west. who have flocked to syria and now iraq to participate. addition, this group, in order to make the gains it is making in iraq, require distinct supply lines that allow them to transport individuals and weapons and ammunition. in addition to the things that are getting their hands on as they make these advances. one of the goals that the united states must have working in conjunction with others is to

sever the supply lines so they cannot continue to make these games. -- these gains. the second thing i hope this is a process of doing, the beginning of a process that would achieve -- focusing on command and control areas they operate from within syria. without the safe havens, they would not be able to expand the reach that they now have. what president announced today is a first step towards a multistep process that allows us to address those two things. host: members of congress also reacted after the president spoke yesterday. here is republican ofresentative jeff duncan south carolina. obama tells a rock it should cover it with more inclusion of different groups. like how gop was included in obamacare drafting. gregory meeks, a democrat from theyork, "agree with president: iraqi leaders must rise above differences." from miami,ing in

independent line. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. -- i justted to say happened to see a documentary on the vietnam war. is almostme how it like a repeat of what we went through there. lyndon b. johnson had inherited a war from the prior president, just like obama has. like the previous caller noted, he had begun sending in advisers to vietnam. this -- either president obama should attack the problem and go into win or not at all. that is ultimately my answer. host: thank you. for) 585-3881 republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3882 for independents.

talking about u.s. military advisers heading to iraq. we want your view point. we set aside our fourth line for iraq war veterans. (202) 585-3883. house gopalso was the leadership elections. here is "politico," inside the house gop leadership shakeup. scalise,ut steve republican of louisiana who became the new majority whip. the story of scalise's assent detailed by more than a dozen gop aides and lawmakers. a tale of keen attention to detail, unrelenting drive and commitment.

on to writeco goes "in the end, it was not even close." when he walked into the office building, scalise had the support of 126 republicans, far more than roskam or stutzman. scalise had staff holding lists of lawmakers making sure they showed up to support him. scalise delivered the quick ballot knockout few saw. businessweek," this is their analysis of what happened. a party gets shut out of house gop leadership. in the political taxonomy of capitol hill, joshua green writes, scalise is a curious

figure. according to "national journal," he is the fourth most conservative member of the house gop caucus. chairman of the republican study committee, a spot usually held by tea party inclined conservatives. the sort of people who frequently make misery for john boehner. most tea party folks do not view scalise as one of their own because he has been close to boehner and because he fired a key republican study th committee aide who now works for ted cruz. scalise's conclusion -- scalise red stateon ensures republicans will be represented. if you are incredulous at cantor's defeat, the tea party has not done more to further the cause. this is the least you could have hoped to get. that is in "bloomberg businessweek" this morning.

back to your calls on military advisers to iraq. shannon and florida, republican line. go ahead. caller: how are you? i'm sitting here watching this. one thing that strikes me is when they took the first city, i know everybody has changed the view, taken by surprise. the president seems to find out everything over cnn. it seems to me, as i watch our taken in our tanks and our stinger missiles and used against each city we have liberated on a steady march to take over all iraq, it is our responsibility to go in with airstrikes at least. and bomb and destroy every piece of equipment we have given them, which we should not have given them to start with. we gave it to them anyway. it is the iraqis responsibility

to fight for their own freedom. there is a time they have to step up and said this on acceptable. we cannot do it for them. but we can destroy everything that we have given them in order -- so that the sunni insurgents, al qaeda or whatever they are, whatever you want to call them -- they have a different name every day. isis or whatever it is. they should not be using our machine guns, our stinger missiles. there is not a far stretch that those stinger missiles are going to find their way to the palestinian border and start taking out israeli jets. passenger jets. it is not too far of a stretch of the imagination that these things are going to be used for. in florida, near fort lauderdale. front page of "the washington post."

scott walker, prosecutors. wisconsin governor involved in scheme. thatcutors have alleged scott walker was part of a wide ranging "criminal scheme" to coordinate the activity of conservative groups that spent millions to him and other repubd off recall efforts. host: it goes on to say that "although the case turns on wisconsin state law, is being watched closely by politicians and campaign operatives nationwide as they try to navigate state and federal laws between coordination campaigns and well-funded independent groups."

finally, the case is a so-called "john doe investigation." it operates under secrecy rules. host: frederick in new york, independent line. you are on the "washington journal." hi. caller: hi, i am a world war ii veteran. flew 30 missions over germany. what i do not understand, the u.n. does not seem to be involved whatsoever in what we are doing. it is too bad that the u.s. has to become -- taken over the job

of the u.n. i believe that if these 300 men that are being sent there to ,raq, if they are slaughtered this war will escalate. there is danger there. i do not believe that we can take on the problems of the entire world. understand, ii was entirely in favor of world war ii. i was not in favor of many other wars, as many millions of people were not in favor of vietnam and all of those wars. in some way -- i believe we could help the iraqis without putting people on the ground. sanctions and all sorts of ways to do it other than sacrificing human life. american people over there. it is the beginning of another serious situation, especially if isil kills the 300 men, which

they likely might do. it is a shame that we have to take on the job of the u.n. the u.n. happens to be a fantastic country club who does nothing, has no power. i am sorry to say that. host: frederick, you might want to pick up or go online and read "bloomberg businessweek," peter has a piece about the sleepwalkers. it is a new book by christopher clark. he talks about the world war ii, youan world war might be interested in that piece. your -- peter coy. nancy pelosi spoke before the her pressyesterday in conference. here's a little bit of what she had to say. [video clip] carefulave to be sending special forces. it is a number that has a tendency to grow. see the context,

purpose, timeline, and the rest, for anything like that. do, in any situation and i would sayesident, let's proceed cautiously in that regard. without thinking that 100 is 100. "the new york times," charlie wrangle going into primary with large lead. he has a lead over his primary opponent come a 47-34%. term ifuld be his 23rd he wins the primary and then the general. trick, new york, what you think? caller: on the respect of the u.s., our country was started basically on conflict. after our first conflict, which n believe was the berber war i

north africa, we were able to use that in world war ii to move in. anytime we try to settle a conflict in any part of the world, we usually set up advisers or send in to keep communication going on. in respect to sending more troops, i don't think it is a great time right now to do it. advisers may be feasible. i just think that is the way we should go. isis via twitter -- "let take care of the regime of maliki." aca enrollees were not in ed, a study by the kaiser family foundation. about six and 10 people who bought health insurance through the exchanges were previously uninsured.

ron, new york, independent line. what are think about military advisers go into iraq? caller: i have a couple things i would like to address. i would appreciate the time to finish. i am calling for a friend who cannot call because he is dying from what happened to him when he served in iraq. i have heard all these pundits from right wing neocons to republican politicians to democratic politicians. how of them talk about horrible the loss of 4400-some americans was. i agree with that. none of them address the fact that there were one million iraq million children killed by the most brutal

sanctions in history under the clinton administration. this is monstrous. we have destroyed a country, we have slaughtered people by the tens of thousands. look what we have now. also, all of these people talk about the centuries of sunni-shiite rivalry. there is no truth to that in iraq. even though the sunnis were in control under saddam hussein, the cia helpedty put into power, 40% of marriages in iraq were sunni-shiite marriages. in cities where there is only one mosque, the services are held together. we are the ones that did this. paul brummeemer went in and said sunnis are out of a job because you are in the baath party. host: bring this to a conclusion.

caller: we have no right to put all over the world in ways that destroy people and destroy countries. that destabilizes the world. it has to be stopped. host: thank you for calling. remer was on this program wednesday. watch that online at c-span.org, he spent 45 minutes with us. from politico, brian schweitzer is deeply sorry for remarks. former montana governor apologize on facebook for comments he made about house majority leader eric cantor and dianne feinstein in an interview published wednesday.

brian sweatshir -- brian schweitzer said southern men, including cantor, are a little effeminate. he said if you were a regular person and you saw eric cantor talking -- i am fine with gay people -- but my gay dar is 60% to 70%. again, i could not care less, i am accepting. he also graphically criticized dianne feinstein for her ties to slamming there agency. "she was the woman standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled up. now she says i am a nun when it comes to spying." that isn't political. from the daily caller, rick perry unloads on president to secure thee border. in a nearly 10 minute tirade

thursday at a luncheon for washington, d.c.-based political reporters, rick perry slams the obama administration for its failure to secure the border and want of a magnified humanitarian crisis if a major hurricane hits the u.s. host: that is in the daily caller. surely from new orleans, democrats line. please go ahead. caller: the morning. i think we should not put -- not one -- another person into

iraq get all the people out of the embassy, bring them home. and all his.ey jail for war crimes. not bush, i do not see bush acting crazy and talking ignorant. from dick cheney on down, all of them need to be in jail. all of the people who think -- their children and grandchildren -- [indiscernible] host: so, what a think about the president sending military advisers to iraq? caller: i don't think you should send them. he should bring every american and iraq back home. every last one. in the embassy and everywhere. bring them back home and let the shiites and the sunnis fight their own war. if they kill each other, so be

it. we should be home taking care of america. host: thank you. mike is a, maine, veteran. when did you serve and iraq? caller: 2003. host: in what capacity? caller: i was in the maine national guard. host: where? caller: i was in kuwait where the war started, i stayed on the iraqi border in kuwait as part of a medevac unit. host: what you think about the current situation and military advisors? caller: i was in the marines in the early 1990's. then i had to do time in open all. -- in okinawa. ii we left bases in japan and germany. why did we pull out of iraq, we

had troops who served. why would we pull out? why not leave troops there as a joiningbase, my son is the marines this year, he leaves in september. if that was his one-year overseas, we stabilized the country, we keep the airspace, then every time something tries to jump up we hit it early. everyone that is being killed now is on the liberals' hands and president obama's. if we stay there, these people would not be being slaughtered. it is crazy. why do people put timelines on ending a war or building a country. when this country first started, it took us a long time to build a government. it did not happen in five years or 10 years. and they did not have people trying to destroy. all you liberals out there, get a clue. if you want world peace, we need to and it quickly and stay there. we cannot do it for a little bit

and leave. thank you. you, sir.k thomas, texas, independent line. caller: did you realize the bin laden's were in texas when 9/11 happened at cheney's ranch? what idiot would build a consulate in baghdad? that is all one another. host: thomas talking about the bin laden's, front page of the washington post. toyed with a bin laden action figure. for more than a decade, the cia spies, andd drones, tracking devices to thwart al qaeda in pakistan. beginning in 2005, the cia began developing a custom made osama

bin laden action figure. it was painted with heat designed toaterial peel off, revealing a bin laden that looked like a demon. the goal was to schoolchildren -- the goal was to spook children and their parents, causing them to turn away. the codename was "otherwise. -- the codename for the project was "devil eyes." there is a dispute of how many of the figurines were ultimately

deliver. a person with knowledge of the project said hundreds of the toys, one of which was seen by a reporter, was made as part of a preproduction run. if you want to read this whole story, it is in "the washington post." dave in michigan, republican line. caller: good morning. thist called to say that whole matter is very confusing to me. wherestart at benghazi, clinton, chris stevens, obama, and his gang, were recruiting "freedom fighters" to go into syria and dispose of assad. these same freedom fighters are going into iraq. they are all of a sudden terrorists. we would not have had this problem were it not for obama's

determination to remove assad from syria. the result is those fighters permeated into iraq and are trying to create their own terrorist haven. it frustrating that the media is ignoring these points. when talking about iraq. frustrating me that no one recognizes the truth. host: dave in michigan. we have got one more article to show you and then we will continue of her conversation with two members of congress. i want to point this out, chris christie making his case to the religious right. the values and freedom coalition -- faith and freedom coalition is in town in washington. a lot of the republican potentials for president i speaking to that group.

c-span will be covering this conference. see it one able to c-span. chris christie is another one of the candidates making his pitch to the faith and freedom .oalition coming up in a few minutes as representative donna edwards. and then walter jones from north carolina, often a contrarian in his caucus. all -- the house is coming at 9:00 a.m. to work on the defense authorization bill. they worked late into the night last night on that and will be working again on that this morning. this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3 is booktv and american history tv, respectively. every couple weeks, we feature a city in the u.s., this is done

teams atcal content c-span. they go out and travel the city, they get to know the city and look at its literary history. they look at its history. and we feature that every couple weeks on booktv and then on american history tv. this coming weekend, it is st. louis weekend. we want to show you just a little bit, here is the mayor talking about the importance of the mississippi river to the city of st. louis. [video clip] of st. louis is located on the mississippi river , on the eastern side of the state of missouri. located, itphically is bordered by the mississippi river on the east. to the west, north, and south it is surrounded by st. louis county. the river is one of our biggest assets. .t is the reason we were here

p ehrlich clout and his partner came up to st. louis in 1764 and founded this because it was the perfect place for a trading post. that is what started out as. it is on the river and has access to water and a lot of resources. a very gooded in spot. the river still is very important as an asset. over the years, it has been a very strong commercial corridor. we have over 100 million tons of cargo that passes back and forth every single year. it is a lot of business. we also use it as drinking water. the mississippi river is the water source for the water i drink in my home and the water we are drinking in city hall. we share it with other parts of the region as well.

it is also a place for recreation. people fish and go in the river. of course, it is so important not just to the city but to the entire nation. , from ae of the busiest commercial basis, everywhere in the world. it will become more important as the panama canal expands. the river is why we are here and it is still a huge, important part of our city. it will be long into the future stop. is livecan history tv from the gettysburg college civil war institute. saturday morning starting at eight: 45 eastern. peter carmichael on robert e lee. followed by arizona state university pastor chris brooke

simpson. later, historian megan nelson on .he burning of chambersburg this weekend on c-span three. joining us isst: representative donna edwards, .ongresswoman military advisers to a rock, what do you think? guest: we have to be careful. al-maliki government has been wretched in terms of inclusion. takenlitary has not leadership and guidance from the civilian government. those advisers are important to get the iraq government on a straight line.

and, of course, making sure we protect our embassy. that is a separate but equally important question. host: your leader, nancy pelosi, said yesterday that 300 often becomes a bigger number. are you worried? i am. we spent the time that we did in iraq. there are many of us, including me, before i came into congress, who never believed we should have been there in the first place. now is not the time to come back. host: last night, one of the amendments of the military authorization bill that you guys are working on, house rejects democratic amendment to prevent iraq military operation. the house late thursday defeated by barbara lee of california. that would prohibit the use of federal dollars towards combat operations in iraq. that was defeated, how did you vote on that? guest: i voted for the

amendment, that is the the pathway that leads us to war .ithout congress being involved we have seen it before. i think the amendment was an effort to have a unified voice "no, we do and say not accept this." i worry about the president's authority, where congress is. and if you ask the american people, the american people do not want a military, boots on the ground engagement in iraq. host: do you think it is ok to send 300 military advisers? important to create a circumstance where there is some level of stability in iraq, both for our own security interests and for the people of iraq. i caution against mission creep. particularly with out what needs to be a new authorization.

there are debates about whether the authorization is expired or not, the president has the authority. congress has day to be involved. host: is there frustration and the democratic caucus right now? guest: the frustration is with the nouri al-maliki government, they have not taken the cues that have been there that iraq has to be an inclusive government, recognizing the rights and responsibilities of all of its citizens, including the minorities. that has not happened. it is a direct link to why it is that there is this unrest and violence going on in iraq. the: what you think about new leadership elections on the gop side? kevin mccarthy and steve scalise. i am an onlooker on the

sidelines. i do think it is not going to change the policy agenda of the republican party that refuses to create jobs and refuses to cooperate, is obstructionist when it comes to simple things like extending unemployment benefits, providing an increase .n minimum wage that may have been a leadership change, it has not been an agenda change. that is what is important for the american people understand. took a busecently tour as part of the democratic congressional campaign committee. what was that about? guest: i am the chairman of the democratic women's working group. under our leadership and meant to close it, we have been working on a women's economic agenda that addresses the circumstances so many women find less,lves end, making 2/3

$.77 on the dollar. african-american women making $.74. raising those issues of equal pay and the need for all families, including women, to have access to >> these are issues that are important to women but important

to all-americans because americans economic success will rest in the 21'st century with fully involving the capacity of women. not 80% or two third but 100 percent of capacity. >> unmarried women. here's am article by the democratic target. unmarried female voters. how important are they to democratic i forts? >> if you look at the cohort of unmarried women that's those single, divorced or widows they're increasingly representing a substantial part of the population and substantially disengaged because we have to speak to the efforts important to them and that's why i look at the failed republican congress that refuses to look at the circumstance these women find themselves in. often living in the same neighborhoods and having same responsibilities or taking care

of a family and often left their own in retirement, not having kind of retirement security and livelihood that men and married people enjoy and so i think it's important for us to speak to the issues that are of concern. to let them know. i am an unmarried woman and i understand the challenges to balance taking care of a family and growing your household and making sure you're meeting your responsibilities and the fact is republican congress has refused to deal with these issues and i think it's important for unmarried women to know that democrats stand on their side in every congressional district across this country, it's these group of women that will make the difference in an election and it's not just about their voting but it's about them voting and knowing that change that can come in the congress responding to their needs of

raising wages of equal pay and releasing that family work balance, these are issues and they'll be the difference in this election. host: one more issue on the table. here's recent article. proposing a tax hike. what do you think about increasing the federal tax hike for transportation? >> i've long been in favor of one, that our what does doesn't mean is our dollars bought before and we have a couple of trillion dollars in unmet needs for our transportation infrastructure and the united states doesn't have 21'st century infrastructure it'll not have an economy moving goods and

investing in our freight and our rail and investing in our roads. even in the washington area a couple of weeks ago in a route leading to the eastern shore. sink hole in the middle of the the hey - highway. it's important for us to find the revenue sources that will do what the american people want and invest in our infrastructure and that's about creating jobs. so many people can be put to work if with can invest in infrastructure to pay off. host: do an in edwards our guest republican percentages some of the suburbs here in washington. we'll begin with a call from jeremy in marylands. that one of your citys? >> it is. host: high jeremy. caller: good morning. thanks for your service.

could you speak a little bit about the rules committee? at times we hear about the rules committee and there's so many things that just seem really comical from you know watching congress and it seems like so many things it's a power play. whoever that is majority this is what they rush through and by way of example the aca for having any bill hit the floor and it's 12, 1,400 pages, whatever it and gives people less than a day to look at the thing and kit be ramrodded through. does the rule committee have the ability to be projecting ahead say six years or so when it would be unpredictable who would be in power and can write a rule but it seems democrats then republicans would think this would be a fairway to approach things? and maybe just a quick example would be the whole

filibuster farce and how that just kills so much time and wastes so much energy. host: jeremy i think we have your point. guest: thanks for calling. the interesting thing is i think it gets very confusing and you demonstrate this. the filibuster one, applies to the senate and not the house and of course in the house a majority rule. that's the rule of the house so the majority sets the rules and sets the governance of our committees which is why for me it's important for democrats to have control in the house because it's been disappointing to see that the legislation has moved it's way through the rules committee and on to the floor and has done so without our having ability to make a lot of change to it and so, you know the rules committee governs what happens on the floor of the

house, what legislation makes it through and how many amendments are allowed. i think it's port more important than the procedure though is what we're working on and whether that's meeting the needs of the america people whatever rules are that's set. host: bill from washington d.c. democracy california go ahead. caller: how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: i heard from a source saying 60% of the american people didn't no republicans control the house of representatives and i hope people understand republicans do control the house of representatives and then in that regard, republicans are planning to have 600 billion dollars in tax cut which is will knock a gigantic hole in trying to reduce the deficit but there's

two tax relief measures that are not considered to be renewed that have to be. one is earned income tax credit which is probably the most important tax credit to it keep people out of poverty, the other is the child tax credit which in it's wake is the most important measure to keep children out of poverty. i was wondering you could talk about the importance of renewing the two and if you ever heard of the financial security tax credit which is aimed at building assets for poor people. guest: thanks for your credit. i think our tax system is way out of whack. rewarding those that take dollars offshore and rewarding corporations that have benefitted greatly even as we have been in recovery from this

recession and taking away thing that really strengthen families. likely income earned tax credit and education pell grants and investments in head start. all the building blocks it takes so people can grow themselves out of poverty and contribute to the economy and the other thing you're right about is the fact that republicans do control the house of representatives and this why i think elections matter and the 2014 election really does matter because it will be that next congress that sets the agenda for this next decade and i think that democratic values should win out in that debate but it'll only happen if people show up to the polls and exercise their right to vote and make their voice heard and make the people's house the representatives in the congress know it's important for us to raise the minimum wage. it's important for us to provide

for earned income tax credit that benefits low income families and making sure our young people can succeed and contribute to the economy and those decisions are about who holds the gavel in the house and i think democratic values need to win this debate. host: all indications are that republicans will hold the house in 2015. what's your prediction. guest: in 2006 all predictions said democrats would not gain control of the house and they absolutely and completely wrong. the pollsters were telling us just a couple of weeks ago that eric canter had a 34-point lead in his house seat in virginia and they were wrong. there's a lot of evidence frankly that there's volatility in the electorate. i think the american people are waiting to see who's on their side and have a great benefit of

chairing the democratic campaign recruitment committee and now are read to blue signature program to get the house back. we have 55 candidates in districts across the country that have the potential to win speaking to resolve the incidents with the emergency american people. anyone that tells you they can predict what will happen in november is probably selling you something you don't want to. host: how do you recruit a candidate? what's the selling point to someone who maybe somebody you want to see run for congress. guest: i'll be honest most candidates recruit themselves and we help them come to a decision. when you're going to run for public office you know that it takes a lot to do that. this is not child's play but it's really serious business so you know they identify

themselves for the most part or we talk to people in communities and congressional districts and say there's a small business person that would make a great member of congress and help them along the decision-making process and once they do we help them become successful candidates at the end of the day so it's actually a really fun thing to do in addition to the other responsibilities but i have to tell you. one of the reasons i was invested in that is it doesn't do my district the fourth congressional district any good when republicans have gavel in the house so i'm absolutely committed changing the environment and making sure we have democratic control of the house and also giving this president the opportunity to succeed in the next couple of years by having a house that's willing to work with him in a senate that's willing to work

with him. host: who do you support? guest: i was one of the first to support anthony brown. i have known the lieutenant governor for a while and he's been truly effective lieutenant governor in the your state and he'll make a great running mate along with ken aldman. one of the most fabulous from our state from howard county. they're a terrific team and i'm looking forward to casting my vote on tuesday. early vote ended tuesday and i'll cast mine on tuesday for anthony brown. host: graduate of wake forest. franklin pierce law center. where did you grow up? guest: my dad was in the air force for all most 30-years. i lose count but about 14 schools when i grew up in every region of the country and probably what's given me a deep

appreciation for all of our country and the diversity that we have in the country and i've always enjoyed meeting new people. there's never a room of strangers and that's what happens when you go to different schools you have to show up ready to be engaged and i think it's helped to frame who i am and how i think about the world. value for those in the militaryer is virgin islandses my dad was a third and then a veteran and my brother as well and then i have a real appreciation for this country for the opportunities a forged us. it was because of my dad's military service that allowed us to grow up in middle class. my mother grew up on farms in north carolina so in some ways i feel our family is the american dream. if you no that i was in the

congress, i think he'd be proud. host: independent line. please go ahead. caller: i watch c-span quite bait and notice she comes on and the first question that peter asks was about iraq, and i didn't notice it was about women voters but i was very hopeful when president obama was elected i thought he would go in. his main thing was to end the war and get the soldiers out of afghanistan and now he's turned around and sending soldiers back to iraq in the name of advisors and then the democratic party that you're a very good spokesman for but he ask you about that and all you talked about was government. the bottom line is he is sending soldiers back into iraq and that confuses people out here. it just confusing democrats and

you talk about women voters. who do you think will want to vote for someone that goes back on his word on a party that goes back on it's word? the other thing is when you just tear up governments all over in the world everywhere you have chaos and women and children really are the ones that really suffer. you talk about women voters maybe you don't see the pictures on the of all those people drag their children around trying to get away from all that violence where the united states has sent all kind of weapons to these different countries to help overthrow these different governments. i think the democratic party should be more forceful. i'm african-american like you are but you and the rest of the democrats should be more powerful in your messages to president obama. we do not want to send soldiers back. host: i think we got the point. representative edwards?

guest: i agree and that's why i voted for the president to send troops to iraq. i think nancy pelosi has been clear in her message this would be not an acceptable course of action, so you know i'm with you on that. i did not support our engagement at first and i've been very skeptical about our continuing our presence in afghanistan and not only do want that wound down and ended, i wanted it ended several years ago. i think united states has a lot more opportunity to build friends and support around the world without engaging in combat operations and i want to see us try that tactic. if there's something we can do that will help the government there to stabilize itself and engage it's minority

populations? then i think it's important for us to play that leadership role, but there's no way that i'm is supporting combat operations in iraq and frankly, you know, except in some contingency i can't think of any place else, i think there's plenty of things for the united states to do we're investments overseas that will help us win greater parts of the world on the our way of thinking about peace and stability and economic growth than combat operations. host: time for two more calls. jim in alabama. republican line. caller: thank you sir for taking my call. i have a question. host: jim we're listening. turn down your t.v. caller: i got some background

noise in my phone. i got a couple of questions for the young lady there. she's talking about pulling people out of poverty. the only way to pull people out of poverty is give them jobs. where is the job creation? i'm not talking 20 or 30 hours a week. i'm talking full 40 hours a week with benefits. where are these types of jobs. we sent them all over seas. and as far as taxing goes, i'm 72 years old, retired. i pay my taxes and i think everyone in the country should pay taxes i don't care how much you make or how little. you should pay a certain percentage to the taxes and be left with the rest. host: thank you, sir.

donna? guest: i want to create jobs and i think the surest way and fastest way is to pass a long term surface transportation authorization, this congress so that millions of people can be put back to work rebuilding our country's infrastructure. extending long-term unemployment benefits and allowing the people unemployed to get job training to qualify for the jobs we're producing in the 21'st century. expanding tax credit and investing in manufacturing so we cannot just invent things but we can also manufacture them. there is a pathway to job creation jim and i thank you for your contribution. you're retired now but we need to grow this economy and get many more people engaged in the economy. people don't want to receive an unemployment check or other

kinds of support they want a job and the united states has a capacity to create those jobs. we can create the building infrastructure and i think we have an opportunity to really grow this economy but it's taking a congress that understands the importance of investing in the economy and in the american people so that they can go to work for a living host: loren pillar said what do you think of the president not defending our southern border? guest: i think president has indicated every democrat in the congress indicated we want immigration system that works and to reform it we would be willing to bring that bill to the floor today and it would only take 25 or so republicans to pass it to the president's desk and protect our borders as we need to. know who's coming the country

and also millions of people move into the economy. again to begin to grow our economy and we can use immigration reform as a pathway to do that. i think there is a way that we can get there but we will not get there's a long as this group of republicans controls the house of representatives it's why i'm absolutely committed to make sure we change that environment so we can ready get the things that we're expected to do. host: you serve on science base technology committee. what's going on with nasa and space flight in the united states? are we contracting it or building it up and what do you think should happen? guest: look i'm excited about the prospects for the american space program in this 21'st century. we're about ready to commemorate another anniversary

for that apollo lunar landing and there's a signal we need to create our next apollo. it's mars and deep space and i am on the science committee because time ranking democrat on the space subcommittee and this is big business. 17 of the top 25 a row space companies are headquarters in maryland and i believe in investing in that research and technology because it helps to grow the larger economy. after a lot of wrangling back and forth, democrats and republicans not agreeing i got together with our chairman. from mississippi and we hammered out an authorization for nasa that was by partisan and passed it of committee with no opposition and passed it on the floor with only two votes against out and people want to point to something that can be done in the congress and i hope

the president will get to sign anna is an authorization before the end of this year but the reason space is so important is when we've made investments in our space community it's paid off in large respects and the larger economy. did you know that air bags that all of us take for granted came out of research and development in the space program. mri technology. those kinds of investments in research and development that led to sort of larger investments in the greater economy and so that's why i believe in investing in space and a country that invests in space, invests in it's future and so for those why we fund nasa and why is that important? it's only about one percent of our nation's budget, but it's about 100 percent of our future.

host: donna edwards we appreciate you're coming on "washington journal" up next republican from north carolina walter jones. this is the "washington journal" on c-span. m >> you can keep in touch with current events using any phone anytime with c-span radio on audio now. simply call today and hear congressional coverage, public affairs forums and to days "washington journal" program. listen to a recap at 5:00 p.m.

eastern on washington today. you can hear others sundays at noon eastern. c-span radio. long distance or phone charges may apply. >> the thesis of the book is that there's a whole group of people in america. big swath of america that's being ignored and left behind, not included in the discussion, i think for either party. particularly though i would argue the republican party and i call them blue collar conservatives the folks out there that are working people. most of them whom don't have college degrees. folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility and people who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. you say wow those are

conservative republican voters and many many cases they're not. lot of them aren't voting at all because they don't see either party talking to them about the concerns they have if trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. >> form senator and president's candidate said working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers solutions. this is part of book t.v. this week on c-span two and this month on the on-line book club we're discussing books at book t.v..org. book t.v. television for serious reader readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: pleased to have representative walter jones republican of north carolina joining us on "washington journal" for the first time.

congressman jones you serve on the armed service committee. military authorization debate is going on right now in the house. do we spend enough, too much or the right amount on our military today? guest: the issue is that we continue to spend so much money by sending our men and women around the world to take care of the world. i'm a person who believes sincerely we need to rebuild the military but when you look at the fact that we continue, pat but canon has a great vote. it is not civility to bar from the world to defend the world. we're a debter nation and we have to have debt de dates to to raise the ceiling.

president obama we've raced it seven times in five years. that allows our nation in debt to borrow more and more money to spend and there's no cap to it and i mean this is why - we ought to stop spending money in afghanistan and spend it here on roads and schools and it goes on an on. for me personally i'm a person that believes sincerely we need to start rebuilding america and not the world. >> what would happen if the united states wasn't in afghanistan or didn't go to iraq and try to help the middle east out. do we just let it happen? guest: peter, i look at the other countries with just as much at stake as we do. the collapse of iraq is happening right now. they're not going to send

military. president obama says we'll send 300 advisors and that sounds like echos of vietnam again. we need to understand we need a strong military that's based on the requirements of the constitution and we have a better foreign policy and not one that seems to be wherever there is a problem we need to be there to fix the problem. we cannot do it. as colon powell said we should have never gone into iraq. look where we are. if you break it you own it. there's people in both parties. think donna edwards feels that way. she's a democrat and i'm a republican but we just need to come back to what's in the best interest of america, and yes i would say with terrorism and threats let's continue to rebuild america and have a strong military and do what's

right for agencies trying to protect us from terrorism but when you start sending our troops around the world and putting them in this foreign countries especially in the middle east i think you're setting yourself up for trouble. host: is it fair to say you're a contrarian within the house republican conference? guest: i've been called many things. i'm a strong man of faith and i do what i think is right and many times i guess i am a contrarian because my value system is based on my faith. host: third district includes the outer banks the coastal of north carolina and marine base there. and your father was a democratic congressman prior to you in the

same district basically? guest: more or less, yes. host: who did you vote for in the house leadership races? opponent to kevin maccarthy. why did you not vote for maccarthy? guest: we need to change the face of the leadership. i believe eric canter is the seat that's very sound. sent a message that the leadership - i mean i go back quickly to the debt ceiling issue. you know we continue to raise the debt ceiling. last time i voted for debt ceiling increase was 1997. the debt of our nation was 5.7 trillion dollars and today it's over 17 trillion. that's why i believe we cannot continue to fix the problems in

afghanistan when we cannot fix the roads in east and north carolina. host: after the president announce meant yesterday you sent this letter to the president. i'll get you to expand. the 2002 authorization of the use of military force against iraq authorized military force specifically to defend the national security of the united states against the continuing threat posed by iraq and enforced all relevant u.s. resolutions regarding iraq. the current situation in iraq clearly does not meet these criteria as it is obvious from a full reading of the legislation that weapons of mass destruction were the continuing threat being referenced. guest: peter, i have said many times that the worse decision i ever made since i became a congressman was to give president bush the authority to

by pass congress to send troops into iraq. i say that because i voted for the amu f at the time that this happened, the authorization of military force. since that time that gave the president and continues to give the president and this time obviously president obama the authority to make certain military decisions candidate by pass congress. i look at real quickly the fact that we bombed libya. yes the president said i contacted the leadership of the house and senate. the constitution says congress shall declare war and we've advocated our responsibility based on the constitution and that's why i join adam shift and 30 other republicans did couple of weeks ago to sunset the authorization that was given to

president bush in 2003 that's now being used by president obama. host: how did you vote on barbara lee's last night? guest: everyone of them. host: were you the only republican? guest: i've not been able to check the scorecard, if i can say it that way today but we begin to see more and more republicans voting like i'm trying to say that we cannot continue to police the world. we have got to come back to fixing the problems of america and when you're a debtor nation you have no business borrowing more money to spend in afghan stavenlt we've had morning breakfasts with inspection general of afghan construction and what he tells the public and us in congress is if the abuse

is worse today than it's ever been. we build their roads and schools and the taliban blows it up and yet we can't fix the roads and schools in america. host: finally before we go to calls who would you like to see as president of the united states? guest: i like ran paul and ted cruise. i want a person that will understand that we have to have a strong military that we need not to have a foreign policy where we decide we need to police every country in the world. host: some time we here maybe the simplified argument. internationalist verses isolationist. is that fair? guest: again you know definitions apply in some situations and some definitions don't and other situation but

the issue is every great nation and i'm not a great historian but i did study history in college and every great nation from the spanish to the french to the romans, any great nation that started go around and take all the territory around the world eventually failed and i think we in america are in the 11th hour of a 12 hour clock. look at the monetary problems and the problems here in america but yet we continue to want to say that we can bring, you know sanity to the chaos in iraq and i don't think we can. let's go a diplomatic route and get other nations to join this and take the lead. we're always taking lead but yet we are always have debate every 12 months to borrow more money to spend and also that money that we borrow and spend goes overseas. host: walter jones our guest.

robert in maryland. go ahead. independent line. caller: good morning. i've done a lot of research on the afghanistan situation and to add to your point about the chaos of the money pit, washington post and "new york times" has reported that more contractors from the united states have to bribe taliban so what bribeing the taliban let us build roads or schools or hospitals and they go in and destroy the it's a lose, lose situation. same thing with iraq. it looks like media and politicians are aiming at going back into iraq and it's a big mistake. guest: your point and

understanding is so correct. that's what john - he's been on shows and c-span and has articulated your concern and your point and this is what does not make sense. i have talked to the marines and i don't have that kind of background but i talked to them and went to walter reed three weeks ago over there to see two marines and it turned out when the rehabilitation area where they teach them how to walk without legs and things i can do when they lost body parts i saw three army fellows from fort brag that's not in my district, but they lost one leg each and the first marine i saw and his father there from louisiana lost two legs and an arm and he's on kind of a bed in the rehabilitation area and i look

in the eyes of the father and what i snow the eyes of the father hurt, sadness, pain and worry. here's a father of a 23-year-old son that's lost both legs and arm and i don't know what we think we're going to change. taliban most of them are - this their country they live in the different century we cannot bring them to our century. they don't want to be us. they have their over religion. young marine had lost both legs stepped on a 40 pound i.e.d. in february of this year and he was talking about his little baby that's eight months old and his wife and they were not there but he was talking about them and you wonder what we're doing to our military. let's reenforce our military and do what's necessary to have a strong military and be prepared

to go after those that hate us but not try to police the world and change these cultures in the middle east. we'll never change them. history has proven that. host: would you be okay if iraq split into three countries? guest: i came out against the iraqi war in 2005. i made a bad mistake in voting for the resolution. absolutely i think vice president biden was a strong advocate of dividing the country in three parts and i think that's probably what's going to happen. i don't think anybody knows what will happen tomorrow in iraq but i think that is a possibility. >> john tweets and do you congressman i'm your constituent and admire your character but

you're way too moderate for me. chris calling in from florida on our republican line. hi. caller: good morning gentlemen and congressman jones. i've admired you. i need to clarify time a huge ron paul supporter. guest: i am too. caller: i'll support him for the office of the president of the united states. i wanted to point out something you commented on that i'm troubled by and i'll go into my question. i don't think ted cruz is eligible for presidency because he is a canadian. he has both of his parents are canadians and i don't believe even though he relinquished his

citizenship i don't think he's qualified. i am pleased to hear that you were backing. i think would have been our best guy to put in there. i don't know a whole lot but i do know what i like and he's in defense of our liberty and i'm sorry kevin maccarthy made it. he's not much better than kevin canter. host: got to make it quick now. caller: talk a little bit about your work with the other guy on the other side of the fence about promoting information on saudi connections to 9/11. host: ron paul, saudi connections to 9/11. guest: first of all my comment was a response to peter about whom maybe would be your choices

to be - i could add michelle obama so i was responding to peter's question who i would like to see run for the president on the republican side. host: ted cruz being canadian. i don't know if you want to address that or not. guest: that will take care of itself. host: kevin maccarthy? what's your relationship? guest: my belief is that we need to change the face of the house leadership. i believe sincerely in the speaker of the house. we need a new look and direction and i think quite frankly i was one of the 12 that voted for it. so, my belief has nothing to do with personalities or my feelings and i respect both of them but i think they're direction for our nation and

party is not what we need at this particular time. the 28 pages that chris made reference to sh, 9/11 commissioy 25 pages they said needed to stay classified. member of congress can read those pages with authorization from the intelligence committee in the house. i've been given the permission to read. state democrat from massachusetts and i and thomas massy have called on the president with a resolution to release the 28 pages. the 28 pages have nothing to do with security. nothing but more to do with relationships and that's about all i can say, but the families of the 9/11 have been calling for this. senator bob graham has been way out in front calling for the de

classification and to me there's no freedom in the american people don't know the truth about one of the worse days in the history of our country. host: jerry. henderson, north carolina is that in your district? guest: no, sir. i know where it is though. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for the congressman and a follow up. congressman, do you think it would have been right to keep emergency american soldiers giving up life and limb to fight in that country without immunized from prosecution from the iraqi government? host: what's your follow up? caller: all these republicans mccain and graham and everyone talking about barack blew it. he didn't get the status of forces agreement and the reason

he didn't get the agreement because iranians and they wanted to keep the soldiers there without being immuneized and that's why the talks broke down. guest: jerry i don't know in detail what you were saying i just accept it but you're iranians did not want our military there and so therefore i don't think the president has any other option but to do - it's their country whether we like it or not it's their country and if the leader of their country says we don't want the americans here we have to follow the wishes of the leader of that country at that time. host: roger green tweets in, representative jones how do you view tea partyers. white wing radicals?

guest: citizens that believe in the constitution that want to take back america. i'm not a tea party but i'm a conservative and lean toward being a libertarian and i can honestly say anyone that believes we should live by constitution and as a man of faith in the bible i believe we'll have a better america if we can come back to those two documents. host: tough primary a months ago? guest: sure did. the two worse decisions by the united states supreme court i've seen since i have been in congress. roe v. wade and citizens united. citizens united has created this situation where those - not apposed with people that have money, billy tell you that quite

truthfully that the influence of money is growing and growing and growing and when you have outside groups to come to my district which they have a right to do and spend about $1.4 million, that's a lot of money in east and north carolina specially to buy television. distortion lies in misrepresentations and we had 123 thousand to depend us 10/1 and i thank god first and the people second to trust me to do what i think right. we wanted primary. we do have opposition in the november election and we're working hard to win that. host: you ever thought about stepping away from congress or not running for re-election? guest: i'm 71 years of age. god has given me an unbelievable

amount of energy and fight and i believe that either the people first or god first will say that - you've lost that fight. i have the fight and fight all the time up here for something good, i hope most of the time. host: where do you think if your father were alive and in congress would he be a republican or a democrat? guest: hard to say. he knew before i died that i was thinking about changing my party affiliation and we had a conversation and i think that he understood my frustration and that he agreed with some of the frustration. i don't think i'll tell you the truth, i said recently that with this world we live in of fund raising and fund raising and fund raising i'm not even sure he would run today. but no, he was a conservative

democrat and when he became chairman of committee he became less conversation but those things happen when you become a chairman. you can't always stand for principles and that's why i like being an independent thinking person with certain values and i try to standby my principles and take the hits that come with it. host: who's your best friends in congress? guest: goes from paul brown to steve stockton to thomas massy to jimmy duncan. i'm in the liberty, caucus and there are other people and really in the democratic party i have relationships with, so to me i just don't think we can fix the problems of this country if we can't always agree philosophically, that's not going to happen. but there are some issues we can

coming to on and i think we need to - it's of the 20 years i've been here this is one of the most difficult times not for me personally but for our nation. host: pat, dallas, independent line. the go ahead. caller: good morning. mr. jones, you said something about diplomacy but i'm really, really confused. republican parties speaking from both ends. mccain always talk about obama is too slow and - you are talking about diplomacy. president obama tried to use that diplomacy in libya and america is not supposed to be behind. america should lead the war, no

he said it was diplomacy and he's too slow to react to the situation in iraq. we shouldn't have our military going back to iraq. the war was wrong from day one. i was against it. guest: i agree. caller: what about this from both ends? guest: pat, i can't speak for any senator or even any house member. i can only speak for myself and again, as i said to a caller before you called, pat, that i think too many times that the politics of washington is, you know guns first and diplomacy second and i would like to quickly if i might, read for pat, i want you to listen. after ronald reagan died. ronald reagan was the president when we had 241 marines killed

in beirut and there was a book written. an american life an autobiography about ronald reagan in the weeks immediately after the bombing i believe the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave yet the rationality of the middle east forced us to rethink policy there if there would have been some free thinking of policy before our men die we would be better off if that policy changed to more of a mutual position those 241 marines would be alive today. i truthfully believe sincerely that we ought to go through diplomatic channels and have discussion with foreign leaders to come to some type of compromise where that might be. >> karl.

republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. guest: good morning. caller: i'm very pleased you prevailed in the primary and will work hard for your election if the fall. guest: thank you, karl. caller: i think we need more independent thinkers and your programed for years to be that. i've got a question. i'm real puzzled by actions yesterday. the path announced he would send 300 military advisors to iraq but said we're not taking sides so we're not partial to one side of the other. does that mean 150 are going to help 1/2 and the other half? guest: that's what's so confusing about the iraqi situation. much of the middle east.

iranians are shiites and saudi arabians support the sudis and that's why i think we don't need to send the ad visors there or bomb the area and i believe it's time to let another country take the lead and figure out this chaotic complex situation known as iraq. your point is well made. thank you. host: walter jones often on the floor of the house making speeches during the one minute speech time. in amarillo, texas please go ahead just a minute or two left. caller: you mention about that, we want to be in america to be a great nation. we are always looking to lead on

the dream of the united states and i'm a soldier. i served the nation in the u.s. army. probably can well on the obama administration and we think that the united states, that could take our troops to iraq and - america did not think about that. they did not accept our democracy and but our democracy, what i knew we time and lose more than 18,000 million dollars to use them in the united states to this. host: thank you so much. guest: i agree with you totally. iraq was a mistake and we never should have gone in there it was

based on manipulated intelligence and i regret the fact that i sent young men and women to die in iraq in 2003. i've signed over 11,000 leters to the family because of my pain of not voting my conscience i did not believe the intelligence i heard in classified settings and should have never voted to give president bush the authority to go in iraq. i regret it. host: i want to ask you the same question as donna edwards. loren said what do you think of the president not defending our southern border? guest: i think we have to defend our southern border. i think this situation with the children is a contrived effort by some to create problems to force america to do certain thing we should not be forced to

do and i am for the governors of the states that are severely impacted to have right to do whatever they need to do to protect their borders. >> another treat for you and this is a little out in left field. so don't feel obligeed to answer it. but apostate askings out curiosity what do you think of john calhoun and says i bet he idolizes him. guest: i studied about him a thousand years ago but no comment. host: i understand. janet says i'm not understanding. stay out of iraq but build the military up, what for? guest: to have a military in case we need it. what we have failed do in the

last 15 years is to have a strong foreign policy that would make sure that we went the diplomatic route before we had to use the military. i just want to say i think we have to have a strong military to be ready to use the military but have a foreign policy that makes sense. host: walter jones republican of north carolina please come back to "washington journal". house of representatives. >> our guest chaplain. chapel of the cross, dallas texas. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and ever lasting god, heavenly father and giver of all good things, we humbly beseach thee to bless this good land with sound learning and pure manners. save us from confusion, pride and from every evil way.

and do with the spirit of wisdom those who we trust in government. direct and prosper the consultations of this house to advance thy kingdom for the safety, welfare of thy people, establishing peace and happiness, religion and piety that fear obedience to thy laws that we may show praise for all generations. in the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness and in the day of trouble suffer not our trust, all this we ask through the kings of glory, our most blessed lord and savior, jesus christ. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. pledge of allegiance will be led today by the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson.

mr. johnson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i rise today to welcome to washington our guest pastor in the house, my friend, my mentor, the reverend bonzire. they are no stranger to adversity. we just celebrated the 07th niversary of the -- of d-day and the dutch famine. his family suffered through that event themselves. he was born in kalamazoo, michigan. he moved to texas in 2002 and

serves the north texas community in many ways. after serving as a teacher, administrator and assistant director of the paris school in tyler, texas, he began a parish revitalization project in dallas. he began a new classical school, st. timothy school. he's the reverend of the chapel of the cross, a reformed episcopal church in dallas, texas. the reverend teaches upper middle school mathematics and middle school bible as well as having daily morning prayer for the students and i understand he prays for the united states congress daily. and because of his devotion to them, the reverend's students are capable, knowledgeable, virtueous and devote. in the gallery, his wife, nathaniel, s son, his son detrich and his

daughter is with him. we welcome them to the house of representatives. i yesh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will entertain up to five further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: madam speaker, today i would like to recognize and thank a constituent of mine from patriot, ohio, ms. gale. she is an employee of buckeye rural electric co-operative and recently traveled to honduras for their international foundation. while on the island of roatan, she helped them set up and maintain their new automated metering information. this will enable them to operate and use the command center software, which serves about 13,000 customers.

her volunteer efforts supported the smart grid alliance of the americas goal to provide technical assistance and smart grid technology, applications to cooperative, municipal and other small electric distribution utilities in latin america. she will help improve energy efficiency, integrate renewable generation and most importantly, have access to utilities for underserved communities in latin america. thank you for your hard work and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise in recognition of the recently completed tourette syndrome awareness month, a time we educate ourselves and our children about tourette syndrome. at a ceremony earlier this year i had the privilege of meeting

to and listening to many of the courageous young people, the heroes telling their own tourette syndrome story. it is a neurological condition that affects many americans, mostly young children. they can main strange looks from classmates, bullying or total alienation. most kids and most parents don't understand t.s. or its symptoms. that's why awareness and education is so important. and it's time we celebrate the bravery and perseverance of these heroes. hey range from energetic kindergarteners, high school kids and college kids. the combloge comments from their teachers, family, friends, described these young people took the obstacles they face head on and make a difference in the lives of their communities. it's an honor to recognize tourette syndrome month. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: madam speaker, the liberal national media continues to downplay the i.r.s. scandal. last week the i.r.s. claimed it lost two years of emails of former director lois lerner, we likely contained information about the agency's targeting of conservative organizations. one would think this would be breaking news, but it took "the washington post," "the new york times" four days before they considered the missing emails news worthy. this may be one reason why consumers are turning to social media for their news. what a dramatic shift from thousand these pickup i willcations covered president nixon's missing 18 minutes of tape. the front pages and editorials almost daily criticized the nixon administration's abuse of power. the liberal national media hasn't changed between watergate and now.

what has changed is the political party of the administration in power. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. barrow: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. barrow: madam speaker, i rise today in support of our work to rebuild the department of veterans affairs. last week the v.a. released the first-ever nationwide comprehensive audit that the -- of the v.a. health care system and the findings were eye opening, though not surprising. more than 100,000 veterans have waited more than 90 days to get an appointment or never received an appointment at all. congressman bill cassidy and i introduced a legislation to call on the attorney general to investigate the evidence during the course of the audit. managers of the v.a. told their subordinates to doctor the wait books, then anyone that prosecuted. uld be

the house has tried to get them the care they need outside the v.a. when they can't get it inside the v.a. this is a long march to get the care they deserve. e owe it to all those who gave the best years of their lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield it's back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. bachmann: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. bachmann: i rise today to recognize st. cloud cathedral high school in minnesota for winning the 2-a baseball championship. it really was a remarkable victory. after making a dramatic comeback, they beat fairmont 5-4. this marks the eighth championship for the team since 1977. with 44 seasons and 711 wins under his belt, cathedral coach and alumni bob karn has won

more high school baseball games than any coach in minnesota's state history. congratulations, coach karn. quite a record. congratulations, cathedral high school and to all the assistants, administrators, friends who made such a tremendous accomplishment possible. this is what america's really about and we're with you in spirit today and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. engel: it's been nearly a week and there's still no trace who e three israeli boys were kidnapped presumably by hamas, the terrorist organization. our hearts go out to their families, and we hope that they will be found. one of them is an american

naftali. the whole world is praying for their safe return. madam speaker, this shows the brutality of the terrorists, brutality of an organization like hamas which takes three young people, innocent young people and god only knows what they've done with them. i think it's important that we keep our vigil. it's important we keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and it's important that this country continues to lead the fight against the scourge of terrorism around the world. let's pray for their safe return. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckinley: i rise to recognize the west virginia statehood.

on june 20,1863, west virginia became the 35th state. our state has grown to become a significant contributor to america's economy. west virginia's rich in natural resources, the largest producer of oil and gas east of the mississippi. in addition, west virginia's a national leader in providing statewide access to preschool and has ranked first in the nation for pay equity between college educated men and women. west virginia is home to nationally recognized centers for research and learning and has produced countless veterans, historical figures, scholars, athletes and many whom for we are internally proud. like all west virginians and as the seventh generation native, we take special pride in our wild and wonderful state. mr. speaker, i ask that we wish a happy birthday to west virginia. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wilson: i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wilson: madam speaker, more than 200 girls in nigeria are still missing. they were brutally kidnapped by terrorist organization boko haram over 60 days ago. we pray for their return and we pray for their parents. so we will tweet and tweet and tweet until they are returned. we must put pressure on the nigerian government and the president to bring back our girls. i'm asking everyone to join our tweet war. every morning at 9:00 a.m., please tweet a message of support for the rescue of the girls with the #bringbackourgirls. we will join the bring back our girls organization in nigeria in a tweet war during their tweet time which is 2:00 nigerian time. but 9:00 every morning tweet. let's show the girls that we love them and we will do all

within our power to make sure they return safely to their families. let's show the president that the entire international community is watching and we will keep the pressure there. we will not forget them, and we will not rest until they are returned. remember, #bringbackourgirls, 9:00 a.m. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, wish to vise and extend and to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garcia: i rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of florida city. over the past century, florida city has grown from a small stop on the road to become the official gateway to paradise. i'd like to recognize the city commission, including mayor wallace who served as mayor for

over 30 years, managing the redevelopment of the city after hurricane andrew in 1992. r.s. shriver, the longest serving municipal elected official in florida. avis brown, sharon butler and eugene berry, these dedicated public servants are the few of many of the life-long citizens that have tirelessly worked to improve our community. as we look forward i know the next 100 years will be filled with continued success and growth due to the commitment and service of so many over the last 100 years. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and exclude remarks extraneous material on further consideration of h.r. 4870.

and that i may have -- i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 628 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4870. will the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of hsh -- of h.r. 4870, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday -- the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, june 19, 2014, the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 141, line 4.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, as we move towards the finish line and consider the last amendments to our defense appropriations bill, large thanks are -- should be extended to the remarkable staff that make up the defense subcommittee. i know i join with my ranking member, mr. miss claus can i, and wanted to take time to -- r. visclosky: -- mr. viss claus can i and wanted to take time to thank all our staff. m, sherry, jennifer, walter, ul, d.g., adrian, megan, maureen, conan, and becky. from my personal office, nancy,

steve, katie, from mr. visclosky's office, joe and jake. and all the appropriations staff and house staff that have made this bill move so smoothly. i also want to thank all of the members of the house for their active participation and patience over the last few days. we do not always agree on the substantive issues, but i appreciate the spirit in which all of us debated a variety of issues. in this regard i know mr. visclosky and i would like to extend our thanks to three members of the defense subcommittee who are working on their final bill with us. mr. owens of new york, mr. kingston of georgia, mr. moran of virginia. their service and contributions will have been enormous and their assistance deeply appreciated. i would like to yield to mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman taking the time and would also join him in thanking

all of the staff of the subcommittee as well as the full committee. people ought to appreciate the discerning judgment that they bring to their work, their knowledge, their tireless work ethic, and the fact that they are fun to be around. they also are very selfless as far as providing for the protection of our nation to ensure also that it is done in as cost-effective a manner as possible. and i appreciate that the chairman enunciated the names of all of our staff because on this subcommittee it is a very seamless and indistinguishable process. the staff understand they are here to help every member of the subcommittee, the full committee, and of this house whether we agree or not, to ensure that our legislator process and product is as good as it can be. the final thing i would note is to thank personally the chairman

for his leadership on this issue, for his dedication to public service. my father always told me, it took a very strong man to be a gentleman. mr. chairman, you are the consummate gentleman and i thank you for that and for your friendship. mr. frelinghuysen: you indeed, are a gentleman, too. it's been a pleasure to work with you. we are blessed with a remarkable staff that has met the needs of every member of congress irregardless of political party. we have considered their amendments and to the extent we could we have acted upon them. thank you so much for your support and all of us, we appreciate the work of our great staff. madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the

following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be provided to pakistan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: thank you, madam chair. my amendment would prevent any funds appropriated by this bill from being provided to the government of pakistan. it is reprehensible that our government is still willing to provide military assistance to a known terrorist supporting state like pakistan. since 9/11, pakistan has received over $28 billion from the united states. this should not continue. it is a farce to believe that our aid sometimes deceptively labeled as reimbursements, is bullying -- excuse me, is buying

pakistan's cooperation in hunting down terrorists. it was the pakistani establishment that sheltered osama bin laden for years, and they continue to jail the man, heroic man, who helped the c.i.a. locate bin laden. why would pakistan do that if they were on our side? the abysmal human rights record of the pakistani government is shameful. it is even worse because american money contributes to strengthening the security forces which kill and persecute minority groups who are denied their own right of self-determination. this is especially true of the baluche and sendy, two large ethnic minority groups in pakistan. our tax dollars, equip the pakistani military, which brutally oppresses the

aspirations of both of these people and both of which have a long history separate from pakistan. pakistan has -- is not an ally and any assistance we send them only strengthens their ability to act against their own people, against us, and against afghanistan as we withdraw our military. we cannot buy the friendship of a government whose strategic interests are not aligned with ours. they are allied with terrorists, the pakistanis are allied with the terrorist elements and our own ever more adversary, dangerous adversary communist china. at a time of tight budgets, we should reserve our aid to true friends and allies. furthermore, the appropriations committee didn't even put an exact dollar figure on this -- in this bill for the money that will be going to pakistan.

instead, they have inserted a placeholder because we have not yet received a formal big -- figure from the administration. what will happen when we get this formal figure? will we simply serve as a rubber stamp for the administration and insert the number requested into a conference report? well, i would hope not. it is our duty as elected members of the house of representatives to determine how much and to whom tax dollars will be appropriated, and i implore my colleagues to send a message today that we will not send another dime to pakistan as long as they continue to act belligerently toward the united states and promote terrorism and repress their own people. the policy which has us funding pakistan's military is wrong and the fact that we can't even debate a precise dollar figure is absurd. it is insane for us to continue to borrow large sums of money

from china in order to give to pakistan. our enemy and friend of terrorism. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and to end this counterproductive use of our limited resources which has continueded -- continued for far too long. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman is correct in one respect. the house does not have nor does our bill show any specific amount for pakistan that we anticipate the administration will come forward with a figure which may be similar to last year, but there are good reasons that we have invested in what's called the coalition support fund. it allows the secretary of defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation for logistical and military support, including access, specialized

training to personnel, procurement, provision of supplies, and equipment provided by that nation in connection with the u.s. military operations in enduring freedom. in pakistan -- pakistan is one of those nations. receipts for reimbursements are submitted by pakistan and other cooperating nations and fully vetted by the pentagon and follow strict criteria to meet the standard for reimbursement. all payments are made in arrears and notification to congress as to what the money has been spent for. specifically regarding pakistan, the coalition support fund remains a critical tool to enable pakistan to effectively deal with the future challenges emerging from the u.s. drawdown, and there will be challenges, no matter what the troop number, and the president has set the troop number at approximately 9,500. it will be cost-effective, it is a cost-effective tool for the u.s. to remain engaged in the region. we can't turn our back on

pakistan and afghanistan. particularly because pakistan is a nuclear capable nation. we need to keep a functioning relationship with pakistan. that is essential. i would be pleased to yield to my ranking, mr. visclosky, for any comments that he might make, but this money is essential, and pakistan has been an ally in getting after some of the worst terrorists in certain parts of pakistan, and they need that assistance. we should, i think, continue to give it to them. pleased to yield to the gentleman. mr. visclosky: would appreciate the gentleman yielding and emphasize the chairman's first point. the reason there is not a figure in the legislation is we continue to wait that request in the overseas contingency fund from the administration. i would simply add a couple of comments to the points the chairman raised. one, if the funds were

prohibited, i believe it would also affect our ability to withdraw from afghanistan since we traverse through pakistan's ground lines communications to transport our equipment back home. also think that the withdrawal of u.s. assistance would likely polarize pakistan and exacerbate significant pro and anti-american riffs within their military and government generally. in addition to counterterrorism activity, the fact that pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides, i believe, an ample reason for the u.s. to continue to be positively engaged. i would not disagree with the gentleman that this is a very difficult relationship. there is significant problems with pakistan, all the more reason to continue to be engaged. i also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and i appreciate the chairman yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: do i have time left?

the chair: one minute remaining and he is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: when i first came to congress i was perhaps pakistan's best friend in congress. at that time, of course, we were in the middle of the cold war and the pakistanis were on our side and india was on the side of the russians. today the cold war is over and pakistan has become the friend of our enemies. whether they are radical terrorists or whether it's communist china. for us, now, to be borrowing money from china in order to give to pakistan, because we are still -- we are going into debt $500 billion a year. we need to make sure and we have to borrow that money. much of which comes from china. then to pass that on to pakistan who -- enemies -- who's basically supporting our

enemies, they still have dr. afritti, the man who helped us finger osama bin laden. a hero who risked his life for us to bring justice to the man who slaughtered 3,000 americans, for us to continue to give that government who holds him in a dungeon as we speak is immoral and is stupid and counterproductive. we should cut military assistance to pakistan. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> when mr. visclosky and i were in pakistan earlier this year -- mr. frelinghuysen: we made it quite evident that we were concerned about some of the things that occurred, including the holding of that doctor whose assistance helped us kill one of those who killed so many of us. but we need to recognize that holding pakistan close to us as

an ally gives our troops some extra protection and we need to have that access through pakistan to make sure that our deployed troops and others there get the assistance they need. i yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. rohrabacher: i ask for a recorded vote, madam chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman specify which amendment?

>> the amendment h.r. -- the amendment to save taxpayers amendment. the chair: further clarification, please. >> it's the one talking about afghanistan funding. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stockman of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, a, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to destroy department of defense equipment or ammunition in afghanistan without such equipment or ammunition first being offered to independent states of the former soviet union and major non-nato allies that are willing to pay for transportation of such equipment or ammunition to such states or allies. b, for purposes of this section, one, the term -- madam chair, sen:

i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the point of order. the clerk: the terms in section 3 of the freedom support act -- mr. stockman: i ask unanimous consent that they waive the reading and i also ask -- the chair: the time of the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. stockman: we're pulling out of afghanistan, we're chopping up billions and billions of dollars of equipment into little tiny pieces. and at the same time our government is purchasing military equipment for our allies. this is a terrible waste of money. our allies have expressed they want to come pick up the equipment. they're paying for it. we don't have to do anything. we don't have to chop it up. we can allow our allies to have it. this is a shameful waste of taxpayers' money.

it's in the billions of dollars. i personally think this is a huge waste of money. i'd ask that the congress would consider this as reasonable that we at the same time we're cutting up billions of dollars of military equipment we turn around in this appropriation and buy the same equipment for our allies. so i would ask that this would be considered and that the point of order that's being proposed, i also ask jurisdiction of why it's being the point of order is in order. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. frelinghuysen: madam speaker madam chair, i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part. an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be

in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not the chair will rule. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the department of defense. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. stockman: amendment 25, it's regarding the rare earth sourcing. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stockman of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds maid available by this act may be used for the procurement of weapons systems

that contain rare earth materials, metals, magnets, parts or components -- mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: that are produced in cuba, north korea, the people's republic of china or venezuela. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. stockman: currently right now we have a situation in which some of the countries which we deal with militaryaryly are restricting -- militarily are restricting the rare earth metals, particularly china, and they're asking we build our sensitive equipment in their country in order to acquire these rareerts. i would object to that kind of thinking and that kind of ability for our nonfriends in terms of military assistance to

actually have it and develop our own rareerts here in the united states. it's a major mistake, i think, to pursue a policy in which we allow our not friends to have control over our top secret and also over our rareerts. i ask the ruling of the chair for -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. madam chair, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes changing existing law. it constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair finds that this amendment includes language

requiring a new definition of the country of origin of certain parts or components. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. stockman: stockman amendment number 26. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stockman of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for any activity that would grant support maritime or air -- mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order. mr. stockman: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

mr. stockman: at the ever expanding territorial claims by china and our allies in the area of the philippines, japan and south korea, i think this bill or this amendment would not violate the rules. all it says we shouldn't spend money helping chinese to expand territorial claims. i think it's reasonable. i also think it's something we should do. we need to express more concern. the current leadership in the white house has not really done much in temples of foreign policy. this -- terms of foreign policy. this would be an example to the rest of the world that congress can speak up and stand up to our allies in the region, particularly those countries surrounding japan right now where they're having great difficulty with the ever xpanding and i would suggest empeerialistic attitude as some in the country of main land china. and this amendment i do not believe violates the rules.

i ask the ruling of the chair to also adjudicate why this is. the chair: the gentleman will reserve the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. it therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point? the chair finds that the amendment includes language requiring a new determination of the effects of its activities. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment, 154,

madam chair, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. if the gentleman will explain his amendment? mr. gosar: the fuels, number 154. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order, madam chair. the chair: the chair will tell the gentleman from arizona that perhaps the number on the amendment may be incorrect. if the gentleman could come to he clerk for a second. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into any contract after the date of the enactment of this act for the procurement or production of any

nonpetroleum-based fuel for use as the same purpose or as a drop in substitute for petroleum. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chair. i rise today to offer a cost-saving amendment to the department of defense appropriations act for the fiscal year 2015. this is a straightforward amendment that will help bring defense spending priorities in line with the fiscal realities that the united states currently faces. specifically, this amendment would prohibit the department of defense from wasting precious taxpayer dollars on the purchase of more expensive fuels made out of biofuels that are not cost competitive. when our country's more than $17 trillion in debt and every year the federal government continues to spend nearly $1 trillion more than it actually has, it is incumbent upon this congress to get this reckless spending under control and to carefully scrutinize every dollar that is spent. the department of defense has

been purchasing biofuels to substitute traditional petroleum fuels to man the ships, aircraft and other vehicles. the problem is currently these fuels are exosh tently more expensive than other fuels. until fuels are cost competitive without any federal subsidy, no federal entity should be utilizing this fuel source. let me ble clear. i support a truly -- let me be clear. i support a true all-of the above energy strategy which includes wind and solar as well as natural gas and clean coal. i have nothing against biofuels and do not need -- that do not need significant federal subsidies to exist in the open market. unfortunately, the department of defense and other federal agencies continue to waste precious taxpayer dollars to prop up this industry. last year the defense logistics agency wanted to buy almost 15,000 gallons of biofuels. this year the defense logistics agency is seeking more biofuel. biofuels without federal subsidies are nearly 15 times

more expensive than the conventional jet fuels. the slit take of nearly 37 million gallons is there is a $27.2 million federal subsidy to make the bioblends. i quote, cost competitive with the conventional counterparts, end quote. the purchase of biofuels, which are not cost competitive, is so wasteful that a popular news site put them on the list of the five insanely wasteful projects that the pentagon is spending your money on. i will read a brief excerpt from the article. the u.s. navy has been attempting to obtain a green fleet by obtaining biofuels. the catch is that the cleaner fuel costs $26 per gallon which is much more expensive than the $2.50 a gallon that the navy pays for each gallon of petroleum. they're spending

money to countries that are biographical doveling these fuels. last year the air force paid for 11,000 gallons of biofuel at a rate 10 times higher than the price of regular jet fuel. using the military as a vehicle to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unproven green experiments is clearly a wasteful use of taxpayer money that must be stopped. we all must understand that the number one priority of the united states military and indeed the federal government at large is to defend the nation from security threats. i'd also like to bring up admiral mike mullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, as he stated on july in 2010 that the biggest threat that we have to our national security is actually our debt. therefore, it is essential we scrutinize every dollar we appropriate to ensure we are spending our limited resources prudently and judiciously. . this amendment will help us accomplish that goal. this amendment was carried last year by our newly elected

majority whip steve scalise and adopted by this body in a unanimous consent. as the logistics agency is attempting to purchase 2 1/2 thousand times more fuel than last year -- think about t. they wanted 15,000 gallons, this year they want 37 million gallons just to meet an unnecessary mandate. this defies common sense and we should not be wastingles millions of dollars of taxpayer money in this manner. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i ask to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: madam chair, this is perhaps the fourth or fifth debate we have had on biofuels and their limitation relative to the department of defense, but do feel compelled to continue to remind my colleagues that we do have an energy problem in the

united states. would, i guess, start at the dueling admiral statement. the gentleman quoted admiral mullin from 2010. i would suggest that admiral locklear who is commander of the pacific command stated this year that the most destabilizing problem that we face in the pacific basin is climate change and the impact it has on the people and the national security in that part of the world. have continued to emphasize so that we need to keep our options opened for the department of defense, and i would suggest for this great nation. indiana, a state in which i live and have lived all of my life, is a coal state. more steel is produced in the district i represent than any state in the united states. i'm very proud of that. you need carbon to make steel. what we need is a matrix, not

only carbon-based fuels but other types of fuels, including renewables. wind, tidal, solar, hydro, and biofuels. and i would also reference senator lugar who i continue to have a profound respect for. senator lugar suggested that energy is a problem economically in the united states. senator lugar suggested that it is an environmental problem in the united states. he said that energy fundamentally is most importantly a national security problem. which is why we ought not to limit the options for the department of defense to expand the use of biofuels. and for those reasons am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is ecognized.

mr. salmon: it's all about balance when we talk about 30,000 times more biofuel at this time. i this is the gentleman has to understand some of the pollutants created by these biofuels may be worse than what we see in carbons. the emerging technology showing the pollutants created by burning these may be more insolvent than we see in petroleum. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: madam chair, this is common sense. balance is everything. we have a balance of problems with spending. we have -- we have acknowledged we want to see a proper balance in all the utilizations of energy. this country can be energy dependent. what it means is not picking winners and losers but actually using a conservative type of balance. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. visclosky: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you, madam chair. this is an amendment that is actually quite simple. i'll only take a moment to explain it. it simply requires the use of funds into this legislation not be utilized in contradiction to existing u.s. law. let me specifically point out the problem i'm trying to make sure is very clear. as members of congress we are elected to represent our constituents and that includes

our constituents who serve in the armed forces. so i have been very concerned about reports and experience within my own office that some in the military have reacted unfavorably when service members reach out to assistance from a member of congress. as i said, we have experienced this in my own office. i know that this is not department of defense policy, and i know and certain that this by aior is being exercised very small minority of staff people, but it is entirely unacceptable. i know for me if somebody in government, any department, has a problem with me and the communications i have with my own constituents over issues they are having navigating the bureaucracy of government, if anybody has a problem with that, they can talk to me directly. my office is listed. they can call me.

just want to make sure that this amendment makes it clear that no money can be spent in violation of 10 u.s. code 1043. this is the statute that specifically makes it illegal to retaliate against members of the military to speaking to their members of congress. i want to reiterate. this is based on real experience that i'm having in my office. i have talked to other members. there have been similar experiences. i don't think it's pervasive. i want to make the message clear that members of the military or any other constituent has an opportunity to reach out to their members of congress, it's important for our constitutional role, our oversight role, and i think this amendment while perhaps redundant, would speak to that directly and i hoped that the house would consider it. with that i reserve. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and rise in strong support of his amendment.

the committee has a tradition of protecting whistle blowers. in fact, we have accepted during consideration of the bill an amendment to do so two days ago. i think most members probably have encountered an individual who has come into their office and said i would like to provide you with information that hopefully would make our government more efficient and better, but i don't want to get into trouble. that's who you have in mind and i appreciate that very much. and rise in support. mr. frelinghuysen: let me associate myself with the ranking member's comments. whether somebody comes through our office or if we visit a military installation in the middle east and somebody comes up with an issue that affects them personally or their families, they have a right and we have always put these protections in our bill. i commend you. i think it's very much in order. thank you. mr. kildee: i thank the chairman and ranking member. i know when to quit when i'm ahead. with that i yield bab.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. visclosky: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition and at this point yield my time to mr. hoyer from the state of maryland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise for two reasons. first of all to express my and ent with mr. moran with members of the committee, perhaps on both sides of the aisle, with respect to our continuing guantanamo policy. guantanamo bay continues to weaken, in my view, america's

standing at a time when we need every tool necessary to protect america's interest around the world, which include promoting democracy and the rule of law. our courts, in my view, are more than capable of trying and convinthing even the most hardened terrorist and have shown themselves fully able to do so. civilian courts have convicted 533 individuals on terrorism charges compared to eight convictions in military commissions. yet on the floor of this house we continue to deal with this issue as if somehow it is keeping americans safer. it at the same time, it undermines american values. that is not a good policy. hundreds of terrorists are being held securely in maximum security prisons here in the u.s. i won't list them, but i'll include them in the record. keeping these detainees at guantanamo makes no financial sense. one of the -- my republican

colleagues mentioned the cost of 500,000 per year per detainee. at a time when we want to be efficient, effective in our use of resources, that seems not to be either. i now want to speak to a broader issue that concerns me that we have not dealt with in this bill and we did not deal with in the authorization bill. we need as a congress, as a country, as a people to have the courage to come to grips with rationally passing a defense appropriation bill consistent with the advice of our military leadership and consistent with our willingness to pay the price

for what we buy. i have been in this body 33 years and have always supported funding our military at necessary levels to maintain our security and our freedom. and i will continue to do so. and i worked with the ranking member for almost all those years. he hadn't been here quite as many years, but almost all those years. i congratulate the chairman. i'm proud of the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, my friend, mr. frelinghuysen. i had the opportunity to serve with him for a number of years on the committee. e is a responsible, patriotic, good member of this house and will chair this subcommittee in a very responsible fashion. i congratulate him for that. and my dear friend, the ranking member, for whom i have great

respect, for his intellect and for his focus and hard work on behalf of making sure our country is strong. but ladies and gentlemen of this house, mr. and mrs. america, mr. that we hould know cannot and will not be able to continue to maintain the security of this country if we continue to pass bills with the pretense that we could pay a lot of attention to acquisition and not nearly as much attention to man force and training and eequipping. -- equipping unless we want to jettison this sequester. we have to stop pretending that national security or education or infrastructure or health care

can somehow be magically created nd maintained without having a fiscally sustainable overall policy. or that we can pretend on a basis both in this appropriation bill and in the authorization ll that we can simply fund that which the department of defense says we don't need, is no longer relevant, but, yes, it has consequences, for every one of us, including me. if we cut those programs. so i would urge us as we pass this bill, and i'll vote for this bill, but as we do so we do so in a context of committing ourselves to having the courage and the wisdom in the years to come to pass -- to propose and to pass rational security bills. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: especially lend my agreement to his comments relative to the situation at guantanamo bay. the chair: the gentleman from indiana voifs. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> madam chair, i have an amendment, 153, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at thend of the gill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be obligated or expended to the following entities or in contradiction of -- contravention of title 18 united states code, section 2339-b. section, 1, the government of iran, two, the government of syria, three, the palestinian authority, four, hamas, five shall, the islamic state of iraq and syria. . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from arina