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 arizona and a member

opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chair. i rise to offer a commonsense amendment to the department of defense appropriations act which will further hold accountable foreign terrorist organizations in addition to those foreign government who is support their efforts. i'll be brief. as the case is made against these entities and organizations are well domed. iran is largest state sponsor of terrorism and the obama administration is throwing out the baby with the bath water. syria has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism since the state department list was created in 1979. the ongoing atrocities on the ground in syria should be more than enough to prohibit foreign assistance to this nation. before moving forward, let me say that i recognize these two nations are already ineligible for most forms of foreign assistance already. but we have seen how the obama administration's track record in terms of following the letter of the law. it enforces only the laws it

agrees with. now, speaking to the prohibition of assistance to the palestinian authority, on june 2, the palestinian authority announced a new unity government which was supported by the islamic militant group hamas. to quote recent reports, the merger also appears to skirt, barely, u.s. prohibitions on aid to palestinian governmentes that has undo hamas influence or presence. the obama administration has worked behind the scenes to suggest terms to the new coalition government, reason that the money helps preserve leverage. rubio has call for suspension and review of u.s. aid showing that israel does not have a viable partner for peace. the unity government isn't an end around u.s. restrictions. i agree with those statements. with so much blood on its hands, the new palestinian authority in hamas is not

worthy of u.s. assistance and just to be clear as day. i included the islamic state of iraq and syria, again, already listed as foreign terrorist organizations to this list in addition to all organizations currently designated by the state -- secretary of state. i understand the law, and i understand that the u.s. already has laws to prevent transfer of assistance to these foreign terrorist organizations. it is just that i am not convinced that the president, his attorney general or any other member of his cabinet secretaries understand the laws of this nation the way that i do and will follow those laws as u.s. citizens must. this is just one more attempt to double down on the letter of the law. i can only hope the president sees the dangerous ways in which he's jeopardizing our republic's systems of checks and balances and submits to the rule of law, as do all americans. it's long past time this congress checks this president and balances the power of our national government. i urge passage of this amendment, which will hold accountable those governments which are most hostile to the united states, israel and their

allies, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from indiana seek recollection anything? mr. visclosky: i seek to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: the gentleman has enumerated a number of terrorist organizations and countries, and i don't think there is a member of congress who would suggest that they're up to any good at any moment in time. but the amendment attempts to treat these countries and these organizations with a one-size-fits-all approach. our nation is involved with each one of these entities is reflective of each country's reality and state of affairs, our nation's interests, national security concerns or lack thereof. i would just provide one example. if this amendment were to pass, options for any actions in syria relative to the department of defense could rovide -- the department could

provide relative to the removal of chemicals and materials of mass destruction would be inhibited because these moneys are provided through the cooperative threat reduction account which works to ensure the destruction of syria's chemical weapons stockpile and by necessity we end up having to work with that government to this very good work. so for that reason, the practical nature of this begs it and i am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would yield time to the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to make it clear, we're not giving any funds, assistance to the government of iran and syria. when and if the chemical weapons leave syria, there may be a third party that we're assisting in terms of getting those chemical weapons out of the region, which i think is a good idea. we're not supporting the assad

regime, i can assure you, and we are certainly not supporting what's been happening in iran over the last decade. but i do support the continuation of the united states' participation in the middle east peace efforts. , hink we need some progress and i think this amendment would send the wrong signal to our commitment, to that process and undermine the things that lasting ng to bring, peace to the area. i think it will be ill-advised. i can assure you we're not sending any money to syria and iran and i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i oppose the amendment. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the chairman's remarks. again, would emphasize my opposition to the gentleman's amendment and i'd yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: i want to remind the

gentlemen that one size, really, one size? terrorism is one size. there is a right and a wrong and it all starts with big money. there has to be consequences for our actions and so, therefore, i ask for adoption of this amendment and ask -- i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. 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. gosar: madam chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. franks: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. franks 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 transfer or divest the electronic proving grounds at fort huachuca, arizona. 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. franks: well, thank you, madam chair. madam chair, my amendment would not allow funds to be used to transfer or divest the mission at the electronic proving grounds, or e.p.g., at fort huachuca in arizona. madam chair, e.p.g. is the u.s. army's command, control, communications, computer, cyberintelligence or c-5-i, development tester. e.p.g. plans conducts and analyzes the results of technical tests for c-5-i systems, signal intelligence

and electronic combat and electronic warfare equipment. e.p.g. has an operation that includes more than 9,000 square miles of public and private lands in and around fort achuca and its unique, magnetic free area makes it prime for electronic testing. madam chair, e.p.g., the electronic proving ground at fort huachuca is a national strategic asset. it can accomplish in real open air environment what others can only simulate in a closed laboratory environment. e.p.g. gives our c-5-i systems a place to be tested and simulated in real-world environments, leaving our war fighters with the best tested and most functioning systems available. madam chair, further, this amendment saves money in this fiscally constrained environment as the department would have to spend millions of dollars to transfer such a

mission. there's no reason, therefore, we should consider moving such an asset into a closed laboratory. madam chair, i believe this is a commonsense amendment and that it preserves this strategic asset and it's ultimately in the best interest of the national security of the united states of america. and i would thank the committee for their time and support of this amendment and i'd thank the chairman, especially, for his indulgence and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from indiana seeks recognition? mr. visclosky: i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: at the outset of my remarks, i would not in any way dispute the value or the good work done at the proving grounds in arizona, nor the good work of the military and civilian personnels who are there. i would concur in the gentleman's remarks. that is true, though, of the military and civilian employees throughout the department of defense, both in our country

and around the world. and i would remind our colleagues, despite the fact that including the overseas contingency account that this bill contains $569.6 billion, which is an astronomical amount of money. it is a finite amount of money despite, as i have also said repeatedly over the last three ys, infinity -- infinite amounts of demand. i do believe the gentleman's amendment is contrary to what we're doing as far as conceptually in the bill and is trying to stay out of some of these decisions that the department must make. we had discussions about should or not kc-10's be moved or retired in the committee. we declined to become involved as the move from one wing from

one state to another state. and i couldn't dispute the gentleman's assertion that we would save money if we didn't spend it on transferring. but i might ask, perhaps we will save more in the long run and that the department of defense may not be wrong in their assertion. so for those reasons would respectfully oppose -- mr. frelinghuysen: would you yield? mr. visclosky: i'll yield to the chairman. mr. frelinghuysen: i do oppose it reluctantly. let me say -- and i agree fort huachuca is a national asset. i want to commend you for obviously reacting to some perhaps news that might be on the wire service that there are oftentimes sometimes actually your bringing this to the floor, if there are people of the impression that they might be doing something, this is a pretty good way of bringing it to a halt. but traditionally, we oppose these because -- and furthermore, here, there are no funds in the budget for anybody

to accomplish this. for that reason i'm opposing it. we salute your bringing this to our attention and i think a message has probably been sent by your strong advocacy. thank you for yielding. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: well, thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the comments of both the ranking member and the chairman. i suppose it's important for me just to point out that the underlying predicate of this amendment is the need, in my mind, to protect this country against the potential use of electro magnetic pulses against this country and this facility in fort huachuca is one of our best ways to ascertain the dangers na are involved and to try to find ways to protect this country against that danger. it is very possible, madam chair, that electromagnetic

pulse has become one of the more significant short-term national security threats to this nation. enemies across the world now are starting to develop this capability, and i think it is very important for us to make sure that we understand it and that we have the kind of facilities that can test our vulnerability to electromagnetic pulse in real-world situations. and the fort huachuca facility is one of the few, even though there are a few others, is one of the few that can do that and i believe in terms of the long-term costs, a major electromagnetic pulse attack on this country could prove astronomically expensive and for that reason i would encourage a yes vote, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from arizona is mr. franks: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. . froms the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section 10002, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the defense logistics agency to implement the small business administration final rule titled, small business size standards, adoption of 2012 north american industry classification system published august 20, 2012, in the federal register with respect to the procurement of footwear. 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. huizenga: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. huizenga: i rise today to offer an amendment that will ensure a fair and opened bidding process to supply our men and women on the frontlines with one of the most indispensable pieces of equipment that they use every day -- their boots, their footwear. my amendment would prohibit the use of funds by the defense logistics agency to implement the 2012 small business administration's interim rule in regards to footwear preventing the defense logistics atecy from bidding the contract as a small business set aside. when the s.b.a. released this new rule back in 2012, there was significant concern they did not go through the normal rule making and public comment processes and therefore more specifically did not perform due diligence on how the changes would actually affect the footwear industry and the military supply base which the

s.b.a. has even acknowledged. this rule dramatically changed the competitive landscape amongst companies supplying those very compliant footwear to the u.s. military. there are very few footwear manufacturers actually located in the united states, and even fewer that manufacture very compliant footwear for our troops. any reduction in this industrial base calls for immediate action to rectify the unintended consequences resulting in the s.b.a.'s changes to the small business size standards categories governing domestic footwear manufacturing for the u.s. military. congress has addressed the rule's impacts on defense procurement in the house report to the fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization, which expressed concern that the s.b.a. did not follow the normal rule making -- rule making and public comment procedures and has not subsequently addressed the issue with footwear manufacturers. it then called on the defense logistics agency to use its discretion to maintain the manufacturer base.

this amendment would essentially codify the report language, ensuring that all businesses capable of supplying high quality footwear to the defense department still can. this amendment promotes competition and it promotes fairness and consistency in the defense procurement process. most importantly, it ensures our men and women in uniform have access regardless of who makes it to the best equipment available. i urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana seeks recognition. mr. visclosky: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment despite the fact that i do not object to his amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: appreciate the recognition and i appreciate the gentleman's emphasis on competition. also appreciate the fact he is concerned about the industrial base and manufacturing in the

united states of america. we have seen a collapse in manufacturing employment. i would just point out for my colleagues, though, that the emphasis relative to the standards the gentleman is concerned about is to try to build that small business base. i remain disappointed in the department of defense because while they talk about building small businesses, improving that manufacturing base, i don't see many discernable results. in my own district i had a firm that does very sophisticated technology work, very small firm. they had to spend more than $1 million cash to go through the evaluation process so they could start to bid on military contracts. there's not many small businesses with less than 20 employees that have $1 million in cash to go through an

approval process so they can start doing business with the department of defense. so i share his concerns but also just want to make note that we have to draw the department's attention to small business manufacturing development in the united states and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you, madam speaker. i would agree with those sentiments of my colleague. we do need to make sure we are maintaining a manufacturing base of not just large, not just medium-sized but small companies as well. i think in this particular situation, though, what we are trying to do is codify report language that identified a problem. the problem is is that there is not a manufacturer that's going to be adequately able to supply that vital need of boots to our men and women in uniform and that's why i put forward this amendment and urge passage of it

as well. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having under consideration h.r. 4870, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4870, and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of .he chair. 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 in congress ses 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 on 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. >> congresswoman edwards and her colleagues will gavel back in in about a half-hour, we expect about 11:20 eastern to resume

deliberation and votes on the defense spending bill. a number of amendment votes left and they'll wrap up work on that bill today. the first amendment vote deals with prohibiting funds from the 2015 bill to be used to conduct combat operations in afghanistan after december 31 of this year. president obama yesterday announcing steps on iraq. he's sending up to 300 special operations troops to iraq, his advisors. and he left opened the possibility of possible targeted and precise military action in iraq. just this morning carl levin, who is chairman of the senate armed services committee, spoke with reporters, with some reaction to what the president said. we'll show you those comments as we wait for the house to return. >> i support the strategy that president obama outlined yesterday and here's why.

here's also the factors that i believe should govern our approach moving forward. the decision to send a small number of u.s. nonmilitary advisors is a prudent decision. they can help assess the situation on the ground, support iraqi efforts to defeat the islamic militants that iraq faces, and help iraqis make best use of the ample intelligence support we are already providing. the president is right to say that u.s. troops will not return to ground combat in iraq. the president is also right to say that it is not our place to choose iraq's leaders. that would be wrong on principle and bad policy to boot. picking and choosing iraqi politicians would only be likely to feed distrust and suspicion

and there's already too much of that in iraq. what we can do is promote moves toward the political unity that is absolutely essential for iraq to weather the crisis and to make progress towards a stable society. the problem in iraq has not been a lack of direct u.s. military involvement. but rather a lack of inclusiveness on the part of iraq's leaders. and that's why i believe that air strikes on our part should only be considered if three very specific conditions have been met. first we should only consider such action if our military leaders tell us that we have effective options that can change the momentum on the ground in iraq. in other words, only if our

military leaders believe that we can identify high value targets, that striking them could have a measurable impact on the situation on the ground, and that we can strike them with minimal risk to civilian casualties and without dragging us further into the conflict. second, while it may not be realistic to expect a unity government to be formed in the near term, particularly since the parliament is not even in session, we must expect iraqi leaders to take concrete steps in that direction before we undertake any air strikes. in particular, and this is really my key point, we should only act if leaders of all elements of iraqi society, shiia, sunni, kurds, and

religious minorities and also tribes of some of the this f all of them act in way together, and that is that they join in a formal request for additional military support. there is an obvious need for iraqi leaders to form an inclusive unity government for their country's long-term success. but that process is likely to take some time. many weeks or even months. but a unified statement requesting further military assistance would be an important signal that iraq's leaders understand the need to come together. the united states has national security interests in iraq, but

further military involvement there would not serve those interests unless iraq begins moves toward the inclusiveness and unity that are necessary if our involvement is to have a positive impact. put another way, we cannot defend iraqis from themselves. only if iraq's leaders begin to show evidence of unity can we help them. finally, any additional military action on our part should come only with the clear public support of our friends and allies in the region, particularly moderate arab leaders of neighboring countries as well. the isil is a vicious enemy. the isil is also the common enemy of all iraqis and of iraq's neighbors.

if this vicious common enemy cannot unite iraqis in a common cause, then our assistance, including air strikes, will make no difference. and i would be happy to try to nswer a few questions. it's time for the iraqi leadership to make a decision it as to whether or not his continuing presence is consistent with it pulling iraqis together in this common cause. for the iraqis to decide who their leaders are. but it's for us to determine whether or not any assistance can make a difference. it's for us to determine whether anything that we can do will make a difference. that's our decision. and it can only make a difference if iraqis pull together in some kind of a government of national unity.

who leads that government has got to be up to the iraqis, but it's very clear to me that unless there is some clear evidence that they are moving in that direction, and that's why this common formal statement of a request to us, for instance, for air strikes, is so essential. without at least that much of a showing of unity is made, i don't believe any assistance on our part can make a difference. . >> how do you measure that? >> the point that i make here is that the step that is critically essential before we even consider air strikes is for there to be a formal public statement by the leaders of all of the groups in iraq, shi'a, sunni, religious minority, kurds, tribal leadership, in at least a public, formal statement requesting assistance. that would be a major step

towards and it would be an indication of a willingness to move towards national unity. it may be too much to expect a government of national unity to actually be formed in the next few weeks, particularly since there's no parliament since the last elections, until a new parliament is sworn in. but it is not too much to expect, and it is essential that we insist upon this kind of a formal statement from leaders of all of the groups, all of the elements before we even consider having -- sending air strikes. >> some of your colleagues have tried to draw a parallel between what we're seeing now iraq and the situation in afghanistan, warning that we saw something similar happen if the president moves forward with his plans to remove a residual force. what do you make of these comparisons and what it might mean for the future in afghanistan? >> the situations are so totally different, i don't think i have time to even

enumerate all of the differences. they are very different situations up. don't have a sunni-shi'a historical major explosive, violent difference in afghanistan the way you do in iraq. in afghanistan you have an army are a 000 afghanis who united army, they've shown a willing tons fight against the common -- willingness to fight against a common enemy, the taliban. we have years of progress now in afghanistan. you've had an election which has so far at least been successful, which has been protected by and afghan army. so you have -- there are so many differences between afghanistan and iraq, again, it would take quite a long time to enumerate all the differences. >> [inaudible] -- the administration is planning additional advisors, it comes with a price tag. has the administration offered any kind of -- how much they

think this will cost and how they plan to pay for it this year? in addition, should cost be considered when weighing things like air strikes and further action? >> costs are always a factor but you have to weigh that against the national security interests. , so i don't think they've decided yet whether to take the next step, which would be air strikes and i would again condition doing that on these three clear requirements. but until the decision is further along, i would think it's probably premature to try to attach a cost to it. >> do you think the president needs congress' authority to do an air strike? >> i don't think that any administration, that any president would acknowledge that you have to have congressional authority. we've had dozens of presidents who have said that they can act , particularly in limited ways, without congressional authority. that's number one. secondly, we have a war powers

resolution. and the war powers resolution sets forth the steps which congress believes should be taken in a situation where we're going to put men and women in harm's way and that requires discussing the matter with congressional leaders, it requires notice, prompt notice of such action by the president, which i assume if he decided on air strikes, that that notice would in fact be provided, as well as continuing consultations before that notice, which have already -- which has already been committed by the president. and then if our troops remain in harm's way for a specified length of time under the war powers act, i believe it's 30 days from memory, then the president under the war powers act would need to come to congress for a resolution. of authorization. but that's -- if you follow those steps in the war powers

act, so far the president has not done anything inconsistent with the war powers act and like all other presidents, he will say that he has article two powers in any event which cannot be taken away by congressional legislation. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think so because they're clearly not intended to be in combat, not intended to be in harm's way at all. and in fact it's very specific in the president's statement yesterday that they are not there for a combatnition mission. so they do not even -- combat mission. so they do not even trigger the war powers act. let me get someone else. >> given the history of sectarian violence in iraq saddam fall of hussein and the attainability of maliki to unify the country, do you think that perhaps iraq

is not a viable nation state going forward? because it was a construct of the western powers treaty -- [inaudible] >> that is a possibility. but attest as to whether or not that is an accurate assessment would be the test that i lay out, that i set forth. and that test would be, here you have a common enemy. everybody. all the elements, as far as we can understand in iraq, to test this enemy. sunni, shi'a, k rumbings r -- kurds, clearly the religious minorities, including the christians. if having that kind of a vicious enemy, a common enemy, cannot produce at least a clear , formal request for assistance , then i would say that at that point there's nothing that we n do to help them, to help

them overcome those kind of divisions which they have so keep in their society. there's nothing we can do if they can't even agree to make a formal request facing a vicious enemy which is a common enemy, which they have in isil. so that would be the test as to whether or not what you have gh pogget sized is true -- hypothesized is true. history has changed. history has changed in afghanistan. it's very clear to me after 12 visits that afghanistan is on a different road than it was 12 years ago. countries can change the direction. it can't be maybe dramatic and sudden but surely, surely when there's this kind of a common enemy, as violent and vicious as it is and a threat to all of the groups in iraq, that that ay be able to be what forces

the iraqis and their leaders to come together. it may be that they couldn't have done this without this kind of a common enemy, by the way. it's very possible that it takes this kind of a vicious alternative for them to see what kind of an abyss they are in and how it is essential if they're going to climb out of this abyss that they find a way to come up with some kind of a overnment of national unity. >> -- [inaudible] -- but on syria you've been calling for a long time for a bigger u.s. presence. are you using this as a way to press the administration for more action in syria and regarding syria, do you see the kind of cross-sectarian unity against assad that you're calling for in iraq? >> i'm not using this as a way to call for greater action in syria. i've called for that action on its own terms and for all the

reasons that i set forth before , that i feel that -- have felt that there should be greater support to vetted opposition in syria. the vetted part is just important a word in that sentence as any other word in that sentence. so i don't want to use this as a way to try to persuade the administration to do something which frankly i think they're on the way to doing anyway in syria. >> you don't think the two are linked? >> they're linked in a sense because there's no border between them. geographically linked there's no boundary between the two. so there's elements which are similar but i wouldn't want to -- i think we've got to focus on -- i know the administration is focused on what are the and r next steps in iraq there are impacts on syria, there are relationships with syria, but i think there's also the key issue here in iraq is

the issue of the political leadership in iraq. and that's what the focus has got to be on. >> how do you explain to americans the national security threat? what is isil -- what has isil done or planning to do that threatens the united states of america? >> they are a group which if allowed to continue on the course that they're on will ultimately provide a threat to the united states and to our allies just the way al qaeda did. >> how do you prove that? >> you base it on history, you base it on what they're doing now. and what they say their purpose is. you base it on their words and their deeds. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> that's senator levin from within the hour, within about

10 minutes we expect the house back in to finish up work, votes on amendments to the 2015 defense spending bill which includes about $80 billion for military operations in afghanistan. and iraq. so live coverage of those votes when they gavel back in in 10 minutes or so. we're also covering today, actually yesterday as well, the freedom coalition's road to majority conference. one of the speakers yesterday was former u.s. ambassador to the united nations, john bolton, who talked about some of the president's actions on iraq and we'll show you as much as we can until the house returns. >> thank you very much, monica, and thanks to ralph reid for inviting me to be with you today and thanks to all of you for sticking around. i realize you've had a long line of speakers here at lunch. it's been fantastic. i can pledge you one thing, i'll keep to my time limit so you can get to the hill. but it's a very, very important

time for you to be in washington. and when you look at the issues that you're concerned with, of religious freedom, individual freedom, the family, all of the things that motivate you to the work you do, to draw the ring around those freedoms and to protect our way of life here at home, the absolutely critical variable is to provide for the common defense as the preamble to the constitution says. and let's be clear clear -- be very clear. barack obama is not fulfilling that constitutional responsibility. [applause] this is a president who doesn't give priority to national security affairs, it gets in the way of what his real agenda is, which, as he told us in 2008, was fundamentally transforming america. and every day that goes by leaves the republic weaker. virtually everything he has

said about foreign and defense policy has proven wrong. we can see it in the famous reset button with russia, which -- esulted in armed [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we apologize for that. we had some technical video for voot with john bolton. he's speaking at yesterday's faith and freedom coalition. their road to majority conference. ted cruz among the speakers and a whole lineup of speakers there as well today. in fact, look for coverage of that later today. coming up on our companion network, c-span2, coming back this afternoon. and you can also find it online at c-span.org. here on c-span, we're waiting for the house to return at 11:to. they'll pick up with a series of -- 11:20. they'll pick up a series of

amendment votes to the 2015 defense spending bill. >> thank you very much, monica, and thanks to ralph reid for inviting me to be with you today and thanks for all of us for sticking around. i realize you've had a long line of speakers here at lunch. it's been fantastic. i can pledge you one thing. i will keep to my time limit so that you can get to the hill. but it's a very, very important time for you to be in washington. when you look at the issues that you're concerned with, of religious freedom, individual freedom, the family, all of the things that motivate you to the work you do, to draw the ring around those freedoms and to protect our way of life here at home, the absolutely critical variable is to provide for the common defense, as the preamble to the constitution says. and let's be very clear, barack

obama is not fulfilling that constitutional responsibility. [applause] this is a president who doesn't give priority to national security affairs, it gets in the way of what his real agenda is, which, as he told us in 2008, was fundamentally transforming america. and every day that goes by leaves the republic weaker. virtually every everything he has said about foreign and defense policy has proven wrong. we can see it in the famous reset button with russia, which has resulted in armed force being used against a sovereign nation, ukraine, and territory being shifted from one nation to another. we can see it in the middle east today where the president's policies have helped bring the region virtually to complete chaos. today, however, very historic day, the "wall street journal" reports this morning that

president obama believes that the al maliki government in iraq needs to be changed. now, let's contemplate exactly what this means. after 10 years of -- or more -- of incessant criticism of the bush administration's policies in iraq, in the middle east, today barack obama came out in favor of regime change in iraq. how about that? [applause] more than a day late and a dollar short. but the president's lack of attention to american national security affairs is something that our adversaries all around the world have seen. so that although every day brings new stories of the decline of american influence, our friends moving away from us, our adversaries increasing, the pace and the scope of their challenges, the bad news is really still to come. because friends and adversaries alike can see that there are

only 2 1/2 years left. to us it looks like a long time. to our enemies it looks like a short time. but what it means is that the pace and the scope of the challenges we face internationally is likely to increase. now, many people have tried to answer the question, what is it that motivates barack obama to follow the policies he pursues? and i'd like to just explore that a little bit today because i think it's critical for the debate that we ought to be having in this country about the proper place of america in the world. this is a huge issue of great philosophical importance and the president has a view of america's place in the world that puts him at odd with the long line of presidents, democrat and republic alike, going back to franklin roosevelt. he is the first president since roosevelt not to wake up every morning and have as his first thought, what threats does the united states face today?

and this is absolutely critical. even the most libertarian of us should remember that adam smith said in the wealth of nations, the first duty of the sovereign, the first duty of the sovereign is to protect the society against the violence of other societies. but that's not barack obama's first priority. instead he's somebody who sees america as part of the problem in the world. he esees america's -- he sees america as too strong, too privileged, too successful. and as he said famously to joe the plumber in the 2008 campaign about spreading the wealth around, internationally he doesn't see anything wrong with spreading the power around. now, this isn't the first time that a leader of the democratic party has felt that way. but it is the first time he's been president. going back to 1988, george h.w. bush said of michael due can

cass, his opponent in that election, he said, my opponent sees the united states as just another pleasant country out there somewhere on the u.n. roll call between albania and zimbabwe. and that's how barack obama sees it as well. obama was asked on his first european trip by a reporter from england, do you believe in american exceptionalism? listen to obama's response. because it informs what we've seen of his policies in the past 5 1/2 years. the president said, yes, i believe in american exceptionalism. just as the brits believe in british exceptionalism and the greeks believe in greek exceptionalism. now, let's parch that sentence the way the president would. in the first third he says, yes, i believe in american exceptionalism. so all those people who say i don't, i've just proven you wrong. but then in the second 2/3 of

the sentence he takes it back. you know, there are 193 countries in the united nations. the president could have continued, just as the pop with a new beginans believe in paup with a new beginan -- you get the point. if everybody is exceptional, then nobody's exceptional. that's what he thinks. so in his view, if america is part of the problem, then the answer is a withdrawn, inward-looking, declining america. he actually thinks that this will make the world a safer place. he thinks that it's american strength -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we'll return to the u.s. house now as they gavel back in for votes on the defense bill. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 4923, a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: it is referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21, points ofoid are reserved. 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 further consideration of h.r. 4870. will the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration 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 chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 141, line 4. pursuant to clause -- proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 32 by ms. lee of california. an amendment by mr. rohrabacher of california. first amendment by mr. gosar of arizona. second amendment by mr. gosar of arizona. an amendment by mr. franks of arizona. the clerk will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the

request for recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment number 32, printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a vorded -- a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 260. the amendment is not agreed

upon. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevail by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas e --

the chair: on this vote the yeas -- 93 the chair: on this vote the yeas are 92. the noes are 320. the amendment is not agreed upon. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas is not -- the amendment adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] >> chatting in the back of the house chamber. cantor is laughing. the house republicans elected new leaders. whip will beity steve scalise of louisiana.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 280, the nays are 133, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. franks of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

>> it's the last mma vote on the fiscal year 2015 defense -- amendment to vote on the fiscal year 2015 defense spending bill. vote.inute b

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163, the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 141, line 5, this act may be cited as the department of defense appropriations act, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee now do rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with the recommendations that amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do

pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: directs me to the report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendment bs agreed to and that the bill as amended do ass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r.

8470 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. with the recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amend dodd pass. under house resolution -- amended do pass. under house resolution, a separate question is demanded. the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. 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: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations rom the house floor.

the house will be in order. please take your conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. bustos: i am opposed in its form. the clerk: ms. bustos moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house -- mrs. bustos: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. bustos: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment of the bill. it will not delay or kill the bill, send it back to committee, and if adopted the bill will proceed immediately to passage as amended. mr. speaker, my amendment would increase funding levels by $5 million each for the following

critical programs. electronic health records to help ease the shamefully long v.a. backlog, military sexual assault prevention and response to keep our service men and women safe from harm, and research into posttraumatic stress disorder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. bustos: and thirdly, research into posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, to care for our veterans' mental health while and well-being. these added investments honor the sacred commitment our nation has made to our brave men and women in uniform. for too long we have failed to systemically implement electronic health records to coordinate our veterans' care. by keeping electronic records, critical care can be coordinated between the department of defense and the department of veterans affairs. this will help redules the claims backlog and a-- allow

our nation's heroes to receive the care in a more timely fashion. in recent weeks, we have all heard from veterans back home on the need for us to work together to deliver more timely care. this amendment is an opportunity to reduce the backlog and make good on the promise we have made to our heroes. additionally, more than 70 members of the u.s. military encounter unwanted sexual contact, sexual assault or are raped each day. that is every day. this is absolutely shocking and sickening. it is evident that we must do far more to protect the men and women who are serving to protect our nation. my amendment would do just that by providing badly needed funding to keep our men and women in uniform safer from sexual assault. finally, many young women and men have returned home from iraq and afghanistan with posttraumatic stress disorder

and traumatic brain injury. there have been more than 400,000 of these cases documented by the military since the year 2000. another shocking number i am sharing with you today -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. please take your conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. bustos: thank you again, mr. speaker. my amendment would expand our ability to care for these veterans and provide for their mental health. this amendment would not add to the national deficit. every single cent is allocated in this bill is fully offset by a designated funding source. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. we owe our nation's heroes nothing short of the very best. we must make sure to keep our promises to them as they fight for our safety and our freedom and when they return home. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, with strong leadership from chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, our bill already funds the administration's request for electronic health records. this includes $124 million for interoperability efforts for the two current systems of both the department of defense and the department of veterans affairs. efforts are already under way to allow clinicians and users now to have operable records. . in regard to sexual assault, our recommendation provides approximately $275 million, an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2014, which fully funds the president's request for sexual assault prevention. mr. speaker, with regards to

traumatic brain injury funding, this bill, our bill also includes over $400 million in research and development funds for traumatic brain injury and psychological health and over $600 million in operation and maintenance funding to care for our wounded service members. not to mention the amendments we've already accepted on the floor over the last couple of days. these are important programs. they are supported by republicans and democrats, and i may say they are adequately supported in this bill. i ask for a no vote on the motion to recommit, and a big yes vote on the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is -- mrs. bustos: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a

recorded vote is requesting. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190. the nays are 220. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 340 and the nays are 73. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i would ask unanimous consent to remove my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 809. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. defazio: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor from h.r. 809. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 20, 2014, at 10:42 a.m. that the senate passed senate 1603. that the senate agreed to requests by the house to return papers to the house, h.r. 4412. with best wished i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to engross the bill h.r. 4412 in the form i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4412, a bill to authorize the programs of the national aeronautics and space administration and for what

purpose does. -- and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi recognized? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. he house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute, to for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, before i inquire of the majority leader, i want to say at the outset, i have now and have had great respect for the majority leader. the majority leader is a person of significant intellect, he cares about this institution, cares about our country and works hard on behalf of the principles which he believes in and which his party believes in. and i have enjoyed the

opportunity to work with him. we obviously, as people have seen from the colloquys from time to time, have not always agreed on what we ought to be doing. mr. cantor, from the state of virginia, served in his house of delegates, in his general assembly for eight years. he served there with distinction and then was elected to the house of representatives in 2000 to succeed a good friend of mine, the former mayor of richmond, tom bliley, who mr. cantor chaired his campaign for at least three cycles. obviously successfully. he served in the house of representatives since 2001, was selected early on as the chief deputy whip and then became the whip and then after one congress serving the whip, his party took the majority, he was elected the majority leader. it has been my experience during that period of time that he has worked hard, attentive

to his members and attentive also to the interests of our country. again, because we do not agree with one another on how to get to a destination, it does not diminish in any way the commitment of either side to the welfare and best interests of their country and the people we serve. so i want to say at the outset hat i have enjoyed working with mr. cantor and at times, not always, but we have worked very productively and in tandem with one another for the interests of our country. i want to say to the members of the house of representatives that i expect mr. cantor to continue to be over the next five months an influential and effective member of the congress of the united states. and want to say to my members, his members, and to, mr. speaker, those who might be listening that i intend to continue to work over the next five months or six months with

mr. cantor on things that he and i can agree on. because i believe he will remain an influential and effective member of the republican conference and a person dedicated to the best interests of this country. i want to also say to his wife, diana, it's tough being a spouse. i lost my spouse 17 years ago, judy. and eric is blessed by having an extraordinarily wonderful wife, not only extraordinary in terms of her partnership with mr. cantor, but also extraordinary in terms of her own talents and intellect and success that she's had in business and in life. they have three wonderful children who follow in their parents' success, evan, a recent graduate of the university of virginia, could he have gone to the university of maryland but he chose virginia. such is life. jenna, who is senior at the university of michigan, and michael, a second-year student

at the university of virginia. i know that their father will be continually successfully, as he has been thus far in life, and will continue to contribute to his country in whatever capacity he might serve. so i congratulate him on his service in this house. i thank him for the opportunities to work with him as a partner from time to time and as a respectful opponent from time to time. always realizing that there are 435 of us elected around this country by our people. they elect us because they have some faith and trust that we will represent their views and the best interests of their communities, our states and our country. and so i thank him for his service and now am pleased to yield to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i

thank the gentleman from maryland. before i talk about today's schedule, i just want to thank the gentleman for his very kind and generous remarks. i too have enjoyed the ability to get to know the gentleman from maryland, steny hoyer, the democratic whip is a tenacious advocate for his cause. i know that these colloquies have at times become heat and long. much to the dismay of some who would like to make their word known on the floor. but i do want to say it's been a privilege. i respect the gentleman from maryland as a friend, as a colleague who has been elected over the years by his constituents to be here to advocate on their behalf and for the good of the country. as the gentleman said, mr. hoyer and i do not always agree. but i think we do share a love of this country. i think there are plenty of things frankly that we have found the ability to work

towards in the fashion that i believe is the best way forward for this institution, which is to look for ways to set aside differences, to find areas that we have in common so that we can produce results for the american people. and again, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer, my friend, has been a very engaged individual on the issues and it's been my and my team's honor to get to work with steny and his team on some of the issues that come before this house that have to be addressed. and i thank him for that. and look forward to continuing relationship -- the relationship here as i intend to stay and certainly as majority leader to the end of july and then for the rest of my term as a member. but again, i want to thank him for the courtesies and look forward to continuing to nurture the relationship.

mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield before he gives the schedule. i want -- he mentioned his staff. i'm not going to mention them by name because i would leave out somebody perhaps. but i will say, mr. speaker, that mr. cantor's staff and my staff have, no matter what the differences might have been, been able to work together in a collegial, effective and productive manner on behalf of this house, i think. and i want to thank the members of mr. cantor's staff for that. they have been always receptive to our discussions, haven't always agreed, as no one would expect. but they have been always cordial and effective and worked closely with my staff and we appreciate that and i appreciate that and now i'll yield to the majority leader for the schedule. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for

morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 4413, the customer protection and end user relief act, sponsored by chairman frank lucas of the committee on agriculture. members are advised that debate on the bill and the eight amendments made in order by the rule will occur monday night after the 6:30 p.m. vote series. however, votes on amendments and passage will occur on tuesday afternoon. for the remainder of the week the house will consider three bills to lower the price of gas and lessen the middle class squeeze caused by higher energy

prices. these three bills are h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act, authored by representative cory gardener. h.r. 3301, north american energy infrastructure act, sponsored by chairman fred upton. and h.r. 4899, the lowering gasoline prices to fuel in america that works act of 2014 authored by chairman doc hastings. and with that i want to thank the gentleman again and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this is the last colloquy i think that i will be having with mr. cantor, which is why i spent time -- because the american public i'm sure thinks we're all at one another's throats all the time. and that's very discouraging for them. very depressing for them. and frankly it is a problem for us here this the house because we don't like that atmosphere. but i want them to know there

is respect on each side i think for the other, in most instances. i hope that's the case. but that i do have respect and appreciation to mr. cantor for his service. but because it's the last colloquy, not for the purposes of necessary debate or discussion, but simply want to articulate some of those things that i know we need to address and i hope we address in the coming weeks before the august break. we clearly need to fund the highway trust fund with a sustainable funding source, we're running out of money. i think every member of the house does not want that to happen, does not want to have governors around this country shutting down the letting of contracts for needed infrastructure improvement. . we need to authorize the export-import bank. we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform which we think will be a positive for our economy and the morally

right thing to do. we're still very concerned, mr. speaker, with unemployment insurance. the minimum wage. the senate has passed an employment nondiscrimination act which we hope will be considered on the floor. the terrorism risk insurance will expire in the not-too-distant future. we think both for our economy and for the private sector's growth we need to pass that. and of course we want to complete the appropriation it's bills before the end of the fiscal year. and lastly, let me say, mr. speaker, we will celebrate next week the 50th anniversary of the signing of the civil rights act of 1964. we will celebrate this summer that which is being called freedom summer, to celebrate that move towards a fiscal year and more justings -- towards a more freer and more just future. we hope we can pass the voting

rights act which will deal with the ensuring that all people in our country not only have the right to vote but have access to voting in casting their vote. again, we don't need to gait those issues, but i did want to set them forth, mr. speaker, because this is our last colloquy before our july fourth break. again, i want to close, unless the gentleman wants to say something, with thanks to mr. cantor for his service and for his working together when we saw that as possible and when we disagreed to disagree as co-workers on behalf of this country and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, june 23, 2014, when it shall convene at

noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania ise? without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the allegeny watershed movement needs, winds, coalition. this is a group of local, state and federal agencies and local leaders of various nonprofit organizations that promotes ecological watersheds around the allegeny forest. there was a rise to the future award for their work in the a.n.f. the rise to the future award was created by the forest service to help enhance

fisheries and watersheds on national forests. the award acknowledges collaborative works in areas such as soil management and eadequatics. they had external funding to the a.n.f. and providing 5,000 volunteer days towards projects. overall, the coalition reached over 10,000 students through more than 50 environmental education and outreach events. mr. speaker, i want to thank allegeny winds for their creative work to help keep our forests vibrant and healthy. this group of local partners is a model for our national forest system and they should be praised for their leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, as u.s. oil production continues to grow, the increased burden of moving these resources is falling upon our nation's railways.

in 2013, american railroads shipped more than 400,000 carloads of cruel compared to just 10,000 six years ago. mr. fitzpatrick: the amount has left communities, like those i represent, in danger of potential accidents. increased domestic energy production remains a critical part of a strategy to decrease energy costs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. we must not, however, wait for another accident to take preventative measures. we need the infrastructure and protections to safely transport these resources across our country. recent steps to ensure the safety of crude oil transportation through our communities are an improvement, but more can be done. building the keystone pipeline will help to safely move resources. our nation is blessed with a vast energy potential. we can safely and responsibly take advantage of these resources, and i look forward to working with all involved on making transportation safer for communities in our district and across our nation. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. davis: 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. davis: i want to congratulate mark a. mathis for his service in the army. command sergeant mathis was born in alton in 1963 and grew up in dorchester in central illinois. he entered the army in september of 1984 and is currently serving as the command sergeant major for the 902nd military intelligence group in fort immediate, maryland. he's had a multitude of assignments throughout his 30-year military career, including his deployment to iraq with the 82nd airborne division. command sergeant major mathist's awards and badges include the bronze star medal, the iraq campaign medal, the

meritorious service medal, the army commendation medals and many others. mr. speaker, command sergeant major mark a. mathis represents the best our country has to offer. his experience in leadership will be greatly missed. command sergeant major mathis, thank you for your service to our country and congratulations on your well-earned retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california sook recognition? -- seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to speak for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to acknowledge the good work of the defense appropriations committee in retaining the u-2 aircraft platform, which is based in northern california's biel air force base, where 1,000 personnel from nevada, plasser, other nearby counties ensure to make sure that our soldiers have the most timely and accurate communications as

possible. as one testified, the u-2 provides intelligence, surveillance and reconsauns, isr, capabilities that do not exist in any other platform. while the global hawk and unmanned platforms bring new capabilities to the fight and to the i.s.r. mission, the global hawk serves as a complement to the u-2, noes as a rival. while i understand the fiscal restraints the air force is under, i'm glad that the appropriations bill presents a plan to the committee before taking any action to retire the u-2 fleet. the capabilities gap that would occur in our i.s.r. mission should the u-2 be graveyarded would be immediate and be felt for years to come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lalma far: thank you and we need -- mr. lamalfa: thank you and we need to retain this for our security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and

extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. last night a tragedy struck a small town in central texas. little river academy is a very small town outside of the largest town of temple in bell county, texas. the chief of police, lee dixon, was killed in the line of duty while responding to a routine disturnans. there's an investigation on-- disturbance. there's an investigation ongoing and i'm confident as a former judge and knowing the judiciary of that county and the makeup of the juries that justice will be served in this case. but i ask this house to keep the family of chief lee dixon in their thoughts and prayers as they go through this time in a very small but very important town in bell county, texas.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. tipton of colorado for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that. you know, it's a big burden and responsibility being the designee of the majority leader. right, because there are issues on which this congress can lead. i'm not talking about issues about which this congress can fight. i'm talking about issues which this congress can lead, things that we can do together in order to make a difference in

the lives of folks back home and for me one of those is energy security. i travel from one corner of the state of georgia to another. i go through liberal districts, conservative districts and i ask, who is it that wants to keep sending money to people who hate us and want to kill us? and there aren't many hands that go up in the room. i ask, who wants to see economic prosperity traded away because energy prices are crushing job creation? absolutely no hands go up. and i'm perfectly willing as soon as we get to energy security, mr. speaker, as soon as we get to a place where we are energy secure in this country, i'm willing to talk about the mix of that energy is all folks want. i try to do my part. i drive an electric car. i've been persuaded in those ways and those federal tax credits don't hurt either, but we need job creation. we are energy rich in this country, and we need to be able to use that energy in order to make a difference in people's lives and that brings us, mr. speaker, to the keystone

pipeline. the keystone x.l. pipeline. it's so interesting. i'm sure it's the same in your district, mr. speaker, as it is in mine. i can't go anywhere in my district where folks don't know about the keystone x.l. pipeline. there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of pipelines running between america and canada. not one, not two, not three, not four. dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens but i promise you if we take a poll out on the steps of the u.s. capitol this morning, americans could not name a single pipeline that runs north and south except for keystone x.l. why? because we've been arguing about it for years. not days, not weeks, not months but years. you can't see my slides, mr. speaker, but this one is -- it's sunshine and rainbows. it's a lot like what our life here is on capitol hill every

day. it's butterflies and clover. it's absolutely beautiful. it says, should america prevent canada's oil resources from being used? because the way the keystone x.l. pipeline conversation happens, it's framed as if we don't build the pipeline, that means those resources don't get used. but that's just nonsense. there is a story of sunshine and rainbows. that is a fairy tale of butterflies and clover, because if we don't do it and bring those resources to america, those resources and going to go elsewhere. now, i know what you're thinking, mr. speaker. you're thinking, for pete's sakes, woodall, you've been in this house for three years. you're not an energy expert. how do you know? i don't have to make this stuff up, mr. speaker. take your pick. who is the media outlet you believe? is it bloomberg, because

bloomberg says keystone -- obama's keystone denial prompts canada to look to china for sales. it's not a choice of should canada develop those resources or not, it's a choice of when canada develops those resources, should it be used to benefit america and the american economy or should it be shipped overseas? don't trust bloomberg, mr. speaker, that's ok. we got the week here. did obama push canada into china's arms by rejecting the keystone pipeline? well, maybe you think these are all american sources and so they're all biased, mr. speaker. that's ok, mr. speaker. i have the bbc. bbc says oil spurs canada's p.m. stephen harper to visit china. "national journal," ambassador, rejection of keystone would definitely strain u.s.-canadian relations. canada's harper looks for asian countries to sell natural resources bounty.

the question that we have about the keystone pipeline, mr. speaker, is not, should canada's resources be developed, the question is, when canada's resources are developed, who should benefit. should we benefit here in america or will those benefits flow overseas? well, let's find out what the american media has to say about that, mr. speaker. . i'm just starting with the american media because you know as i do that's not the end all, be all. "washington post," no bastion of conservatism. it's not a shell for the republican party. it's not out to promote some sort of conservative agenda. "washington post" says, keystone's x.l. continued delay is absurd. i'm not cherry picking here. this was april of this year, mr. speaker. they have been saying it for years. they are still saying it now. keystone x.l.'s continued delay is absurd. what about president obama's

hometown newspaper, mr. speaker? the "chicago tribune" is not silent on this. chicago tribute also april this year, why april this year? because that's the most recent opportunity the president had to act and make a difference in the lives of americans and he continued denial and delay. "chicago tribune" says this. the delay is bad for americans ho would like to have a job. bad for americans who would like to have a job. how many times, mr. speaker, have we come to this chamber, packed every seat in this chamber, to talk about the importance of the economy and job creation? it's not -- it's not once, it's not twice, it's daily, mr. speaker, that folks on both sides of the aisle say it's jobs, jobs, jobs. the president's hometown paper says, his continued delay, bad for americans who would like to have jobs. when i think about folks who really could use some of those jobs, i think about detroit, mr.

speaker. detroit's had a hard time. the people of detroit are incredibly resilient. they are not quitters, they are not going to give up. they have had a tough time. "the detroit news" says this. once again politics trump keystone pipeline x.l. with environmental risks put aside, political motives delay shovel ready project that could create thousands of jobs. not my words, the words of the detroit news, politics trump. with environmental risks put side, solved, mitigated, dismissed, political motives delay shovel ready project that ould create thousands of jobs. denial, it'sdelay, moat -- its motivation may be

political, but it's impact is more personal. let me go, mr. speaker, to what the president's own team has to say. my own team, our folks across the aisle in the united states senate. it's not just folks on the other side of the capitol, but folks on the other side of the political party because energy security is not a party zahn issue. it shouldn't be. energy security and job creation not a partisan issue. bringing can made -- cab in a da's -- canada's natural resources to the place with the toughest environmental controls on the planet, not a political issue. just good common sense. i go to my senate colleagues and democratic senate colleagues now, mr. speaker. enator from north dakota, it's absolutely ridiculous that this well over five-year-long process is continuing for an undetermined amount of time.

again, i didn't have to dig back into the history books for these quotes, mr. speaker. this comes from april of this year, the last time the president had an opportunity to move america forward with energy security, move america forward with job creation. provide certainty to our friends to the north, canada, as they try to utilize their natural resources. democratic senator from north dakota says, absolutely ridiculous. senator landrieu, senator from louisiana, also a democrat, this decision is irresponsible, unnecessary, and unacceptable. mr. speaker, i don't mean to trot out all the senators and all the democrats, except i happen to be a house member and i happen to be a republican. so i could understand if someone were to point the finger of blame and say, the only reason you share these positions, congressman woodall, is because you're a conservative republican and this is not good for america. this is just conservative republican mantra. we all know that's nonsense.

it's not conservative. it's not liberal. it's not democrat. it's not republican. it's american. it is economic. it is about security. i'll go one more, mr. speaker. senator mark beg etch from alaska. -- begism from alaska. i'm frankly appalled at the beginned foot-dragging by this administration on the keystone project. north dakota, which would be a competitor. north dakota, lots of economic resources there. lots of choices they can make. absolutely ridiculous. democrat, louisiana, unnecessary and unacceptable. democrat of alaska, appalled by the continued foot-dragging. why can't we move forward? it becomes an issue of the american people, mr. speaker. i don't know what the agenda is at the white house that has caused the five-year delay that the north dakota senator calls

ridiculous. i don't know what that is at the white house that has caused the delay that folks call appalling and unacceptable, but we have an opportunity to come together and do this. we focus so often in this town on issues that divide us. this is an issue that unites us. and it unites us not just across party lines, not just across chambers back and forth, but divide of, well, politics. i've got labor unions here on the board mr. speaker, because sometimes folks say i hear back home from time to time, rob, it's probably some of those interest groups. it's the special interest groups that are preventing the president doing what he wants to dofment the special interest groups have so much power in washington, d.c. they are always changing things. terry o'sullivan, union president, says this is once again politics at its worst. condemning the decision not to move forward on the keystone

x.l. pipeline. again not from five years ago. not three years ago. just this year, mr. speaker, folks continue to be frustrated. union president, personally, it is unbelievable to me why this project is allowed to linger while our nation's economy truggles to get back on track. mr. speaker, there is no choice that says prohibit canada from developing their resources. there is no choice that prevents canada from developing their resources. the question is, once developed, who benefits? if you don't believe that, mr. speaker, i encourage you to look at the energy information administration's website, eia, ei. >.-- eia.gov. they track all the energy use in

this country, production and costs, what you see is the war on coal has continued at the white house is that coal consumption in america is on a steady downward slope. you declare war on coal, you use your phone and pen to prohibit folks from using coal, making it economically unsustainable to use coal, you can absolutely collapse coal consumption in america. we have the saudi arabia of coal. we have more coal than any other nation on the planet. the white house absolutely can commit itself to unilaterally disarming america when it comes to energy security declaring war on coal. but if you go to the eia website, the obama administration website, energy information agency, what you will see is while those regulations have absolutely collapsed u.s. consumption of coal, u.s. exports of coal are going right through the roof.

mr. speaker, you don't have to look far to find out that india and china are building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of four per week. four per week. i want you to find the absolute greenest person in your district, mr. speaker. i want you to find that person who bleeds green. biggest environmentalist you can find, mr. speaker, and i want you to ask them, when it comes to burning coal, when it comes to burning oil, when it comes to using america's fossil fuels, the world's fossil fuels, who's going to burn it cleaner? merica, china, or india? because if the discussion we are having, mr. speaker, is how do we protect the planet that we all share, how do we nurture the environment for which we are all concerned, the answer is to make

sure those resources are utilized here. if you want to export something, export clean burning natural gas. it will be tough for folks to screw that up around the globe. but the environment is a global environment. and if you care about doing things in the safest possible way, shipping them to china or india for consumption is not the right answer. billions of dollars, not millions, billions of dollars invested in pollution controls on power plants across this country, mr. speaker. we will burn it cleaner and better than anyone else on the planet. and yet the regulatory environment is driving that consumption overseas. it is bad for the environment, not good for the environment. keystone x.l. pipeline, mr. speaker. politics at its worse say the labor unions. unbelievable say the labor unions.

absolutely ridiculous says democratic senators. unacceptable says democratic senators. appalled says democratic senators. and the list goes on and on. mr. speaker, don't know what you find in your district, my district wants us to stop figuring out who to blame for it and start figuring out how to fix it. my district wants us to focus on those things that we can do together, they are going to make a difference in people's lives back home. my constituents believe it really is jobs, jobs, jobs. not as a political tag line but as a mission statement for how to make america's economy great once again. the keystone x.l. pipeline is supported by the left and by the right. by the house and by the senate. by the media, by the interest groups.

the only place it cannot find support is in the west wing of the united states white house. mr. speaker, i believe that the president will listen to the american people. i believe that the president does want to make this country strong, and i believe if constituents in each one of our districts across this country apply their collective pressure to the white house, that it will respond. i have to believe that because that's the only way america works. it's the only way america works. if commentator after commentator after commentator says the keystone x.l. delay is politics at its worst. commentator after commentator after commentator says delay is costing american families much needed jobs. we can do better for the american people, mr. speaker. we must do better for the american people.

working together i think we can convince the white house of that message. but that process begins right here. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it much the motion

is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate. monday.se is that new we'll have live coverage when the house returns. the house ethics committee has young file found don aided house rules by using campaign funds for personal purposes. we will bring you updates.

this weekend, american history tv is live from the gettysburg college civil war institute. you will hear peter carmichael on robert e lee, followed by brooks simpson on ulysses grant. then on the burning of chambersburg. c-span3, on american history tv. >> you can keep in touch with current events using any phone any time. here congressional coverage -- hear congressional coverage. thecan also hear audio of sunday public affairs programs on sunday at noon. call --

long-distance or phone charges may apply. >> at a hearing thursday on iran's human rights record, a a'iber of the bah community spoke about the persecution of members of their community. >> the joint subcommittee will come to order.

after recognizing myself, chairman smith, the ranking members for five minutes each, i will recognize other members seeking recognition for one minute. we will then hear from witnesses and the witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the record. we are going to let you know we're going to show this to you later. you can also find it that www.c-span.org, but we want to take you to the white house, where josh earnest is giving his first briefing as press secretary.

to see him go, but wish him all the best as he pursues the next chapter in his career, and i ostensibly will be more time with his family. i will let you do the first question today. >> thanks, josh. gun, and want the to welcome you behind the podium. an official welcome. >> thank you. >> per shingle has declared a unilateral cease-fire for the next week, but the russian troops along the border we have seen a whole bag looks like they are heading back to the border. is the u.s. concerned about the buildup of forces along the border? the short answer is yes, we are.

the united states has been very clear in her support for president poroshenko's efforts to bring peace to ukraine. he has been clear since he has taken office that he is committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis, and has offered amnesty and providing safe passage to russia to those militants operating in ukraine. he is committed to operating a dialogue and undertake constitutional reform to address legitimate concerns of the ukrainian people. we have been clear that there putinme asks of president as well. we have called on putin to promote stability to the security situation in ukraine, but we have all also asked them to halt the provision of arms across the border from russia to ukraine. them to stopanting

supporting the militants who are fomenting so much violence and instability in that country. there is mounting evidence that shows a buildup of russian military forces near the border of ukraine, contrary to the statements by kremlin officials. we do not see any evidence the russian military units arriving are connected to any type of border security mission, and further reports from moscow that the defense ministry is considering creating military rdons is troubling. we will not accept military force under any pretext, as ukraine is a sovereign entry, and interference by outside countries is a violation of their sovereignty and territorial integrity. there is one other point i want to raise here that is also important and of concern. aslammatory statements such

those by foreign minister lavrov earlier this week in which he described as make lindsay taking place in ukraine are simply -- described as ethnic cleansing taking place are simply false. responsibility for the deterioration in the human rights situation in ukraine, multiple reports by human rights monitors over the past several months have indicated separatists groups are perpetrating increasing numbers of violent abuses in eastern ukraine. the same is happening in crimea under russian occupation. what the president told -- said in europe and communicated directly to putin was there is an opportunity for russia to play a constructive role in this process. there is no reason for the people of ukraine to relations

with russia and good relations with the west. there is an opportunity for them to have both. they are only going to have those solid relations if russia respect the sovereignty of ukraine and works in a cooperative fashion to bring stability to the security situation there. >> [indiscernible] >> that is correct. shiite ist, the top now calling for a new government. maliki's religious group, does that leave the u.s. to think that it is time for new government there to take over? thehe views of administration have not changed, that the leadership should be determined by the iraqi people. the policy of this administration. it is something that president reiterated yesterday.

it is also the belief of the obama administration and of the president personally that a government, ani iraqi central government that has control over the country and can bring stability, will be a government that governs in an inclusive fashion. pursuing an inclusive political theda is critical to success of that country, and it is critical to demonstrating to all the people of iraq that they have an interest in that country 's prosperity and that country's future. we are going to continue to support the iraqi people and government as they consider or aing a diplomatic political agenda along these lines. a program announced toidday to deal with child

immigration programs. where is the money going to come from? >> let me back up to make sure everybody is up to date in terms of what we are talking about. announced earlier by the department of homeland security was a commitment of an additional judges, officers, and immigration attorneys to deal with what we are seeing in terms of the increasing flow of adults who are showing up at the border between the united states and mexico. in addition, we have committed resources to opening up facilities in this country to deal with the growing problem of adults who appear on the border with children, that is, adults from other countries who are seeking to illegally enter this country and have children with them. then once those facilities are up and running, we will then deploy a similar surge of judges, officers, and attorneys to more quickly and efficiently deal with those immigration

cases. in many cases these are asylum requests, and that is why we will have officers and judges there to process them quickly and efficiently. this, i of paying for do not have any details to offer specifically here. i will point out that in recent weeks we have seen comments from democrats and republicans in congress expressing concern this situation, about this influx we are seeing along the southern border, mostly in the rio grande valley. be our hope and expectation that those members of congress who are expressing concern about the situation will the collaboratively with administration to make sure we have resources necessary to do with this. there's no information about how many officers, judges, and

how it is going to be paid for? payingbut in terms of for it we would want to work with congress to make sure that the necessary resources are available to deal with the problem that exists. about the irs, i was wondering whether the white house would consider appointing an independent prosecutor, and if not, why not? many republicans in congress, particularly in the house, have demonstrated a pretty aggressive appetite for investigating this issue. you have seen extensive cooperation by the internal revenue service and members of the obama administration with that investigation. there have been 750,000 pages of documents provided, 64,000 different e-mails from one

specific irs employee. our willingness to cooperate with this investigation is evident from the numbers. is thing that is also true that there have been a large number of claims and conspiracy theories floated about this process by republicans that have frankly, and we have demonstrated our willingness to collaborate with legitimate oversight. we will continue to cooperate, and that is why there has been the testimony that you have seen today because they're officials going there and answering all these questions. >> so there will not be an independent person coming in and

looking at it. auldn't it help to have different person look at it? >> no, because a politically but --dence investigation politically motivated investigation has not come up with evidence. employees,with irs 750 thousand pages of documents, there is zero evidence to claims.republican these are investigations that have a transparent political motive. i am not sure there is a lot more to be discovered here. there has been an independent investigat

we have cooperated extensively with a large number of congressional hearings, many of -- didere independently not find evidence that supports republican claims. frankly, we prefer that republicans would devote this kind of attention and energy on policies that would create jobs, as opposed to partisan fishing expeditions. let's go around the room a little bit. couldas wondering if i get your reaction to the republican leadership elections yesterday, specifically your opinion -- [inaudible] how you think you're going to work with him. >> i would first begin by congratulating mr. mccarthy and for beingse -- solis

in then by their peers republican congress. as the elected leaders of one party and one house of congress, the administration will seek to find common ground. there areo doubt -- different policy views. there are plenty of differences. what we hope we can focus on are the common -- are that there is common ground. we will see if they are willing to do that. if there is a willingness by those members of republican leadership to try to find common ground with the administration on a range of policies that would better support middle-class families all across the country. they will find willing partners on pennsylvania avenue. it was said -- suggested that mccarthy oh -- mccarthy's

election opened a window of opportunity. i wonder if you guys have reached out to him in any way or had discussions about immigration reform. --ond, conventional wisdom [inaudible] >> i do not have specific phone calls or meetings with mr. mccarthy to react to. i have expressed what i think about the political analysis that has reached a conclusion that a candidate for office who was strongly opposed to immigration reform was somehow the key to the passage of immigration reform. . just moved to virginia not the seventh congressional district. but i saw the mailers cantor's campaign to strip he did, and it

was clear that he was opposed to immigration reform. he was promising to do everything he could to block it. that is unfortunate, and i think it is an open question whether or not the prospects for immigration reform's passage are enhanced by mr. mccarthy ascension to hire position of republican leadership. i know that there are many in mr. mccarthy district in california that strongly support immigration reform. that is not actually unique. there are a lot of people across struggling who are favor of comprehensive immigration reform. there are plenty of good economic reasons to support immigration reform. it has been found that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit reduction over the

next couple of decades that would be enjoyed by this country of immigration reform were to pass. again, this will have to be a decision that mr. mccarthy makes as he gets settled into an office in the capital. >> i know the vice president is in central america today. the white house and the dream act, comprehensive immigration reform, are not the reasons why people are crossing the border. in fact, that may be true. we are hearing their coming here not because of that, but because they realize that once they get here -- [inaudible] the bureaucratic system in this country allows them to stay. we cannot get answers from this administration about the numbers. we have asked repeatedly -- how many people who were given these promises to appear notices, mothers who give thomases to

appear -- to give promises to appear notices, and they are allowed to stay with relatives. how many of them are going to court versus how many are disappearing into the fabric of the country? a related question is, how many arehe unaccompanied minors released to foster homes or relatives in the country and are allowed in the states? isn't that the real reason they are coming across? why won't the administration answer those questions? >> i want to make something really clear from a first of all. so much of what we are seeing on the southern border is the result of a deliberate, misinformation campaign that is propagated by criminal syndicates in central america. that misinformation is causing some people who are in a rather desperate situation to risk ther lives to come to united states border expecting that they will be able to stay

in this country. that is simply not true. it is important for people all across this country and for people in mexico and central america to understand what the facts are. the reason is simple. what we are seeing there is a very serious humanitarian situation, one that is the source of significant concern to the president. so his administration is trying to deploy a lot of resources to deal with that. now, that has manifested itself in a number of different ways. the president had a phone call with president pena nieto in mexico yesterday in which they discussed the situation. the vice president is traveling in central america, meeting with leaders in el salvador and guatemala them as well as government representatives from honduras and mexico. the state department and dhs officials have been engaged with their colleagues and their counterparts. i think countries throughout the hemisphere are talking about

this issue. what we are trying to do is to address this problem in two ways. the first is to address the needs of those who have been apprehended on the border. i was mentioning to roberta that dhs announced they were going to open up additional detention facilities that can accommodate adults who show up on the border with their children. we are going to deploy some resources to work through their immigration cases more quickly so they are not held in that facility for a long time and can hopefully be quickly returned to their home country. what we are also doing is working in a collaborative fashion with countries in central america to try to address the problem at its root. some of that is an informational thisign and countering intentional misinformation campaign that is being propagated by criminal syndicates. but also working through a range of usaid or grams and the governments in these countries

to try to meet some of the citizen security needs that are so acute in those countries right now. a misinformation campaign? >> it is. >> here is why i am asking -- what is happening now is border patrol is taking those mothers and kids, putting them on a bus, and taking them to a bus station in mcallen, texas bank, and they are buying tickets to go stay with relatives in this country. all they have to do is promise that they will appear in court, and the administration will not -- how many of them are really going to court, and how many are disappearing into the fabric of american society? this countrycy in is allowing them to stay, that is what they are telling people. >> a couple things. hard for me to make a

blanket statement about our immigration policy. this administration has a commitment to enforcing the law. the law is very clear about this. those individuals who want to show up on the border, whether they have their children with them or not and are not eligible for the deferred action the administration announced a year or two ago. and what we are doing is we are mobilizing additional resources to try to deal with this problem more effectively and in a more humanitarian fashion. and in this case -- >> [inaudible] appear, areing to they appearing or not? are the unaccompanied minors who are then given to foster homes are allowed to stay with the families in this country while waiting for a court appearance, how many of those are actually showing up? why won't the administration tell us those numbers? >> i do not have those numbers here. what i do have is a clear commitment from this administration to do with what is an emergent -- emerging humanitarian situation.

it is important for your viewers to understand and for the consumers of information in central america to understand that showing up at the border illegally is not a ticket into this country. one of the reasons that the president is a strong and powerful advocate of the kind of commonsense immigration reform that we are discussing, in response to an earlier question, is that it would streamline our for al immigration variety of reasons, some economic in some humanitarian. there should be stronger support for streamlining this process. democrats and republicans have both a knowledge that this legal is not whererocess it could be. better resources devoted to that system can mitigate some of this problem, but it does not change the fact that it is not a good the trekpeople to make through mexico and to appear at

the southern border in the rio grande valley of united states and think that once they are attained by customs were were were -- or were -- or border patrol personnel, that they will be allowed into the country. they will not. russia, earlier this morning on the conference call with senior administration officials, they describ potential sanctions that could be imposed on russia next. they might not be sick girl, but rather, something more along the lines of a scalpel -- they might not be sicectoral. does that mean the at ministration is now backing away from that threat of sectoral sanctions? toral, sick tour of -- sec sanctions remain on the table. the administration is working with our partners and allies in europe to present a united front

playshe more that russia a destabilizing role in ukraine, the more isolated they will become in the international community. theave already seen that sanctions have been put in place in a cooperative fashion with our allies in europe, and those have had an impact on the russian economy. it has had an impact in terms of isolating them in the international financial markets. >> is it determining the behaviors though? theirit deterring behavior though? is that fair to say? >> no, i do not think that is fair to say. we are seeing a lot from russia about what their intentions are. i think that is evidenced by the fact that we have seen some troop movements on the border, some away from the border and some towards the border, and there are situations where russia has made the decision to withdraw their troops.

we welcome the evidence of that. but we are concerned about this indicatesdence that additional troops are being deployed to the border under the auspices of the border security policy or exercise. what the president will continue to do is to work with our partners in europe to maximize the impact of any sanctions that are implemented. what we are going to do is give russia the opportunity to pursue a policy de-escalation, to play a constructive role in bringing some stability to the situation in ukraine. >> on iraq, yesterday, senator chris murphy said that if more than 300 assets on the ground thedeployed to iraq, that administration would need to go through congress for authorization. is the president ok with that? >> what this president has said, and there is pretty widespread agreement about this, maybe even ostensibly from mr. murphy, is that the actions the president

has taken so far does not require additional congressional authorization. you have seen the administration continue to consult the congress. the president hopes to have a meeting with the four leaders of congress and the oval office. over the weekend, as administration officials were assessing the situation in iraq, there were a number of phone calls from senior members of the national security team to leaders in congress. both those in the congressional leadership and those leaders on the committees. that congressional consultation will continue, and we certainly welcome the interest and support of american policy in iraq. >> in the senate majority leader said he does not want to see any u.s. forces raided three -- returning to iraq, and must have dawned on all of you hear that there is a real reluctance inside the democratic party when it comes to getting reengaged in iraq. i mean, that sort of goes

without saying. how do you deal with that? >> i think that anytime you're talking about the risks to our security that are posed by iraq, the memory of the iraq war is fresh in the mind of everybody in this country. that this country made great in pursuit of trying to create an opportunity for the iraqi people to enjoy democracy and determine the future of their own country. but the fact is that there are some very brave americans who served in our military and sacrificed even more than others. that is fresh in the mind of every policymaker in the same way that it is fresh in the mind of every american. that said, it is clear what our priorities are. indulge me for a minute and i will repeat them. the first is that our top priority is to take the u.s. personnel -- protect the u.s.

personnel that is currently in iraq. that is why he's a movement over the weekend to employee additional security resources to safeguard the embassy. there has been intelligence resources in the region, and there is now around the clock visibility in iraq with particular attention to those is operating.il there has also been an increased support for iraqi security forces. there has been an enduring military-to-military relationship between the u.s. and iraq, and we're going to ramp up that support through training through the provision of equipment. and in the context of advisors, the president talked about that yesterday. has military assets, and there have been announcements from the department of defense about whether assets are located. finally, there has been a stepped-up diplomatic engagement. you all have been on the receiving end of a number of readouts from phone calls

between the president and maliki . secretary carol lloyd -- secretary kerry will be traveling to the region to meet with his counterparts, all of whom have vested interests in this stabilization. >> yesterday, one of the senior administration officials on the rule oute call did not airstrikes on isis targets or isil targets in syria, and that was on a conference call. is that a possibility? >> let me tell you about the president's resolve. the president is resolved to take the action necessary to protect the united states of america, the homeland, certainly our american men and women in uniform, and our allies around the globe. he has demonstrated a willingness to go into other countries where necessary to protect our national and homeland security. you guys often report about actions that are taken in yemen

to neutralize those groups or individuals that are seeking to do harm to the united states. needed?thorization >> there are similar actions that were taken in somalia under similar circumstances. last week, use of military and law enforcement action in libya to ensure that one of the perpetrators of the attack on is benghazi diplomatic post brought to justice. so there is a willingness by this president that has been act, whered to necessary, to safeguard the national security interests of the united states. that applies in this situation, too. >> thank you, and congratulations. is the president in touch with his allies? great britain, france, germany, on a coordinated response to us anynd can you give

information on any conversations? >> i am not in the position to read out any phone calls at this point. there is strong concern ,bout what is happening in iraq both that we have seen exhibited by countries in the region, those countries that neighbor syria and iraq are concerned about the rapid progress that isil was able to make their. there is also concern that has been expressed by countries who worked closely with the united states over the years in iraq to try to stabilize the security situation and give the iraqi people the opportunity to determine their own future. there are a lot of people who are concerned about this. my colleagues at the state department, department of defense, and other places have been in touch with their counterparts as we pursue a coordinated approach to dealing with the challenges that are posed right extremists like isil

, who are operating to freely in iraq. the president signed a memorandum on the first ever federal pollinator initiative. [inaudible] can you talk about with that initiative is and how it is that a part ofent became that? [laughs]you know -- when i walked out here today, i knew i would be handling a range of different issues, but i did not know i would be talking about the birds and the bees. >> oh. good, right?etty i have been thinking about this when all morning. drones, huh? you think it would get a better crowd on my first day. no. i have got to get my story

straight. ok, let's get back to it. attempt atlame humor, this actually is a serious issue. that are covered by this presidential memorandum actually have an impact of about $24 billion a year on the u.s. economy. they are vital to keeping fruits, nuts, and vegetables in our diet. over the past few decades, we have seen a significant decline in pollinators from our budget ash i am sorry, from our environment. so what the president will arelude in his 2015 budget some commonsense steps and strategies that we can take to try to respond to this challenge. everything from directing federal government research in land management that would better facilitate a habitat for pollinators, and we can also work with states and tribal leaders and even private landowners in some circumstances

to try to make sure that we are forecting the environment pollinator habitats. again, there is a clear economic incentive for us to continue to do so. we're going to continue to work in a collaborative fashion with industry, with states, local leaders, private landowners to address this one. thank you for the question, i appreciate it. >> i want to clarify something. the white house is opposed to a special prosecutor, right? ofyes, for the wide range reasons i recited earlier. >> on the investigation of the e-mails, what did the white house counsel look at in e-mails between the white house and the chief of staff or other aides? are you asking about e-mails that would have been exchanged from -- that chief of staff or

other aides. >> i guess i was not aware that that was a specific request. did they ask for that? >> i do not know. i am asking you. [laughter] >> it turns out that there have been 13 months of multiple congressional investigations, including 14 congressional hearings, interviews with iris the ploys, 700 50,000 pages of documents. all of that has done nothing to substantiate false republican lames of a broader political and piercy. i do not know if you are floating another conspiracy or if this is a request from a republican floating a conspiracy or what exactly the question is, but we have cooperated extensively. despite that cooperation, we have seen continued allegations of republican conspiracy theories that just never pan out. >> on that point, we understand

-- i think what he is trying to get that is what i asked a couple days ago. we understand you turned over tens of thousands of e-mails, but when two years of e-mails during this amount of time that was investigated when tea party groups are allegedly targeted, and we do not know all the facts, how can you say there has been extensive cooperation when two years of e-mails are just missing? you do not seem to be taking that point seriously. >> i guess what i would say is i think it is fair that you recognize the software moves on and arc id -- archiving is not as easy as it might look great those are not just my comments, but those are the comments of congressman darrell issa in february 2008. his suggestion that somehow there is a political conspiracy going on here is not consistent with that. >> if the e-mails are there, you can show that there is no

conspiracy. i understand you want to keep saying things about republicans. there was a computer crash, and what we have seen is a demonstrated effort by this administration, by the irs, to cooperate with legitimate questions posed by the committee. so we turned over 64,000 different e-mails. we have also gone back and tried irs, hasmeaning the gone back and looked for e-mails that may have been sent or received by colleagues at the build iney can try to a structure to give people a sense about what those e-mails were and what they indicated. that constitutes 24,000 e-mails, additional e-mails. 67,000 e-mails have been provided to congress. 24,000 come from this time during which the herd drive

trashed and the e-mails were lost. there has been an effort to reconstruct that path. i think that is a clear demonstration of the administration's willingness to cooperate and give oversight which is just as important for people to understand. despite all of the data provided to congress, there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the republican conspiracy theories. , you said thaton this is not a ticket into this country. but it is a ticket into this country for some illegal immigrants. will you take the statistics in front of you and then take the question by the end of the day and give us numbers about how many people promise to go to court and actually go to court? >> i cannot commit to giving them to you, but i will take a look. >> how do you explain republicans who are saying what

we're seeing play out in iraq could happen in afghanistan when our troops leave? i understand we're leaving at least a small residual force behind, unlike iraq. but we can see the same situation where the taliban or .ther terrorists moved in >> we are certainly concerned about making sure that we leave self-governing and self-securing afghanistan when our troops come home. that is an important part of this mission, to turn over a stable afghanistan to the afghan people so they can pursue the kind of future that is best for their country. i guess what i would say to republicans who are worried about this is -- what is the alternative? is the alternative a commitment of american service personnel and definitely in countries like afghanistan and iraq? they are welcome to make that case.

the president does not believe that that is in the national security interests of the united states of america. >> the president had a phone call with president opinion you nieto. with president can you give us details? >> i do not have details of the conversation, but i can take a look at that. >> regarding the unaccompanied minors, two questions. house speaker john boehner is calling for the national guard to be sent to the border to help the situation. as the white house have any reaction to that? >> i have heard about the letter. i have not read it myself. what i can tell you is that that there areew already significant enforcement resources that have been deployed to the border. there has been a commitment by this administration to ensure

that there are boots on the ground along our border. the fact is the commonsense immigration reform proposal that passed through the senate a year ago actually includes a significant at a show investment in resources to securing our border. the fact is, last year, 360,000 individuals were attempting to cross the border and were detained and removed from this country by existing resources. what that indicates is that there is already a robust effort on the border to secure this country and to enforce our immigration laws. it is also an indication that the president is going to enforce that law strictly, but those who are interested in additional resources being deployed to the border should support the commonsense bipartisan immigration reform proposal that passed in the senate and right now is being bought by house republicans blocked by house republicans. >>

>> the president is not going to send in the national guard? >> there is no plan to do that. there has been a demonstrated record of enforcing our immigration laws at the border. the enforcement of those laws will continue. if there are those who believe there should be additional resources placed to secure our border, i would strongly encourage them to consider supporting the bipartisan immigration reform proposal that passed in the senate last year. >> could you give more detail about the hope of the tens of millions of dollars being sent to central american countries to presumably help relieve situations there causing people to want to come here? >> these are programs, some funded through usaid. others are part of security programs we have or the continuation of security programs we have of these countries. i would refer you to my

colleagues at the department of state to provide more details on those programs. the gentleman in the back? abouts is a question president obama and the president of mexico. did he make requests like controlling the border better to prevent the crossing of minors? specialere is to be permissions to analyze the situation with members of the u.s. cabinet like homeland security? i don't have additional details about that phone call to tell you about. but i will say the united states and obama administration believe there is an opportunity for us to work cooperatively to address the problem. that means cooperating with the government of mexico and the government of water mollett and other nations in the region. problemn address this

before individuals show up on the border, that would be good. and clearly in the best interests of those who are risking their lives to come to this country. >> maybe you're asking the governors to start campaigns to inform the people about the lies of the smugglers and make them aware? >> we are very interested in making sure we use every available resource to correct therecord and counter coordinated misinformation campaign being spread by criminal syndicates throughout central america. there is no doubt about that. there is a range of things done about that. we are working with the governments of those countries to make sure that message gets out. in terms of what you referenced in the first question about the efforts of the president's cabinet to address the problem, a couple of weeks ago, the president directed the federal emergency management agency to take a hands-on role in coordinating the government

response to the influx of immigrants we are seeing at the border. . they have played a leading role in working with dhs to open additional facilities and make sure we are following the law in terms of detaining individuals, but also making sure we are doing it in a humanitarian fashion. it is our hope the announcement today of additional resources to andess the asylum requests cases through the immigration courts more efficiently will also ensure those individuals who are here are treated more humanely. on moreere any emphasis security on the border of mexico? >> i would refer you to the mexican government to provide updates on that. >> there has been some implications it is possible the drug cartels are doing this as a moneymaking operation. do you have evidence of this?

you are identifying it as a criminal syndicate perpetuating this myth is information -- this misinformation. what more do you guys know? think there is a concern there are criminal elements like narco gangs and human traffickers involved in this who are taking advantage of vulnerable populations to try to make money. we remain concerned about this. for more details, i would refer you to dhs was working the criminal element of this more aggressively. >> would the fbi be involved? who would be involved to get at these criminal elements? >> there is a role for dhs to play. the president talked quite a bit about human trafficking and the threat this poses to our national security and the humanitarian problem it presents. we will have to work closely with the mexican government to address this problem. i think that was mentioned in the readout. >> on the border control issue speaker boehner brought up, be

convinced -- are you convinced border patrol is not overburdened by this? >> what is being overburdened is the immigration courts. that is where we are seeing the backlog. >> the border control can still do the regular job in addition to this? >> i would say our most acute concern right now is the immigration courts and the backlog building up because of the surge we have seen along the border. that is why we are surging resources to address that. >> as the democratic chairman of the foreign relations committee said, he is concerned about you trying to find more detention camps for children, that there is a more humanitarian way to do this that guarantees these children make their court dates. are you guys looking into alternatives other than putting them into camps or detention camps? >> there are a couple of things where looking at.

what we announced today is detention facilities that could accommodate adults who traveled here with their children. alternatives to detention programs like ankle bracelets being deployed to address this problem. >> for children? will you be putting ankle bracelets on the kids or adults? >> in terms of way the policies are implemented, i would refer you to dhs for that. we are looking for a variety of thatto handle what we see root is a humanitarian problem, but in a way that makes clear this administration's commitment to enforcing the law. that is why it is so important for people to understand what that law is. when they show up here, that law will be enforced. the law says the united states has to keep them for some time, does it not? >> each situation is different

and handled on a case-by-case basis. that is why we want to make sure we have immigration judges and others who can make sure these cases are processed efficiently. those cases call for the removal of individuals back to their home country, that is something that can be executed efficiently and effectively. what we think needs to be changed and reformed is the legal immigration system. we are concerned there are a lot of people who want to follow the law and come to this country but can't because the law is so -- >> that is immigration law. this has to do with -- this is not about mexican immigration. this is a separate law. inefficiency of our legal immigration system is not irrelevant here. if we did have a better functioning legal immigration as is contemplated by the current immigration reform proposal, that would contribute

to solving this problem. it probably would not solve it entirely. but there is more that can be done. one important step that would mitigate this problem a little bit would be passing comprehensive immigration reform. let's move around. alexis? .> i am still confused you said the administration is concerned criminal syndicates are responsible for this surge. a few minutes before that, your quote was deliberate misinformation campaign by criminal syndicates in central america, which made it seem there was more affirmative evidence. can you sort out -- >> i think you may be parsing me too much. i was trying to say we are concerned there are individuals, criminals in central america, rain upon individuals, vulnerable individuals,

spreading misinformation and trying to capitalize on their vulnerable position. we are concerned about that. we would like to see it put to an end. there are a variety of ways to do that working with host governments and by communicating clearly to the american people and everybody in central american countries what the law actually is and our commitment to enforcing it. >> here is what i am trying to ask. obviously, dhs and border security officials and ice are debriefing the youngsters and all these folks. what i'm trying to get at is, are they saying this is how i came? what information do you have to build this case, so we are saying this is what we are seeing? >> in terms of the results of the briefing, i would refer you to dhs. >> you have not been given? >> i don't have insight into

interviews or the information revealed. >> one more question on iraq. on the context of dealing with congress, what kind of budgetary implications with the president's policy announcement yesterday have as we head to the end of the fiscal year? do you know the cost? >> i will see if i can get you more information about that. major? when does the president expect the first teams of green berets to arrive in iraq? >> for operational questions, i would refer you to the department of defense. >> we have no expectation it will happen soon? >> i'm saying i don't know the answer. he did order it. the department of defense is responsible for carrying out the order. they will be able to provide more details on the time frame in which the order will be carried out. >> let me turn the maliki

question around. what if he goes or stays question mark -- what if he goes or stays? what if he strong-arms his way into power and remains? he did win the elections. will the u.s. have to reassess what it has done or what it might be contemplating in continuing relations with iraq? to dive tooant deeply into a hypothetical about if he stays. >> about an inclusive government and things that take on a more inclusive and less divisive chain of events and we have seen from the maliki regime so far. >> what i think i would say about that is simply it is the view of the united states that there is not a military solution to the challenges posed to the iraqi government right now. ande may be an opportunity, it may be necessary for the

iraqi security forces to take steps to stabilize the security situation in the short term. is only a short-term solution. to get at the root of the enduring problems will require a political effort that is much more inclusive, that gives -- that demonstrates to every iraqi citizen they have a stake in that country's future. that will require the pursuit of an inclusive political agenda. in that process, will the united states have to reassess its relationship? >> i think the united states is always assessing our relationship with the rock -- ir aq and most importantly what the president said yesterday, the national security invocations of ongoing instability there. there are serious concerns raised by the advances made by isil.

those are concerns that have attracted the attention of the united states and other countries in the region, particularly iraq's neighbors. there is an opportunity to work with the international community to try to address this problem. i think there is widespread agreement that a military solution is not a long-term one and it will require, as the president has said, the leaders of iraq to pursue an inclusive political agenda. that is an effort we can work with the iraqis to develop. it is one we have been encouraging them to pursue. there is an opportunity for other countries to play a constructive role encouraging the leaders of iraq to pursue that inclusive agenda. >> it sounds as if what you are trying to say, among many things you're tried to articulate about what the administration is now doing, is that the presumption will be that these children and

their single mothers will not qualify as political refugees or refugees under any definition under u.s. law, and once processed, they will be sent home. that is why it is misinformation to suggest, as you have identified these criminal actors telling them they can. is that a fair interpretation of what you're saying about the likely outcome of the processing of these unaccompanied children and single mothers is likely to be? >> i don't think it is quite right. i think it is the other way around. i think the misinformation being spread is everybody who shows up on the southern border will be allowed to stay. what i am saying is that is not true. >> they will be allowed? >> i'm saying every person who shows up at the border will go through the immigration process. some of them may have legitimate asylum claims. they will go through the asylum process. but the vast majority will be detained and removed.

that is according to the laws of this country. that is not the interpretation of the laws being shared by these individuals that have very bad intentions. >> the overall goal of these facilities,ocedural judges, attorneys, advisers, is to run the people through the process and get them back home? >> that is right, and to make sure justice is administered swiftly and efficiently. >> there was another transition this week. that was the president's first headlining of a super pac fundraiser. what is he doing to limit unlimited spending on campaign financing all around the country? >> the president's support for campaign financial reform is well-known. that is support not broadly shared on the other

side of the aisle. that is something the president will continue to push for, but we have not seen a willing partner on the other side of the aisle at this point. >> will there be some action on campaign finance reform? is there anything the president can do? there are so many things you say he cannot do, so what can he do? >> i don't know the answer to that. but if there is and it is when the president decides to choose to pursue, you will be among the first to know. >> does and it appeared he is striding confidently in the other direction when he is headlining a fundraiser for unlimited notion -- donations? >> i think it shows this president is committed to supporting those who share his political agenda in the upcoming election. one of the ways he can help those who support his agenda of expanding economic opportunity

for the middle class is to help them raise money. that is what the president is doing. it does not in any way affect his continued and unwavering support for campaign finance reduce the would influence of special interest money in politics and give more citizens a louder voice in the political process. mike, i'm giving you the last one. syria has told the un security council it will consider humanitarian deliveries -- rubblee areas areas as an attack. is the administration of where of this and does it have a reaction? >> i'm sure the administration is aware of it. i am personally not. we will see if we can get you an answer. it may be worth checking with the ambassador's office at the united nations. they may be able to provide a more detailed outline on that.

the week ahead? we have a note here? to be a while before i try to tell a joke from here again, i will tell you that. i have got that going for me. i think i'm going to do the week ahead. monday, the president will participate in a summit on working families to focus on creating a 21st-century first century workplace that works for all americans. this will be at the omni hotel in washington, d.c. the first lady and joe biden will participate. on tuesday, he will host the president's cups teams at the white house. wednesday, the president will have lunch with israeli president shimon peres at the white house. after, he will welcome jimmie johnson to honor him for his 2013 nascar sprint cup series championship. dallas cowboys fans will have to wait another day for that.

on thursday, the president will travel to minneapolis. the white house chief of staff is very excited about that trip. on friday, we will have more detail about the schedule on friday later. we are still working out details on friday. >> [indiscernible] >> that is still the plan. all right? that is still the plan. thanks, everybody. have a great weekend. we will see you monday. firsts is josh earnest's news conference as press secretary. he was asked a number of the irss about commissioner who testified before the house ways and means committee about the investigation into the alleged irs targeting of political groups. members asked him about the missing e-mails of lois lerner who headed the irs office on tax-exempt groups. we will be able to show you that hearing again tonight at 8:00 eastern. on facebook, we are asking for

your reaction to the hearing and the missing e-mails. you can weigh in on facebook and twitter. anyone ask if the e-mails were stored on in-house servers? transparency and freedom of information. my colleagues in journalism would give a similar grade whether liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process has become a joke. it was well on its way prior to the obama administration. because i feel strongly the information they withhold and protect many times belongs to the public. we own it. there is no sense of that. we ask for it. they covet it as if they are a

private corporation defending trade secrets rather than understanding what they hold is information they have gathered on our behalf. reporter onwinning the changing face of network news and her career sunday night at 8:00. today, the u.s. house passed the defense spending bill for fiscal year 2015. a member of the armed services committee joined us on this morning's "washington journal." 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 signified that signified argument-- simplified of internationalist versus isolationist? somefinitions apply and definitions do not apply. the issue is every great nation, a historian, but every great nation that has, from the spanish, french, romans, any great nation that start to take other territory around the world eventually failed. 12-oughohourour of a

plot. we continue to want to say that we can bring sanity to the chaos in iraq. 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 right,

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.

tomorrow, and include ralph reed. we have been covering his organization's meetings this week. then a talk about the expansion of the marine national monument. " tomorrow atournal 7:00 a.m. eastern. martin o'malley travels to iowa, and we will show you his remarks at the ios eight democratic convention at 8:00 -- at the iowa state democratic convention at 8:00 on saturday. >> there is a big swath of america not included in the discussion for either party.

particularly, i would argue the republican party. arcalled and boot-coll conservatives, folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and the responsibility and people who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. voila, those are conservative voters, but a lot of them do not vote at all because they do not see either party talking about concerns they have been trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. santorum argues that working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers answers to their problems. eastern.night on 10:00 this month on our online book

club we are discussing "the forgotten man." start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room on book tv. over 35 years c-span brings public affairs and defense from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, conferences, and offering complete coverage of the house as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service here and watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. koskinen was on capitol hill today, and talked about the investigation into the irs

alleged targeting of groups. camp chairs the committee. this first portion is 2 1/2 h ours. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good morning. the committee will come to order. good morning. over three years ago, this committee started asking the irs was it targeting conservatives for their beliefs, was asking groups inappropriate questions, wasn'