for children crossing the exit in border. -- the united states border. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] host: good morning. the president travels to follow a mom -- and he will also give a speech. john boehner said that republicans will file suit against president obama for his executive order. we will get your calls, republicans --

-- crats and independents -- join our conversation on twitter, or on facebook.com/c-sa pan. we will get your thoughts in just a moment. upe is the speaker yesterday on capitol hill talking about this lawsuit. >> are you planning to initiate against president obama for his executive action? wax i am. >> can you explain why this is necessary? makes itnstitution clear that the president's job is to faithfully execute the law, and in my view the president has not faithfully executed the law. government,stem of outlined in our constitution, with the executive branch and

the legislative branch and the judicial branch. congress has this job to do, so does the president. there are conflicts like this between the legislative branch branch,administrative it is, in my view our responsibility to stand up for this institution under which we serve. >> of this has been proceeding against the president? >> this is not about impeachment, this is about him faithfully executing the laws of our country. host: speaker boehner talking about why the republicans are filing suit against the president. he did not say which actions would be addressed in the suit. -- the story goes on to say that later, john boehner sent a

letter to lawmakers explaining his rationale and where this would take place, in the issue areas of health care, energy, foreign policy and education. here is how democratic leader nancy pelosi of california responded to this idea. the republicans are saying they want to sue the president for not upholding the law and the president is looking at what his discretion is, to use executive -- the executive act of the administration. he has not come anywhere near what republican presidents have done on executive orders. but he will act within his discretion, for whatever it will be -- prosecutorial discretion's

about who should be supported or not, and whatever else -- he worked closely with his lawyers on that subject. i think there is a broader interpretation of the law and his lawyers conclude many times -- i don't equate the republicans process to criticize the president, on executive -- are criticizing that as inconsistent in saying the president has the right to do what the law allows them to do. minority leader nancy pelosi responding to the speaker of the house saying that republicans would file suit against the president over executive orders. democratic legal experts rejected this reasoning and suggested that obama is following a long tradition of taking executive action under a suit -- system of separation of

powers, the president has a duty to execute the law and that is thankfully with the administration has done while working with the law and the constitution to act where the house has refused to do so. a former federal prosecutor -- and next month john boehner will convene a five member team of house republicans and 2 democrats that will approve the precisely which of the lawsuit and bring it to the house floor for a vote affirming the decision. the result would probably be a highly partisan vote. we will go to kingston, illinois. republican collar. >> the republican party is not my great-grandfather's republican party. reallyto say that nobody follow the bush administration for not following the law. get on an air boat

catching gators on the chattahoochee and get out of congress. host: why do you think that the speaker is doing this? guest: from the first day when obama first became president, it was very obvious and it should have been a law against going against the president. that is treason, they have a saying that the tea party will go against mcconnell. the republican party should be split into four. host: you are a republican? guest: i used to be, and i still want to be. host: why do you say that you want to be? guest: my grandfather, my father, it is embarrassing because -- it is embarrassing to say that you are a republican. for barackou vote obama? guest: i did not vote, i don't trust the republican party. host: we go to a democratic

collar, gina. what do you think of this move. i had a question but i wanted to ask something about c-span first if you don't mind. i have been watching c-span and washed in journal for 10 or 12 years. always, you can look at the grid that comcast provides to see what is coming on, but over the last couple of months or so, you look at the grid and all it says is public programming, public affairs programming, all day, 24 hours a day. it does not say c-span. it does not say "washington journal," i am wondering if you are still sending the information -- host: i will have our associate

producer -- production assistant who answered the phone and get your phone number and we will pass it along to the folks here who talk to the cable companies about listing our programming. go ahead with the question that you have answered -- asked for you today. congress -- they barely come to work and focus on things that is not what their constituents have an interest in, they produce very little bills, i am wondering, how can we are paying more than the average citizen, gets still have time to sue the president? it is out of touch. if they try to work together to solve problems -- host: here is barbara in red rock, oklahoma, republican collar. guest: good morning.

host: what do you think of this move from the speaker? guest: i think it is a good idea, obama is ruining our country. if he had done something over in syria, all the terrorists over there -- they are coming towards he just, i don't know. he has weakened our country so bad. something needs to be done, he needs to be impeached. host: the speaker said that this is not a step towards impeachment, this lawsuit. this is going to be used with taxpayer money, that will be used for this lawsuit. do you agree with that? guest: it would have to be, there has been so much money wasted anyhow by our government, that it shouldn't -- make that much difference, all of the

children coming in, he is not even trying to put a stop to it. i know that they are children, i have 4 daughters of my own and i have lost one, and you don't want to see a child go hungry, but something has to be done. we will have billions of dollars feeding them, and everything will be for free. host: we will talk about this coming up with two members of congress and e-house senator -- but let's look at the white house daily briefing. >> it is unclear why they object to the actions taken to protect the public health of americans all across the country. by making sure that air and water is clean, it is not clear that they object protection that artistryndividuals made against based on who they

love. and using executive authority to make sure that everyone in america has access to a retirement program. the president used his pen to his the mra proposal in state of the union address. we feel completely confident that the president was acting within his authority as president of the united states to take the steps on the -- for the american people. i will be interested to see what objections the republicans have. vocaly have been very about the kinds of things they aren't happy with. havedon't think that they explained what their legal rationale would be. they may have different priorities but i don't think that they are widely shared by the middle class of this country and i have said as much myself many times. we have not heard a legal rationale from them.

they have a legalistic litigious discussion about the steps that the president has taken on behalf of middle-class families, looking for an opportunity to raise their objection not just in the legislative but also the judicial branch, it is certainly, i would assume within their legal wrapped -- legal right to do so. but this is not something that will consume the attention of the white house. >> that is the new white house press secretary today responding on this move by the speaker of the house to file suit against the president for his executive order. --shington post"

take a look at the reaction on capitol hill. here is republican lawmaker -- treating -- tweeting out --

and then you have democratic congressman -- from wisconsin saying -- and then also hear from jackie speier -- ,lso then, laura ingram conservative radio talkshow host who is influential in the primary race against eric cantor, who lost, tweeted out -- and then neil caputo of fox news tweeted out -- cavuto of fox news tweeted out -- what do you all think? gordon, a republican color, go on gordon. guest: i think john boehner is

wasting his time, it is more like he is closing the doors to the barn after the horses and cows have gotten out. this should have been done years ago, and the only thing that is making him do it now is the tea party is making a stand, and the talkshow hosts like mark levan and rush limbaugh are pushing this and to save face he is filing a lawsuit which will be ineffective and he is wasting the taxpayers time and money. host: all right, gordon. we go to north carolina, democratic caller. guest: this is johnson -- host: you are on the air. guest: this is herbert johnson. is, why are they also theyama -- and

never did anything to bush. if he did something wrong it would get covered up. host: ok. on this issue, precedent setting by executive order, look at what the brookings institution put together. this is a chart that shows the history of executive orders. is the longestar one there, issuing nearly one -- 3522r day, 322 during his 4000 days in office. orders issued this week, president obama is more restrained than prior presidents in using this power. he issues an executive order on average about every 11 days. george w. bush issued them every 10 days. issued one pern week and president carter issued more than one every five days.

james and palm springs, california. independent caller. guest: good morning. i am absolutely running -- i am actually running for president as a republican. will probably die a republican and i am running for president of the united states of america and want to take back the republican party, the party of lincoln and mark hatfield. i will limit my executive powers and i will not issue an executive order. all right. take a look at the number of executive orders so far by this 180 onet in the past -- with obama, 291 for president bush, president bill clinton issued 364, george h.w. bush, who only served one term, issued 166. that gives you some context. -- discussing john

boehner, who will file suit against president obama and his executive order. times" front headlines, iran is aiding iraq -- that is the new york times this morning. also, with this story inside the paper. calls for a new iraq grow,

militants move to a strategic dam, that there could be flooding. kerry has been told to travel to saudi arabia to discuss with abdullah the way to counter the isis advance. advisors to al-maliki said there would be 300 security officials from the u.s. coming in -- and the number of private guards could reach 1700. so while the president says he is sending 300 military, 1700 private guards could be going there to protect them. with the diplomatic agreement -- the military advisors will be effective from prosecution if they inadvertently harm someone wase working, but it

unclear if immunity provisions for the private guards have been worked out as well, and one of advisors said the topic is still under discussion. also this, the use of drones for killing risks a war without end. this is coming out today. this'll be issued today. also on the story of bowe ber gdahl, and the investigation into when and why he left his fellow soldiers in afghanistan, this is the headline in the "washington post." this is that he did not help his captors, --

that is in the "washington post." back to a story for all of you. -- a question for all of you. john boehner is looking to sue the president over executive authority. >> i think it is great that he and the only wikia any information out of obama is to sue him. other than that he will just put up a brick wall. i think that there is a lot of -- good things that will come out of this lawsuit and i wish that dr. ben carson would run for the presidency. republicans would run dr. ben carson he would win. what about this argument from the "washington times."

the house has plenty of its own institutional powers to control the president. this would be true with raising the minimum wage is a federal contractors. -- they control the purse and appropriate money for these actions. guest: things are going so bad that fema could take control of everything, they have the power and right to do that at any time. everythingide that runs through a wire they could kick everyone out of the sandbox. , democratic caller. good morning. go ahead. guest: my name is rose and i have a comment about all the silly folks calling you, talking

about the president, and what john boehner wants to do. it is just a waste of time. they need to find something more constructive to do. shauna inill go to hanover, pennsylvania. independent caller. what are your thoughts? am -- i used to be a republican and now i don't know what i am. these politicians -- what they are doing is noxious, the horse is out of the barn. this has been going on for way before obama, way before bush and way before clinton. people are calling in and saying, the house is not doing anything. the house is not doing anything. this sits on the desk and we are being divided, and quite frankly this is discussing. port orange, florida, republican caller. howt: i have seen firsthand

obama has created his military police. ticketulled over for a and 4 military style officers harassed me the whole time. all that i did was run a red light. he mentioned a long time ago that the best thing he could do was militarize the police. people are not afraid to go to jail, they are afraid of the cops. host: what does this mean for the question? guest: impeach president obama and get someone in there who knows what they are doing. host: this is from the "washington times." democratic fundraisers are using the letter as an appeal to their base and call this a new low in an online solicitation for

funding that also accused john boehner of caving in to the pressure from the right in suing president obama. we will keep taking your thoughts here on the speakers move over the executive order first, joining us on the phone hurley, from thomson reuters to talk about the decision by the court to protect cell phone policy. decide andey sign -- what impact does it have? caller: they ruled on a unanimous vote, police officers need a warrant to search his cell phone when someone has been arrested. this was a big ruling because this issue has never been decided before by them, taking into account the unique nature cell phones in the current age, everyone has one and everyone is

carrying one around with them, with this personal information on the phone. this is not the same of other things you may carry around on there are are just so different and should be treated differently. this,t do they say about the police pull you over, they can go through your wallet and they can go through different things if they think there is evidence of a potential crime. they can search you. what is the difference? the court took into account the ubiquitous nature of the cell phone, and the sheer amount of data that is collected on smartphones. concern is clearly a about privacy invasion, there is concern that this could be abused, potentially, concerned

that they gave law enforcement too much leverage. the police still can get a warrant, which often does not take that long and they need to do a search for the phone. they will be able to. what does this mean for law enforcement. they cannot routinely searched cell phones. this could link suspects to other activities -- or more broad enterprises, like drug dealing, something like that. situations, i think that prosecutors -- they could hamper their efforts if they are trying to crack down on an ongoing activity.

host: why did john roberts write this opinion? caller: it is interesting because the court was unanimous, as most people know they are not always unanimous. the fact that they were able to all agree on this, the liberals and conservatives, on the court feel the same way about this issue. as the chief justice felt -- it was important for him to write this. host: what about the separate opinion from justice alito? he is himself a former federal prosecutor, he has his

own perspective on this. -- he waswith concerned about the impact on law enforcement, he said that congress and state legislatures tould perhaps begin a chance look at this issue again, with more effort on how this is playing out. they have some sort of common sense way of amending this approach, perhaps that should be allowed. hurley withce thomson host: lawrence hurley with thomson reuters, supreme court correspondent. thank you for breaking it down. today," aereo"usa can't stream signals. in a six-three decision, the startup violated copyrighted

work of major tv networks by streaming content to paid subscribers. the tv station owners were the winners and they can continue to expect to be paid for retransmission of the content and channels. the losers were aereo and cord likely to goo is out of business and cord cutters losing a way to watch local tv. in issue we have discussed a lot on c-span as part of our communicators program as well. this decision by the court, aereo versus the broadcasters. take a look at what gordon smith had to say. he's the president of the association of broadcasters. here is his reaction to the decision. [video clip] today was theheld fundamental constitutional principle that you cannot take someone else's copyrighted intellectual property and resell it without dealing with the owner of that copyright. however future cases develop,

that principle was decisively established and settled by the supreme court today. gordon smith,uest president and ceo of national association of broadcasters commenting on the decision on communicators, the full interview is on c-span's website. next, ralph, north carolina, democratic caller. good morning. we are talking about speaker boehner's decision to sue the president of racing action -- over executive action. caller: what this shows me is that what john boehner has shown me is that the executive pen is to be used by the white male president only. ever since this man has been in the white house, it looks like by the time we as black people

seem to get a little happiness, it seems like we cannot be happy about anything. they gave this man, ever since he has been up there, they gave him there behind to kiss. young man, look back and see what they are doing to this brother right here. that lets you know, just like dr. martin luther king jr. said, america is a sick place. thank you. host: steve, michigan, independent color. good morning. caller: the guy who just called -- every time he criticizes the president, is a race issue. that is not what i called about, i wanted to comment on that gentleman right there. i heard in the media this morning talking about the cost to taxpayers if we sue the president. nobody is saying that the cost to future generations about $17.5 trillion of debt. nobody is saying that. the media is all saying that

this will cost the taxpayers money to sue the president. i do not hear the media saying anything about $17.5 trillion that will be paid for by our grandchildren and nobody is saying that. this man has to be reined in, his executive orders have bypassed congress illegally. something needs to be done. i do not think anything will come of this. hastina marcos -- boehner busily, it is one half or one third of the government. i do not think it will become anything of suing him. something has to be done and impeachment is definitely the to stop thed president from illegally bypassing the constitution. on capitol hill to decisions by the supreme court yesterday. ron wyden, a democrat from tweeted this.

"a big win for privacy." and then senator ted cruz says " applied unanimous decision to protect rights of americans to be free from warrantless cell phone searches." the new york times with this headline, charlie wrangle win -- wins his primary, it is official. herlie rangel, who said wanted to decide on his own when to retire from a career in congress that began in 1970 one held off a challenge by his opponent. that is in the new york times. chrisississippi, mcdaniel, who lost in the primary to fatima cochran -- to cochran, said he is pondering a challenge to the gop

runoff and who voted in that on tuesday. fighting crossover votes has been unsuccessful in the past. the front page of "the clarion ledger." on the issue of immigration, steny hoyer, number two in the house is quoted as saying that president obama is on the brink of significant immigration changes. this would be done by executive order. then you have in "the wall street journal," a vocal advocate for immigration reform, covers and gutierrez, who has been on the show many times. and the current bill backer has said he gives up. luisi sierra said wednesday he was giving up when he needed su. it goes on to say he would

pressure the white house to use executive action. this is an "the wall street journal." some are giving up on the idea of immigration reform in asking the president to do it by executive action. i follow up on yesterday's topic on "washington journal" about illegal children crossing the southern border. times" says many of them will remain in the u.s. for years. this came out of a house judiciary committee hearing on the topic yesterday. if you missed it, go to c-span.org and watch it there. front page of "the washington lerner, the former irs official, had suggested at one point auditing senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa.

it says in e-mails disclosed to congress, ms. lerner suggested the irs look into whether it was wrong for a group to pay for chuck grassley's wife to attend an event where he was slated to speak. her suggestion was shot down by another employee who said the arrangement appeared to be legal. the e-mail chain, turn it over to congress as part of the investigation, raises questions about ms. lerner. getting all your thoughts on whether or not speak or of the house should sue the president of her executive order. chris in delaware, republican caller. caller: hi. it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. if they want to make notes about it, they should really know that martin luther king said it is not the color of his skin, is the content of his character. it is not the number of executive orders he writes, it

is what is in the executive orders. he does not enforce our laws, he does not protect our country. he is the worst president in ideology.cause of his that is all i have to say. host: florida, democratic caller. caller: hello? how are you doing? i am listening to the comments about president obama. to do is look at his record of what he is doing. we have to understand that this president has inherited a mess from another president that should be sued how he handled the iraq war. that is unfair for these people to want to treat this president that we have the way they are treating him. the republicans are not paying close attention because a john

boehner's actions, they can lose tremendously. because of the way that he is handling this. the question i ask is, since we are so adamant about suing barack obama, let's go ahead and bring up a lawsuit against president bush for all the lies that -- for all the lives that were lost in the iraq war. look at dick cheney, he has a lot to do with it and he has the nerve to go on tv and make statements about this president trying to fix this problem. i think that is wrong. lookthe lady said, let's at what the president is doing as far as immigration and raising the minimum wage and women's rights. if any woman goes against the president and believes it will and should get paid according to her wages, there is something wrong. host: paul in missouri, independent car. spinningohn boehner is

his wheels when he tries to file a suit. i hope you do not cut me off before i finish. if the lawop caller: of treason was enforced in this country, there would not be enough people in washington to mop the floor. when a nation becomes wicked, a wicked king is appointed over it. this country is being divided intentionally. if our people and power would tell the american people the truth of what the plan is, this country would rise immediately, dismiss the government, and elect a new government. "the washington times," bankrolling the clintons. when hillary rodham clinton stepped in front of the podium this week, the background was plastered with familiar corporate logos, including jpmorgan chase, microsoft,

marriott. these are household names. but to president bill clinton and mrs. clinton, they are known as entries in their personal checkbook. long before getting behind mrs. clinton's public service effort, all three companies and rushed mr. clinton with six-figure speaking fees that turned the family into millionaires on the strength of his gilded tongue. also on the former secretary of state, book sales, "the new york times" reports that her memoir "hard choices," declined 43.4% to 48,000 copies its second week on the shelves. on gop primary out of mississippi on tuesday. on washington post reports the amount of african-american democrats that tipped the scales for thad cochran. they reported that 20 four

counties with a majority over then turn out primary. in other counties, the interest was -- the increase was 16%. just 12% of the votes came from towns were african-americans make up at least 60% of the population. cochran's performance in those 71 of the vote, provided a margin that helped him grow his vote total by almost 40,000 ballots over the june 3 primary that caused him have to go into the runoff with state senator chris mcdaniel, conceitedt and is pondering challenging the outcome. wayne in louisiana, republican. go ahead. how are you doing, i have not seen you in a long time. you look good today.

he should've been impeached. if the executive orders are destroying this country, he has destroyed our energy program and everything. everything he does is bad. the country is going topsy-turvy because of him. a true american, he would not be doing what he is doing. stopping oil and gas drilling, doing everything he can to wipe out american jobs and coal industry. these lawsuits, i mean, executive orders, you cannot run a country unless you are a king. he is not a king, he has roles to other. congress is therefore the people. over what congress is supposed to do, he ain't doing nothing. how can they do things? about the argument from some conservatives and democrats saying that congress

has the power of the purse and could not find these things? caller: i agree, they should not fund it. but look, he did not for the health-care care bill and they shut the country down. it planted on the republicans. virginia.that in caller: hi. i would like to know why boehner wants to sue president obama justhe knows that obama is as poor as hillary clinton is. world, she has told the that her and her husband was everybody knows that she would not tell a lie. everybody knows that obama was so poor that he had to light in to survive.garden

i am wondering why he would pick somebody poor. host: i will show you something from yesterday's christian science monitor breakfast in washington, talking with mike rogers of the house intelligence committee. here's what he had to say about when the president and congress knew about the threat of ice is in -- of isis in iraq. [video clip] >> we get all the raw intelligence so we can come to those conclusions ourselves. it was clear to me that years ago isis or isil was pooling up, building training camps, recruiting, drawing in jihadist from around the world. we saw all that happened. time and for a long nothing happened to disrupt it. and we saw them cross the border lujah, nothing

happened. that was six or eight months ago. the notion that we did not see this coming means that you were not paying attention to the intelligence that was afforded us. hey, weey have said can only give you the fallujah update. nothing happened when the tookk they saidrit, then we have a problem. that is an unfair assessment of what we knew. they knew their intentions and they clearly were arming and training. did not say they are crossing the border on this day, but it would be hard-pressed if you did not pay attention to come to the conclusion that something bad is happening. >> your complaint is not with intelligence but how the administration responded? decision,ponding is a

not making a decision is a decision. host: mike rogers, republican of michigan who chairs the intelligence committee on the house side of the christian science monitor breakfast yesterday. go to our website, c-span.org. is our topic isis next with senator ron johnson, wisconsin.of we talk about that and other issues. later we talk with democratic representative hakeem jeffries, who has introduced legislation to provide legal representation to minors crossing the southern border. we will be right back. ♪ >> we believe that all men are created equal, yet many are

denied equal treatment. we believe that all men have certain unalienable rights, yet many americans do not enjoy those rights. we believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of beingy, yet millions are deprived of those blessings. not because of their own failures but because of the color of their skin. the reasons are deeply embedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. we can understand without rancor happened,how this all but it cannot continue. our constitution, the foundation of our public, for bits it.

the principles of our freedom forbid it. morality forbids it. the law i will sign tonight forbids it. >> the 50th anniversary of the 1964 civil rights act, with president johnson address and the signing ceremony. hear from reporters who covered the debate. ,oger mudd and andy glass sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> what i have right here is a cutially processed plant down into sections that are the right link for hanging. leaves,ll the big they are sent to the kitchen to make edibles. they have a small amount of thc, they get that for a good price.

the little leaves can be dried and made into joints or sent to places that make extractions and that sort ofh and thing. bring here we have a finished bud, this is sent over to cure beforeg to dry and cured they sell in the dispensary. >> "washington journal" looks at the use and sale of marijuana in colorado. life friday morning, some eclectic 10:00 eastern on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: back with senator ron johnson of wisconsin, sits on the foreign relations and homeland security committee. i want to get back to iraq and homeland security threats. if we could begin with where we started with our viewers, speaker boehner's decision to sue the president of executive action, do you agree? hast: it is sad that it come to this point. i have my own lawsuit against

president obama because he is basically governing through unilateral executive fiat. he is changing loss. there is nothing that gives the president any power to change, amend, or appeal laws. the president is supposed to faithfully execute the laws, he is simply not doing that. it is not just conservative republicans that have busy point. self-described liberal professor jonathan turley has testified before congress, he says we are at a constitutional tipping point and the president has crossed the line. our founders were geniuses and they set up a tripartite form of government, each branch would defend their own powers with checks and balances. during my lifetime i have seen presidential power expand at the expense of congress. it is a delicate balance. host: there is a check, critics say, the power of the purse by

congress to not fund these initiatives. guest: it is pretty blunt. the thing we need to realize is only about one third of the government is appropriated, two thirds is mandatory spending, entitlements, that is on autopilot. even when you have the last government shutdown, i know i created uncertainty and i do not recommend it. thery small portion of government actually shut down. most americans did not even realize it. a blunt instrument and not one you want to use. the judicialpport system getting involved in this constitutional crisis. the judiciary has been largely absent. in many respects may be appropriately so, but when you have a president who has taken his signature piece of legislation and he has changed at 38 times, maybe some of those are legitimate, executive discretion. for example, my lawsuit about the management role in granting

members of congress and their staff special treatment under the law, congress debated that. it is clearly not with the law intended. the president does not like the law. i agree. most things about obamacare i do not like but he needs to come to congress to change it he cannot do it through executive fiat. host: let's go to iraq, what do you make of the strategy and do you support the 300 advisors there and taking the step of drone strikes? guest: does the president have a strategy act of his strategy was withdrawal. i do not think it had to happen. what happened was predictable. by withdrawing and not leaving a stabilizing force in iraq we blew a historic opportunity to show that she has and sunnis and -- that shias and sunnis and kurds can get along in a

coalition government and share prosperity. that was only going to be realized if america stayed there like we did in europe, japan, and south korea, leave behind a stabilizing force after we lives,ced almost 4500 800 $50 billion spent. president obama came into office was stable. his job was to maintain that stability and hopefully increase it. the only way we can do that was by leaving american troops behind to pressure maliki to have a coalition government. as soon as we left, maliki started purging the government of any ethnic members other than shia. created great enmity, the kurds are taking care of themselves. let's make sure we help kurds maintain their stability. host: that answers why, but what

to do now? guest: we need to do everything we can to help the kurds stabilize kurdistan. i would rather have the kurds governing kirkuk and baiji and mosul. this is a term the wall street journal, we are witnessing the creation of the state of al qaedastan. that is a dangerous situation. the kurds stabilize and make sure baghdad does not fall, we need to protect american citizens in baghdad. a very grim situation. what is sad is i don't think it had to happen. host: what you make of the papers today saying that while the president has sent 300 advisors, there are going to be up to 7000 private contractors tot there to protect -- up

1700 private contractors sent there to protect them. guest: we need to reach out to the moderate sunni tribal leaders who helped us in anbar and during the surge and see if there is hope of putting humpty dumpty back together. we have heard the assessment, it is pretty grim. we have tod to do, recognize that reality. you provide stability, we need to do so and really do everything we can to help the kurds in the north. host: how do you attract the moderate sunni with nouri al-maliki in power? guest: it is tough and this administration has been open in their call for a better leader maliki, even the grand ayatollah has indicated that. i don't think there's anyway you look at moderate sunnis rejoin the coalition government with maliki in charge. host: he has to go?

chance ofyou have any reassembling the coalition government. i'm not sure it is possible but maliki cap beheaded. host: to protect -- maliki can't be head of it. host: to protect the oesdish region, d their have to the action in syria? guest: there is action in syria as well as iraq. president obama declared the war over, it could not be further than the truth. president obama initially wanted that appealed. administration asking for, does he want a modification? right now it authorizes use of force against al qaeda and

associated groups. iraq now, what you see in is al qaeda and associated groups, i think that obama has to have that. the effectivee response to terrorism managed by 535 members of congress. we will have to react quickly. unfortunately, this president does not seem to have it in him to take the forceful action required. host: we will get calls. ron johnson of wisconsin. harold, louisiana, republican caller. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. host: the morning. caller: two questions about the issue about the executive orders. my first question, isn't this a partisan issue? my second question, how did previous presidents issue

controversial executive orders, this is not new. appreciate the question, i think it is nonpartisan. hopefully in the op-ed i have cowritten with jonathan turley, which will run quickly, people need to be concerned. as is been a bipartisan problem. presidential power has been growing at the expense of congress for decades. that is true. making and what jonathan turley recognizes is that this president in particular has crossed the line. take a look at obamacare, 38 times he has changed the law. the employer mandate was -- it is very explicit and says it shall be mandated after december 31, 2013. president obama delayed it. it does not give you a lot of wiggle room or discretion. this president continues to do that. point in time, i think

congress, in order to support and defend the constitution, we have to defend congressional power. that is what john boehner is doing and i support him. i support my own lawsuit against this administration. host: oklahoma city, democratic caller. caller: hi. johnsonistened to mr. and other republicans like him who talk about the illegal moves president obama has made. but they cannot give any specifics. when you are going to a court of law, you cannot just make up any abstract ideas about how you feel. you have to have some facts. talking about him as aing the aca

violation, the lot you guys hated from inception, you do not have a leg to stand on. if anyone needs to be sued, it is mr. johnson and john boehner for wasting so much tax dollars. you guys have done absolutely nothing since you have been in office. absolutely nothing. host: let's get a response. a specificve you example in terms of the employer mandate, shall be implemented after december 30 first 2013. my lawsuit is really addressing the fact that president obama has granted special treatment to members of congress with the affordable care act specifically said that members of congress can purchase through the photo -- can't purchase through the federal employee program anymore. it was voted on that no employer contribution could be made for those purchase plans. democrats in the senate were not running to president obama.

even though the office of personnel management ruled as the law was written. president obama changed the law. i have sued this administration. harmed, it creates an administrative burden for me. because of the unequal treatment of the law. i did not want that. betweeneating enmity myself and constituents, that is a precious commodity and politics. it is a harm when that advantage is broken. host: you have to show personal harm. when it comes to the personal harm speaker boehner is going to file, where is the harm? is tryingaker boehner to establish something called legislative standing. there are some legal experts that are positive that at some point and time congress should the the power to challenge executive when their powers are

being eroded. that is a collective harm that is being done. that should establish standing. the judiciary has got to get involved as well. otherwise, our tripartite system of checks and balances is going to be destroyed and our freedom will be friend. host: back to iraq. nothing butis isis armed political parties in the western sense? guest: listen, terrorists are -- certainly they are not affiliated with a nationstate and they are not following the rules of the geneva convention as it relates to how to conduct a war. they're committing acts of terrorism. , suicide bombers. we have seen beheadings, executions without trial. as people are terrorists, they are not lawful combatants, they are unlawful combatants. kill americans.

they do not like the west. they do not like the modern world. absolutely bent on its destruction and we have got to fight them. we cannot put our head in the sand. when al qaedact, declared war on us we did not want to believe it. the twin towers came down and thousands of americans were slaughtered. i wish this threat did not exist but it doesn't we have to face it. host: if we have to fight it, do you support airstrikes and boots on the ground? want to see this administration's plan. want he ran today greater influence inside iraq. a better scenario would be help stabilize the kurdish region. if we are going to have operations, i would rather do it from kurdistan. but we do not want baghdad to fall. this is a complex, difficult

situation. the real tragedy is it did not have to happen. twitter.k on we support dictators and then we do not support dictators. do we fight every religious civil war? guest: america's role in the world is to convey through excellent example what our values are. liberty, personal freedom, free-market competitive system and democracy. where we are able and where it is necessary and in the national interest, we need to provide stability. we should have left a stabilizing force to keep iraq stable. now our opportunity is let's make sure kurdistan remains stable. into aot force israel destabilizing agreement. let's do everything we can to support poroshenko and helped him stabilize eastern ukraine. you have to look at every instance on its own merit. what is in america's national interest?

one of the problems we have is we live in a global world. what happens halfway around the world does affect us and can represent a threat to our national security. it is up to the president, who has got the bully pulpit, he needs to make the case to the american public. he has not. he did not do it with syria and when he drew a red line and as sad used chemical weapons, president obama could not rally the american public behind his suggestion for action. so it really does -- so much of this depends on strong residence leadership. i can talk from the sidelines all i want but i'm a small voice. the president that we elect to lead in the situation is the commander-in-chief. host: does the president deserve credit for syria getting rid of most of their chemical weapons? they have why did that down. -- down.aeave winded that guest: that was where we have a shared interest with russia but

it came at a cost. the admitted chemical weapons have been removed from syria that they are still using chlorine gas and we do not really know blood other weapons might be in -- know what other weapons might be in syria. i give the administration credit for working with russia but in now russia has more influence in the middle east. 9 millionot gone, ns overed syrians, syria the border and destabilizing places like jordan, turkey and iraq. iraq is a result of how syria spun out of control. president obama has not caused these conflicts but there are opportunities for america to help stabilize regions. this president has rarely acted and any action he has taken is too little and too late. host: a domestic issue that

could be a national security issue, the children that are crossing over from central america across the mexican border into the u.s. on the southern border. here's the headline in "the washington times. house judiciary had a brief about the hearing yesterday when they talk to border patrol officials. the deputy chief at the border patrol, customs and border protection on homeland security had this to say. [video clip] >> in 2002 under the bush administration, the homeland security act of 2002. then there is the human trafficking law passed in 2008 under bush also that talks about how we treat people that commit crimes, especially kids. there's a big difference. this is not a mexican problem, is a central american problem. 75% or more of the people committing crimes are from

central america. how we treat people under the current law is this. if you are from mexico or canada toomeland has 48 hours determine what kid you're going to send back to mexico or canada. but the way we do it with central americans, they get them, they process them, they get a piece of paper with a notice to appear, not appeal. then they can travel anywhere in the u.s., the kids are put in locations and placed in foster's. to changeion, we need the protocol with the central american countries, just like we have with mexico and canada. within 48 hours, we have to determine whether they stay or get removed back to their countries. the hearingas not but that was a guest on "washington journal" yesterday. that is the idea he is proposing

to address the situation. change the protocol with this central american countries right have these do not children remaining in the country for years. this was a predictable outcome of not securing our borders. that is what we are seeing. we have provided a status for people to come here illegally. the most recent was president obama's what i would consider an executive order, deferred action on childhood arrivals, which basically created an incentive. they created the impression in central america that if you can get across the border you will be able to stay. we incentivize and induced people coming across the border, they do. we provide welfare benefits to non-us citizens, we incentivize them. from my standpoint, the first step -- i want to solve this illegal immigration problem. it has to start with securing the border.

you do that across the board. you have to increase border security. you need to reduce or eliminate those incentives, you have to have a functioning guest worker program. you have to have interior enforcement. many are here on visa overstays. there's a host of things we need to do. secure the border, then talk about the other things. one of the problems with, hence his approach -- one of the problems with the comprehensive approach, it lays everything on the table. we are seeing the very predictable result of that. i am not aware of what the congress was proposing there, but we need to understand what our actions have caused in the past, what incentives were created. we need to and those incentives.

we need to secure the border. host: let's listen to what the border postal virtual had to say on the house side. [video clip] >> texas has experienced a rise of children and unaccompanied family units. the increase in unaccompanied children has been challenging on many levels. year, the fiscal number of unaccompanied children is over 51,000, they have more than doubled this compared to the amount encountered over the previous year. there are just over twice 700 children -- is over 2700 unaccompanied children in custody. the border patrol has augmented rio grande valley's personnel with agents from across the southwest border. allowing the sector flexibility to increase operational footprint in

within its area of operation. these children are vulnerable in custody, they are separated from adults and provided drinking water, food, and medical assistance. while basic necessities and facilities might be adequate for a short-term stay, cbp facilities were not designed and do not have services and place to convert large funds for an extended period of time. we are working with ice, dhs, and federal partners to surge resources comic women, and supplies to quickly, safely, and support the transfer of custody to the department of refugee resettlement. host: what did you hear? guest: is a tragedy. my definition of a real problem.

solutions will not be easy. one of the things we are hearing is that it will cost over $2 billion, but we are a compassionate society. by getting back to the main point. one of the things we are hearing , there are radio ads in honduras and guatemala, send your kids up here and they will give you permission slip and you can say. we need to counter that with real information about how they are being trafficked as humans. rapes, murders, broken bones and they have a train called the beast where children the most inhumane conditions. we need to get that information to central america to combat the other problem. luring children for profit, drug cartels and smugglers.

,e need to get that information they're going to spend $2 .illion we're going to have to take care of the humanitarian tresses as well. christopher. caller: i think this is an issue democrats and republicans can get around together. the infighting is discouraging. i am concerned about munitions being used in iraq and afghanistan. i hear about soldiers coming back and they are sick and then they are stories you do not hear about him being sick and the veterans scandal that recently i'sulted in shinsek resignation. i am concerned about the use of depleted uranium over there. i read an article a couple years

ago that the green zone is radioactive. there are munitions causing cancer for their. -- over there. i was wondering if there would be an investigation into that. host: senator johnson? guest: i am not aware that, it is something to be concerned about, i will check into that. i am concerned about the weaponry we left behind for the iraqi army that is being utilized by isis. it is part of the grim reality from what is happening in iraq. host: on twitter responding to what you said about president obama's decision to leave in 2011. guest: president obama had an opportunity. the way i hear the story told is wanted a much

greater, in-depth strategic partnership long-term and the status of forces agreement was part of that. the administration wanted no part of that. maliki understood the generals levelecommending a troop of somewhere between 20000 and 23,000 troops. the status of forces agreement 10,000 on the table and then continue to ratchet the number maliki,the point where this is what i have been told, just through out the we can't grant you immunity. as the story has been told, this president had every opportunity statusop if he wanted a of forces agreement, he could have. on thatt obama ran platform. he wanted to tell the people we

have achieved of the peace and are coming home. but you have to consolidate and stabilize. he did not recognize that or learn from history. he hoped for the best. campaign slogan was hope and change. hope is not a strategy. a failureegy was and we are living with the consequences. host: melissa. caller: if you are looking for something obama did to violate the law, he did not give congress notification when he was negotiating to trade bowe bergdahl 45 taliban prisoners in guantanamo bank. being that senator johnson is part of the homeland security committee, i just wanted to know, since there has been a loosening of restrictions on travel in the u.s. and s,strictions loosened on visa s

is there going to be a tightening of restrictions in ?he future quest ma guest: there should be. backresident is putting us on a pre-9/11 footing where we are treating terrorism as a crime. it is far worse than that. the threat is growing. that is one of the reasons when we actually cap sheridan one of the -- when we actually captured one of the perpetrators of benghazi, rather than saying we will put him in a court of law, we should ship those individuals to guantanamo. it is a beautiful facility and people are treated with humanity. it is probably the best living conditions these people have lived in. the way you get intelligence out of these individuals is over a long period of time with relentless questioning. of years.iod

that is how you gain intelligence. if we're going to secure our nation, our best line of defense against terrorism is a robust intelligence gathering capability. ton we have an opportunity capture somebody and that individual might have intelligence, we need to extract every ounce of that. host: that is the debate over the benghazi suspect that has been aboard a navy ship making its way to the u.s., headed to washington, d.c. the suspect will be tried in a d.c. court. the new york times reports that faras been cooperative so according to officials. not clear whether he had been warned of his right to remain silent or the reps and by a lawyer. to thewhen i talked folks in guantanamo, the people who are experts, there is no way you can extract all the intelligence in a few hours or a few days or even a few weeks. the valuable intelligence comes out over years.

these people are terrorists. they are unlawful combatants. they do not have the right to trial or the rights of u.s. citizens. they are unlawful combatants and we have the right under the geneva convention to hold them indefinitely while the conflict continues. unfortunately, the conflict continues. host: the new york times reports the ship the suspect is on is made from steel from the world trade center towers. its model is "never forget," typicallyy -- it carries osprey aircraft and helicopters. guest: it seems like this administration is forgetting, we should not. host: thank you for coming on the show and talking to our viewers. we are going to turn our attention to the southern border and the children crossing over with hakeem jeffries of new york. first, a news update from c-span radio. ikiupdate on iraq iraq, mal

says that syrian planes bombed jihadists and he welcomes any group.on the isis john kerry warning nations against taking the military that mightraq heighten already tense sectarian divisions. this as british foreign secretary william hague has followed secretary kerry into baghdad to echo calls for unity. calls the sunni militants and "mortal threat." mary barra, the ceo of general she believes the company has disciplined all necessary employees associated with the recall crisis. reports that a defective ignition switch link to the recall of almost 3.5 million gm cars was made in china. that is according to a filing submitted yesterday with safety

regulators. gm ordering car dealers to stop sales of both new and used chevrolet cruz sedans in the u.s. and canada due to a potential defect and airbags. the airbag question is manufactured by a japanese supplier whose products are facing similar recalls and millions of other vehicles in the country. ford, honda, nissan, chrysler, mazda, toyota, and bmw have issued recalls to to the same faulty airbags. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone, anytime with c-span radio on audio now. -626-8888, hear congressional coverage and today's "washington journal." at 5:00 p.m.ecap eastern on washington today. here audio of the public affairs programs sundays at noon

eastern. c-span radio on audio now, 202- apply. , charges may years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefing, and conferences. and offering gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. as a public service of private industry. c-span, created 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome back to our table hakeem jeffries. of the you make situation of the minors

crossing the border to flee central american countries? guest: this is a humanitarian crisis that requires urgent, multipronged action in response. first, we have to do it better job of securing our borders. that was already inherent in the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed in the senate that has been stalled in the house of representatives. we have to work more cooperatively with mexico in terms of dealing with the dynamic on the mexico-guatemala border, which is the entry point for a lot of folks for the countries of guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. when the children, unaccompanied arrive here, we have to make sure they are treated with dignity and respect and humaneness. and that they are given due process in terms of the immigration proceedings. the overwhelming majority, a

significant number, and not actually have a valid legal claim to remain. some will under current law. that is why we have proposed providing every unaccompanied minor who comes into this country with access to counsel processingedite the and even location of any rights that may exist under current u.s. law in the context of these proceedings. host: what about the national security threat from these kids, if they are older children, and others in this country. threat, have a health swine flu has surfaced at the texas-mexico border. the first case of swine flu virus been found among the children crossing into america. leading federal authorities to 2000 batches of vaccine to one of the air force bases. guest: whenever you have a betweenn, somewhere

40000 and 50,000 companies have could have 90,000 issue. as compared to 24,000 last year and 13,000 in 2012. there has been a dramatic increase. one of the things the current law requires is after 72 hours the unaccompanied minors are turned over to health and human services, which is equipped or better equipped to deal with a to protect of issues them and the border of the u.s. dhs is doing the best they can. host: you have legislation to give these kids due process, what would it to? guest: it would provide accesspanied minors with to counsel in the context of the immigration proceedings. recognizing that many might not have a valid legal claim to

remain, but some will. under current u.s. law that could be an asylum claim because of a legitimate fear of persecution or should they be returned to their country. there is something called special immigrant juvenile whous, available to minors have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by parents. visas available to minors that have been victims of violent crime, have suffered trauma, and are cooperating with authorities. the providing of counsel will also help expedite the procedure that each of them are going to be subjected to in terms of the immigration process. conserve judicial resources and reduce unnecessary detention once a determination is made that someone may have a valid basis to remain or should be removed.

it will increase the removal proceedings. all of which will save taxpayers money. host: how? guest: because of the conservation of resources. the tension is expensive. if you can reduce unnecessary detention you save money. host: are the taxpayers going to have to pay for this legal counsel? guest: that's what is contemplated by the law. we have to determine what the cost may be. studies have suggested that in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, taxpayers will save money at the end of the day because of the expedited removal. once it is determined that there is no valid claim to remain, removal can take place and i saves money. the reduction of proceedings that are no longer prolonged, the conservation of resources saves taxpayers money.

someone it is clear should not be declaimed, a six or seven-year-old poses no threat to society, the reduction could takeion, which place when someone has an attorney, there is a reduction of 11 days of detention that otherwise were deemed to be unnecessary. the tension is very expensive. host: you and your colleagues heard from border officials that the children coming here over the past five years have meant staying in the country for years after they get here. of the unaccompanied children apprehended, 87% are still awaiting court rulings. would your bill address this.

it doesn't address the broader points you have raised to make the digestion process -- judicial process more efficient. we have taken that step weight best way to increase the amount of immigration judges in order to expedite the proceedings. some of the proceedings addressed yesterday in terms of unaccompanied minors were not necessarily substituted as far as i can tell, but there is a legitimate reason to believe we have to expedite the immigration proceedings. those that do not have a valid basis to remain should be removed. be givent do should every opportunity to vindicate and then a decision can be made. host: a tweet --

change the law, make the protocol the same. guest: i am not clear that is the right thing to do, although we should take a look at whether that would be appropriate. what we do have is an overwhelming majority where unaccompanied minors come from do -- to come from countries or molokai honduras. those are among most dangerous in the world. in fact, honduras has the highest homicide rates in the world. in those three countries, 95% of homicides over the past several years go unresolved. so there is a climate of violence and intimidation and gang activity that insists -- exist in those three countries in particular, so there is reason to believe the manner in which they are treated is appropriately different than the manner in which we deal with individuals from canada and mexico at the present moment.

guest: jamie waiting to talk to you from pittsburgh. caller: good morning, congressman. is already the worst tax state in the union. and losingrregulated people at a greater rate than any other state in the u.s.. why first are these kids being shipped, and why are we paying for them to come to new york? fewt: well, there are a sensors in new york, to in the new york city metropolitan area and some in the upstate region. in terms of the appropriate protocol that exists right now, we cannot simply turn a five or six or seven and eight-year-old away, or even a preteen or

15,companied minor who is 16, or 17th back to a situation in honduras, guatemala and el salvador that may result in their death. proceedingsopriate consistent with current laws that exist on our books. now, obviously there is a whole host of problems we will continue to tackle in this country, reviving the economy is something i got an opportunity to work on as a member of the new york state legislature and certainly an essential public policy agenda that all of us should be concerned with tackling to represent new york state in the congressional delegation, but we have to be able to multitask as a whole host of issues we have to confront. this happens to be one right now. >> nick in jacksonville, florida. good morning. >> for six years i have heard from the democrats that our borders are secure, but why is

this still going on? we should militarize the border down there and stop this. obama is the one who sends the message to south america. they told them to come on in. you is your comment? host: think the president sense that signal with what? caller: the way he has been thomas the borders andwith the everything in the dreamers and stuff like that. i do disagree with the underlying premise. first of all, deferred action come executive order issued in 2012. related to so-called dreamers who were brought to the country .t a very young age particular executive action

would only apply to individuals who have been in this country of twotively since june thousand seven. with respect to comprehensive immigration reform bill the president supported that was passed by democrats, independents and public ends a pretty robust margin last year. would only apply in terms of creating probationary legal status and a pathway toward citizenship for individuals who have been in the country since december 2011. actionse, none of the that have been taken and supported by the administration would actually be applicable in terms of legalization of unaccompanied minors come into the country right now. host: melissa on twitter -- guest: one thing we do have to take i believe is better cooperation with a mexican

government in terms of securing the border of mexico and guatemala. borderted states mexican is over 2000 miles. it is a very difficult order to police, as we have seen. border between mexico and guatemala is under 200 miles. there is a real opportunity to deal with border security in a two-pronged fashion. we obviously have to continue to to providecessary -- necessary resources for border security in this country, but if we can cooperate more with the mexican government, secure increased capacity for them in policing their border with guatemala under 200 miles much easier to do. it is a lot easier to defend the ball on a 35 yard line and it is

on the five yard line. host: usaid announced it was -- 40g 40 militant million to improve security. 25 million to combat crime and violence and 18.5 million to under risk for criminal or -- similar crime prevention. independent scholar in sarasota, florida. caller: i am having a problem listening to this. seems as though congress is stymied. we can send and criticize the borders in iraq and afghanistan and all the other places and cannot even secure the border and cannot take immediate action. it will cost us money in the long run because of your figurative act.

disgustedam really with what i see. actt: i think it is time to on comprehensive immigration reform. we have a broken system. the senate act as last year, i believe in july. 52 democrats, to independence, 14 republicans. they did come together to come up with a package that would remedy any of the things that are broken in terms of the immigration system, dramatically improved border security by increasing resources available from a particularly as it relates to the border between mexico and the united states, and house republicans refuse to -- bring comprehensive immigration reform to the floor, so i do believe it is time to act.

hearingst oversight this week. that is the constitutional ability on behalf of the american people. certainly your premise is correct, time for action. host: john boehner did say he would form a working group to look into the border situation. >> we have a group of members i think are uniquely qualified to understand what is happening down there, to help our members understand what the facts are as suggest to the administration things that we think can be done or should be done, and if necessary, make suggestions to our members about changes in the law that might need to occur. it just seems to me, given the magnitude of the graces and the fact that it appears it will continue, that we ought to get a

better handle on this. have you started to ask what to do? >> i have given them suggestions. >> i would hope it would have information for the members the week we are back from the fourth in terms of outlining more specifically what the problems are. host: congressman would you serve on the working group? guest: i think that is a decision for speaker pelosi to make in terms of democratic participation. this does not come in the category of the run-of-the-mill argument and disagreement between democrats and republicans. this is a significant humanitarian crisis, the likes of which we certainly have not seen in modern american history and requires a multi pronged response. the department of justice will have to step forward.

the department of homeland security, secretary johnson doing a great job. health and human services has to deal with the care and humanitarian aspect with the care and treatment of our children. we also have the department of state that needs to be involved. i know secretary kerry has increasingly stepped up communications with those in the thehern trial, which are root cause of the problem in terms of the lawlessness that exists in the country, creating a climate for this to take lace. host: richard next. republican caller. caller: yes, the border problem is simple. you are not enforcing the law. -- why would republicans agree to any new amnesty-type bill? abused authority. anything past would be changed by him probably if it were not

to his liking. enforce the law. 181st airborne and special forces down there and do not let anyone in. it can be done. what about the national guard, something republicans have called for, to put the national guard down there? i think we have increased resources available to custom border control agency. something passed by the senate would do. i think that is a necessary step. in terms of the notion the president has not enforced the law, under this president more people have been deported than any other president in the united states history. the obama administration has in has been forced the law and gone overboard in terms of separating families and removal of individuals that perhaps may not be justified. that certainly is a position of the strongest immigration there

that problem. very complex. caller: please don't cut me off. tois obvious from talking talking to people they are using the kids to game the system. you as a lawmaker should be aware of this. ok, i have to ask you, as a member of the congressional black caucus on the why is the congressional caucus supporting illegal immigration or reform immigration when the end of limit rate in the black community is 15-20%? guest:

thank you very much for the observation. one, i believe comprehensive immigration reform is comprehensive with the values and independent studies have shown if we were to enact it, it would greatly improve the united states economy. it would add to the treasury and would reduce the deficit. that is good for everyone. if we have a current immigration system that exist that is broken and we have employers who are not necessarily vigilantly regulated in terms of the hiring of undocumented workers, that impacts the african-american community in terms of the individuals you are speaking about related to unemployment, americans every other seeking employment. if you have employers who are able to currently game the system, without consequence, that has actually -- that is

actually what hurts the average ordinary american otherwise seeking employment. that is one reason why we have to deal with the situation and fix the broken system. your colleague yesterday calling on the president to do immigration by executive order, giving up, as it says in the paper, any sort of comprehensive reform passing through the house and senate. think the president should closely look at taking whatever steps he can under law, using discretion and constitutional authority of thet to article two united states institution, but there certainly will be areas where congress is the only entity that can act, and we just have to continue to press the case in the house of representatives that it is time for action. it this humanitarian crisis does not prompt the need to engage, i am not sure what will. host: the use of executive

action by the president has prompted the speaker of the house to file suit he says, but the presidentnst for superseding congress's power against many different issues. it is not clear to me where the newfound vigilance to congressional authority has come from send john boehner and other were in congress. boehner and other were in congress. george bush took actions administration and encourage the use of executive action and demanded -- and many believed were inconsistent with the law, if not the constitution and the silence was deafening. this is a political statement. differenceis the between what the bush administration did if you think they were wrong then and what

the president is doing now? what the bush did was clearly an overreach. what the president has done is consistent with the authority that otherwise exist in the law andthat has been viewed deemed an existence since the founding of the republic. this is a president that clearly has not been embraced at any point in time during his presidency by my friends on the other side of the aisle, and in some ways it is unfortunate because it is a time for politics during the campaign season and then there is a time to govern. we have serious problems in this country. we still have an economy trying to kick into high gear. there are unemployed americans who have been cut off from unemployment compensation. this country needs a raise in terms of middle-class that has been falling behind. there are serious problems, and

the notion that a lawsuit will be filed by the house republicans because this president allegedly has engaged in unconstitutional overreach is a political gimmick, and i think we have to get back to doing the business of the people. host: similar collars believe the obstruction is because he is african-american. do you believe it is because of his race? guest: i do not necessarily believe it is because of his race, although i do not believe that should be discounted. we certainly have a history of , voterment, jim crow suppression directed at the african-american community, and we have not completely moved beyond that, but i think there are serious philosophical differences, and you are seeing a more extreme republican party that exist right now being led by the tea party factious, which is small but powerful in terms of the direction. the same group responsible for

shutting down the government, recklessly costing us 24 billion in lost economic activity. the same group that brought us to quest ration. the same group that now refuses to renew unemployment insurance. so there is policy disagreement that results from the extreme of some of the house of representatives. that is unfortunate because i think there are a lot of people housedwill in the republican conference that want to find common ground, and i am just hopeful their voices can be heard as we move forward. houses coming into morning session and about 10 minutes, an hour earlier than usual as both bodies of congress prepared to vote and then leave for the fourth of july recess. we have about 10 minutes left with congressman jeffries. mary in ohio.

caller: i have a little bit different take on this. these countries are primarily catholic. brief --e no reproductive rights in these countries, and they are forced to have more children than they can afford or protect. now these countries realize they cannot do this either so they are shipping their problems to us. why can't we ask these countries for money to help take care of these children? also, we should ask the vatican. the catholic church has been strangely quiet on the subject. i think the catholic church can play a very productive role, both in the a central american countries of water model, honduras -- guatemala, honduras and providing assistance to the minors. these countries are extremely

poor in general so i do not think it is feasible for them to provide the united states of america, the most powerful country in the world, with any assistance, but we do have to work cooperatively with them and they have to take some accountability for the lawlessness that exist. a climate of violence, intimidation, gang recruitment, sexual abuse, which in many ways, has created a situation where children are literally running for their lives. it is also central to know that other american countries, nicaragua, panama have all experienced exponential increases in asylum applications run the same three central american countries to which

unaccompanied minors are coming to the united states of america. what that suggests to me is that this is not a crisis generated by uphold them the united states. that these children are being pushed out because of the extreme dangerousness that exist, and some are coming to the united states certainly but also going to other countries of the region. caller: hello. saying this president has deported more illegal than any other, saying it does not make it so. for instance, leading 38,000 convicted criminals, you legal criminals out on the streets to isy on the citizens certainly not enforcing our laws. you blame everything on the republicans in the house. that is not true.

the democrats and president are trying to rule by fiat. unemployment benefits are being cut. unemployment benefits are being cut because we do not have a money egg we can produce constantly. however, he spends it like we do. we have to support all of the illegals who are here in draining the system. jobs under the table and illegally. and we cannot afford to take every trial they say they are having problems in their country. we have to put the national guard on the border and stop all incoming. patrol say they cannot stop gangs and terrorists from coming over because they're babysitting the children. guest: the first is just

factually clear that this president on a year by year comparison has deported more individuals from this country than any other president in american history and certainly a side-by-side comparison with deportation with the previous president. the obama administration has forcefully engaged in upholding our nation's immigration laws. i am not sure where it they came .rom one thing is trying -- crime continues to drop, certainly in new york city district i represent. we still have a long way to go. but things have greatly improved. we do have a fiscal situation we have to confront.

part of the reason the debt tax cuts were enacted largely benefit running -- benefiting the wealthy and well-off and 2001 and 2003. all of the activities were not paid for at the time. as a result, america has been asked to shoulder an incredible debt burden. we lost trillions and trillions of dollars in wealth in america. in order to right the ship. that is why we are in the situation we're in right now. we should all come together to address it. last point, did you hear yesterday in the judiciary committee from border folks that because they are distracted by dealing with the kids that there is a national security threat here, the domestic front.

criminal are getting through and drug cartels are getting through. theoretically the border agents are being stretched to capacity. that is just an empirical reality given the nature of the crisis. i was heartened to hear in their view there is not an appreciable increase in the number of gangs or drugs, cartels attempting to cross the border. that the nature of this particular humanitarian crisis is very different. unaccompanied minors on individuals fleeing violence, not inherently violent criminals themselves. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. question for representative jeffries. do you honestly in your heart believe that you will be able to solve this problem? i ask this because these countries know

that once these children get , that they will pull on the heartstrings of the united states of america. they study our judicial system. they know exactly what they are doing. i am not saying that in a hateful manner, just being realistic. don't you think they know these children are not going to go back? looking at these pictures i would not send one single one of these children back into a situation. i want to know, do you honestly think we will be able to solve the problem? thank you. guest: we are a nation of laws and ultimately these will have to be upheld in a fair and strong and robust fashion. , coyotes individuals and human traffickers taking advantage of the highly violent nature of the situation in the central american countries,

communicating misinformation, perhaps encouraging some parents to send their children on a very perilous and dangerous journey. instances through three different countries under very extreme circumstances to come to the united states. there may not be a valid legal basis to remain. we have to sort that out. this is a country that has always confronted great challenges and has been successful. we confronted a tremendous challenge in the civil war. we held it together and came together as a country and moved forward. we confronted the challenge in the aftermath of the great depression and october 1929. empire of japan. they overcame great challenge in my home city and the aftermath of the terror strikes of

september 11. america certainly has the capacity to deal with everything thrown at us and to come out stronger. york sitocrat of new on the judiciary committee. thank you very much for talking to viewers this morning. is in session early this morning. starting morning proceedings any minute. thank you for watching. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 26, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause in your presence and ask guidance for the men and women of the people's house. enable them, o god, to act on what they believe to be right and just and to do so in ways that show respect for those with whom they disagree. in this may they grow to be models and good examples in a time when so many in our world are unable to engage gracefully with those with whom they are at odds. as we approach this next recess and the celebration of the birth of our nation, bless our great nation and keep it faithful to its ideals, its hopes and its promise of

freedom in our world. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder. mr. yoder: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mckinley: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to share a letter from a 10-year-old, stephanie, of west virginia. she wrote, 7 1/2 years ago on october 4, 2007, my uncle jim passed away due to pancreatic cancer. his cancer was found too late because of being misdiagnosed too many times. a c.t. scanner finally found the cancer. his son, isaac, was only 9 when his father died. he's missed by so many. i hope that someday a cure is found so that other families don't have to go through the same pain we have. her story is just one of many across the nation. for every 100 people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, only six survive. mr. speaker, by funding the research and develop a cure, we honor stephanie's uncle and those we've lost to pancreatic

cancer. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> 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 inute. mr. costa: madam speaker, it's with a heavy heart that i rise to honor terry. united states army specialist who died on june 9, 2014. kerry made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the united states in afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom. the specialist graduated from met water high school and joined the military in 2007. during his time in the army, terry served two tours in afghanistan, and for the past five years he served as a generator mechanic and a builder. he was assigned to company b, 710 brigade, support battalion,

10th mountain division stationed in new york. his family and friends will hold memories of terry in their hearts forever. his smile, his laughter, his kindness to everyone will never, ever be forgotten. his fondness for sports and a big lover of animals, especially his dog, trinity. he will be remembered as a hero who fought for our freedoms. he's survived by his wife, natalie, as well as his father, his mother, step mother, three sisters and a brother. it's with great respect that i ask my colleagues in the u.s. house of representatives to honor the life of our fallen soldier, army specialist terry hern, an american patriot who did extraordinary things. god bless him and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. yoder: madam speaker, 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. yoder: i rise this morning

to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating my grandmother, edna yoder's birthday. born in 1911, she will turn 103 on saturday. she and my grandmother spent their lives raising their four children, including my mom, wain yoder. she believes -- wayne yoder. over the past 103 years she lived through the great depression, the dust bowl and two world wars, to name a few. she's seen a lot and to this date tells great stories, has a wonderful and cherry sense of humor and gives advice. every day i get up and think of prosperity and freedom, i think of my grandmother who worked themselves to the bone to build this great children so their children and her children's children will realize the opportunity of their dreams. today, my grandmother plays puzzles, working in the bell choir, keeping up with her

grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren. grandma, happy birthday to you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to speak in support of the voting rights amendments act. this is a critical piece of bipartisan legislation shelby county vs. holder that was handed down exactly one year ago this week. this decision undid critical voting protectiones that have proven effective over the years and that congress has re-authorized as early as 2006. mrs. bustos: the voting rights amendment will do several things. among them, enhance the power of federal courts to stop discriminatory voting changes from being implemented. create new nationwide transparency requirements that help keep communities informed about voting changes in their community, and continue the

federal observer program that combats racial discrimination at the polls. voter discrimination is not just a problem of the past but is very much alive today. in fact, since the 2013 decision, there have been 10 voting changes across the country that have raised concern about voting discrimination. as representatives in a democratic government, we have a duty to prevent voter discrimination and make sure that every citizen's voice is heard. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i'd like to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. duckworth: madam speaker, last summer more than 100 businesses held a forum in

illinois to learn more about the benefits of the export-import bank of the united states. since then, businesses in my district have told me time and again how the bank services keep them competitive in the global marketplace and create good-paying american jobs. they know we need to re-authorize the ex--im bank now. for decades, the export-import bank has helped american exporters sell their products overseas. it provides a financing credit insurance to grow their businesses abroad when other options are simply not available. last year these investments led to $37.4 billion in exports that created more than 200,000 jobs right here in america. this week a "usa today" editorial stated that one of the most vecksing economic developments in recent decades has been the decline in manufacturing jobs. an industry that employed nearly 25% of the work force in the 1970's today accounts only for 7.8%. the loss of these jobs has reduced opportunities for

people without a college degree to move into the middle class. mr. speaker, we can't abandon the american manufacturing and the american middle class. bring up the bill i helped introduced, h.r. 49 50, and let's re-authorize the export-import bank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: madam speaker, now's not the time for the transpacific partnership or fast track legislation. five years into our economic recovery, high unemployment, a stagnant income keeps consumers spending down. american families still cannot make ends meet. too many people. that's the reality. meanwhile, we're being asked to pass fast track and i think it's a threat to american jobs. how do we know? we already tried this 20 years ago when we passed nafta.

nafta promised to create jobs, 200,000 american jobs every year, but they didn't materialize. instead, the united states lost more than a million jobs, and in minnesota, more than 13,000 workers were displaced. we don't want to see this happen again. it's time to pass a trade bill that lifts labor standards around the world, not encourages a race to the bottom. we cannot afford to offshore any more of our jobs. let's pass a good trade bill. 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 and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize herbal luckinville as the illinois veteran of the month for june, 2014. the title of veteran of the month is bestowed upon individuals who have been exceptionally dedicated to

honoring veterans and improving our community. a navy veteran of the vietnam war, he's taken great effort to continue his service beyond act of duty. mr. foster: as a member of the aurora veterans' advisory council, he represents the interest of veterans in our community. mr. luckinville organized efforts to bring the vietnam moving wall to aurora in 2013, giving the community and the next generation the opportunity to honor the fallen. working as part of the organization, honor flight chicago, he's helped world war ii veterans fly to washington to view the monuments that were erected in their honor. we can never fully repay those who've risked and given their lives in service to our country, but because of tireless advocates because of herbal their sacrifice will not be forgotten. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing mr. hershal

luckinville for their service to our country. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 4899. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4899. will the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4899, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to lower gasoline prices for the american family by increasing domestic on shore and offshore energy exploration and production. to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, june 25, 2014, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-50. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered

as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 113-493. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to the demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seebling recognition? -- seek recognition? >> thank you, madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report number 113-4 the 3 -- 493, offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 641, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, madam chairman. under the current law the secretary of interior is not able to add any addition alleys sales to a finalized five-year plan. even if that area has been included in a draft plan and then withdrawn. so even if the work has been done to look at areas to include, he can't consider that in the final plan. this amendment's pretty simple. it provides the secretary of interior the ability to add a lease sale to a finalized plan as long as all the nepa requirements have been met on that specific area within the last five years. this is eppings applicable to the case of virginia lease -- especially applicable to the case of virginia lease sale 220,

which was included in the environmental impact statement though it was later postponed and canceled. i want to make sure that the secretary has the ability to add that back into the plan since all the work has already been done to look at the environmental impacts, and again it was included originally in the plan. the flexibility should be there for that to happen. should this administration finalize the next five-year plan early, that would mean the ensuing administration would not have any ability to add lease sales. this amendment ensures that already studied lease sales can be added to a five-year plan as long as existing environmental requirements are met. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized.

mr. defazio: well, now we have the idea of a five-year planning process, a five-year plan, and then you can just add things to it. so really it's kind of not really a five-year plan anymore. it's meaningless. there is an urgent need for more leases offshore in sensitive areas. southern california, virginia, maine, areas incredibly productive in terms of their fisheries that are heavily recreated. there is an urgent need to plop down some oil wells there 1.7 e we only exported million barrels of oil and gasoline yesterday. refined. there is a shortage and that's why prices are high. and we just produced more in the most sensitive areas without any

environmental review. then the price would drop. no, actually production has doubled since the republicans first passed this bill. it's groundhog day in june. and now they are still pretending. we heard a new argument yesterday, prices would be higher if we weren't exporting all of that diesel and gasoline and the american petroleum institute hopes we will start soon acting like a colony and export crude oil to our friends in china and elsewhere so they can make manufactured goods and sell them to us. this is a great plan. and we are going to make it even better by not planning anymore. acres of 36.1 million land under lease on shore. we had an argument about that yesterday. that's half the bill. and 23.5 million are not in production. so -- but we need to lease more.

are ore, 220 million acres available under the current leasing plan. 33.2 million acres have been leased and 28.1 million of those 38.2, a high percentage, aren't producing, and that's about 85%. we need to lease more. we need to lease it now so the oil companies can sit on it until they drive the price to 200 or $300 a barrel which they will. we produce oil more cheaply here, but we pay the world price. we are exporting gasoline and diesel and paying extortion prices and oil companies are making object seen profits, and only if we leased in more sensitive areas, the price wouldn't go down. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington -- the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, i would like to yield time to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: i won't take that. i'll yield back. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for offering this amendment. in many ways, madam chairman, this is indicative of the bureaucratic hoops that people have to jump through. keep in mind this lease sale in virginia went through all of the environmental hoops and then was taken off the rolls, if you will. under current law, you'd have to jump through the same environmental hoops again notwithstanding the fact that all of the work has been done. and i say this is indicative of what goes on in -- with the bureaucracy in a great many ways throughout our country, but this is especially, i think, troubling to the people of virginia, because not only has

their governor and legislature spoken loudly that they'd like to have an opportunity to drill offshore, to deny them that opportunity because of what i would call a bureaucratic morass of having to jump through hoops doesn't make any sense at all. i think the gentleman's amendment makes immensely good sense. and i think it's something we should look at in a broader sale and a lot of other areas. i thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and i yield back my time to him. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i believe i have the right to close. i reserve until the other side has concluded. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, madam chairwoman. as the chairman expressed, he is exactly correct. virginia is interested in being able to develop lease 220, and it's a bipartisan interest. it's both of our senators from virginia. it's our governor from virginia. it's our general assembly from

virginia. there is broad bipartisan support in moving forward with offshore energy production. virginia has the potential to be a leader in oil and gas development on the east coast. i along with many in virginia was disappointed when the department of interior announced that virginia would not be included in the 2012 to 2017 outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program. it was in the plan originally when the final plan came out, lease 220 was taken out. for no good apparent reason. we want the ability to be able to add it back because all the work has been done to have it there. we want to make sure the flexibility is there for the administration to do that. and the department's exclusion of virginia from consideration essentially prevents the creation of thousands of great paying jobs and around $19.5 billion in federal, state, and local revenue. this amendment is a step forward for responsible offshore energy

development and assures that decisions can be made in a timely way, especially when all of the environmental evaluation has already been done. we are not asking for anything to be skipped. we are asking for the ability to add this into a plan outside of the five-year window. this was removed from a plan for a reason, it ought to have the same opportunity to be included into the plan for a reason. that's what we are asking here is to -- for that to happen in a reasonable, thoughtful, and concerted way. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. i thank the chair. we had extensive debate yesterday and it's really not worth revisitting today. we had the same debate last year. this still passed, and has

languished in the senate. will not go anywhere in the senate. we had the same year before, year before, and year before. now you can pretend you care about high oil prices at the same time while protecting the unbelievably object seen profits of the oil industry. -- obscene profits of the oil industry. you can pretend the fact that 28.1 millioning on acres of leases offshore that they have yet to develop doesn't exist and they need to lease more acreage. they basically sit on these leases for years. and watch the value of their asset, which is the oil underneath, rise. they have no incentive, actually, to drill in many of de e areas because they pay minimus, few bucks an acre kind of lease on an annual basis. hey, what a great activity. meanwhile, the speculators on wall street, according to the head of exxonmobil, pretty good

authority, have jacked up the price because of speculation, about 60 cents a gallon at the pumps. every american should know every time they go to the pump they can thank speculators on wall street and inaction on the republican side of the aisle on their attempts to delay any minimal reregulation or reforms of wild speculation and flash trading in the commodities market. they are going to pretend if we let more leases that the oil companies can sit on, that somehow the price will begin magically to come down even though all development in the last few years and the doubling of exports of oil of gasoline and diesel has not brought down the price. it's a so-called world market. we produce more cheaply here, but we pay the same price as the most expensively produced north sea oil. it's all kind of meaningless. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. defazio: i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.

mr. lowenthal: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, my district provides a perfect example of the need for ocean coordination and information sharing between local, state, and federal governments, including our offshore energy management agencies, the military, our ports, our ocean carriers, our energy developers, recreational users, and other stakeholders. let me explain. the port of long beach is the second busiest port in the united states, moving $140 billion in goods, supporting 1.4 million jobs in the united states. offshore oil platforms extract crude oil in an pea drow bay, less than a mile from my front door. an clemente island in my district has a navy training ground and ship to shore firing range. nearby waters are home to sea birds, fisheries, and migrating whales. sea level rise and extreme

weather threaten neighborhoods and businesses all along my district and the entire coast of california. -these are all major interwoven uses of our oceans and it doesn't make sense to address them on a case by case basis without all, and i repeat, all the stakeholders participating. we need smart ocean planning and coordination. for those reasons my amendment would strike the misguided and counterproductive language in h.r. 4899 that prohibits coastal and marine spay shall planning coordination. we need our federal offshore energy management agencies to include the consideration of other stakeholders, not to exclude them from offshore leasing and the drilling process. . we should want all boem and bsee to coordinate with all our ports and shipbuilders, not

restrict coordination. e should want all the boem and bsee to coordinate nate with our fisheries council, not to restrict coordination. we should want all our boem and bsee to coordinate with our states and local governments, not to restrict coordination. the country, my district, we need a comprehensive approach to our ocean resources which is what the national ocean policy provides. at this time i'd like to yield 60 seconds to a life-long advocate for our oceans, the gentleman from the great state of california, mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much, madam chair. and thank you for yielding. ok, this bill is entitled, america that works. it doesn't work without this provision in it. i think year after year, failing and failing is what, a policy of upward failure?

it doesn't make sense for all the federal agencies to coordinate. we do that in the military. this would be like restricting the ability of the military to coordinate between services. so we do it with shipping lanes. we do it with wildlife. we do it with habitat protection. it's just smart, and spatial planning and the national ocean policy for the first time saves a lot of money because all these federal agencies now sit down and talk about how they can carry out the policies that they're responsible for. you wipe all that out, no dialogue, no communication, no ability to reach agreements in a way by this crazy restrictive language. without this amendment, this proves america can't work. i urge the adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. lowenthal: yes, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. section 10410 prohibits offshore energy agencies from engaging in coastal and marine spatial planning, or ocean zoning, under the national ocean policy established by president obama's executive order 13547. the house is on record six times in opposition to language such as that proposed by the gentleman. mr. bloress: each with bipartisan support against this language. -- mr. flores: each with bipartisan support against this language. and the attempt to zone the oceans under this unconstitutional executive order. just as a little background, executive order 13547 was signed in 2010 and requires numerous federal bureaucracies essentially zone the ocean and the sources thereof. that means a drop of rain that falls on your house could be

subject to this overreaching policy because that drop of rain will ultimately wind up in the ocean. as someone who worked on the ocean for 17 years, i know something about this particular issue. there are concerns that have been raised that the national ocean policy may not only restrict ocean and inland activities but it may also be flawed because it has not been given any specific appropriations by this congress, nor does it have any statutory authority from any congress for this initiative. this administration was also directed by the fiscal 2014 omnibus appropriations bill to submit a spending report to the appropriations committee by march of 2014, and yet they have failed to do so. so the administration has not been transparent on its activities with respect to this executive order, this ocean zoning activity. let me say this, you've heard from the other side and you'll continue to hear from the other side that says that planning is good. yes, planning may be good. planning with the intent to regulate or back door

regulation or rule making is not. because here's what the executive order that says, all the executive offices and agencies that are members of the council and any other executive department, agency or office whose actions affect the oceans and coast and great lakes should to the fullest extent comply with spatial plannings. that sounds like regulation and rulemaking to me. that means all these folks will have something to say on how we move forward and that's why section 10410 is so important to this bill we're talking about today. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lowenthal: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to point out that the opposition says six times that the house is on record for striking out the national ocean policy. i'd like to remind him all six times it's put back in by the u.s. senate. i want to point out that ocean coordination, as he points out, planning is good but not now,

has been supported by a broad array of stakeholders including commercial fishing, engineering and consulting, recreational and tourism, the renewable energy industries as well as academics, tribes, faith-based groups and n.g.o.'s. in fact, 117 of those organizations across 20 states wrote a letter to congress saying, and i quote, we urge you to reject any provisions that would undermine continued progress on coordinated ocean planning or seek to undermine the implementation of the national ocean policy. madam speaker, i'd like to insert that letter into the record. the chair: without objection. mr. lowenthal: i'd like to insert in the letter from the north american port association for ports from virginia to canada. the port association says, and i quote, we strongly oppose amendments to any legislation which undermine our ability to engage in planning for future ocean uses, to impede the

integration of the marine highway system or to create uncertainty for our businesses. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote yes, to states, to tribes, having a seat at the table for federal oceans decisions and vote yes on the lowenthal amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's previous unanimous consent request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: i yield 60 seconds to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to make this point that the gentleman from texas pointed out. what we are saying essentially in the underlying bill is we're not going to fund an executive order. now, let's think about that. an executive order that has no statutory authority. in many ways this is one of the examples of this administration, i think, far

overstepping its ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land. this may be one of those examples, that the speaker was alluding to yesterday when he suggested there may be a lawsuit coming from the u.s. house because there is no statutory authority for the national ocean policy. what i find so interesting when my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about how important a national ocean policy is, when they controlled the house, senate and presidency in the first two terms of this president's term, they did nothing with the national ocean policy. why? because there's a lot to be looked at in that. so i think -- i will not yield. the gentleman from texas has the time. but i think opposition to this is something that we have done over and over and over again, and i congratulate the gentleman from texas for taking a lead on ocean policy and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.

mr. flores: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. i have to concur wholeheartedly with the chairman's remarks when he said that the president's executive order, a, has never been statutorily authorized by congress even though four congresses attempted to do so under democratic control and four times this has not happened. mr. lowenthal: if the gentleman will yield? the chair: the gentleman from texas controls the time and has not yielded. mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. four times congress has looked at this issue and has said no to the president's activities. also, congress' never specifically authorized one penny for this activity. it doesn't make any difference how many people want this, it's whether or not congress authorizes this activity. congress specifically did not authorize this activity. the executive order is unconstitutional, and it should not be supported by approving

the gentleman's amendment. i urge all -- first of all, let me say this, i'd like to thank chairman hastings for his support and the natural resources oversight subcommittee to protect our inland economies by stopping this federal overreach. again, i urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lowenthal: madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?

>> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-493 offered by mr. duncan of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. duncan: thank you, madam chairman. you know, several coastal states, including my home state of south carolina, as well as the commonwealth of virginia, have long advocated for responsible offshore energy development for our shores. this resource development starts with seismic surveys and goes all the way to production. unfortunately, the obama administration has blocked this exploration and development every step of the way, from tying up the seismic permitting process and bureaucratic delays to excluding several atlantic states from the current five-year plan. as we move forward to plan for a more secure energy future,

opening access to new areas of our outer continental shelf, or o.c.s., is a no-brainer. we must do it to stay competitive and generate american energy and american jobs. when b.o.m. conducts the five-year process, they use administrative boundaries to divide up areas for leasing. this amendment simply tells them to consider virginia, north carolina, south carolina and georgia as one area. our amendment is simple. it unifies four pro-state, pro-offshore drilling states as one administrative area for offshore leasing planning purposes. it also ensures that the south atlantic meets the underlying threshold in h.r. 4899 and i want to commend chairman doc hastings for his leadership on this. it ensures this area so that sales in this area will be included in future five-year plans under this legislation. our amendment does not have any effect on revenue sharing and it does not hold back other

atlantic areas from seeking to develop energy off their shores. i'll give a shout out to senator tim scott who's also taken the initiative on the senate side for this very issue. you know, madam chairman, i came to washington as a congressman to focus on jobs, energy and our founding fathers. r. 4899 focuses on job creation, energy. energy production is a segue to job production in this country. if you look at north dakota, you look at texas, you look at oklahoma, you look at louisiana, these are energy-producing states that have very, very low unemployment. north dakota, 3% unemployment rate or less. in fact, you can get a finder's fee if you can get someone to work at a mcdonald's in north dakota. we can have economic development in this country if we allow energy production onshore and offshore. my state of south carolina wants to see those energy jobs along our coast. hese are not just the oily guys in the hardhats on the

rig. these are the widget makers, these are the pipe fitters, the welders, the auto body mechanics and the waitresses at the restaurants that receive the tips from all these workers and the churches that receive the and the chamber of commerce and united way that receives our contributions. energy jobs have a tremendous trickle down effect on the economy. the domino is to open up these areas and that's what virginia, north carolina, south carolina and georgia to be included. maybe we can go out there and drive some seismic. maybe we can get this 30-year-old technology that we're using to see if there are any resources off our coast and then we can finally use 21st century technology. 3-d and 4-d technology that will see down in the earth and see what recoverable resources may or may not be there. let's allow these areas in the next five-year plan to help

create jobs in our states. jobs, energy and our founding fathers, a return to more states' rights issues. mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield? mr. duncan: yes, i will. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. that good of the south atlantic needs to be treated, i think, as one entity just because the nature of how the state lines are. i think the gentleman's amendment makes immensely good sense and i support it and i thank the gentleman for offering it. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman from washington for his leadership on this. folks were concerned. this area stops at the florida-georgia line. they can deal with their own waters. these are the waters of georgia, south carolina, north carolina, virginia that we're talking about. you know, i spoke yesterday with a graph of diesel fuel prices. i drive a diesel fuel truck and the disparity of offshore and onroad prices. if we could lower the price of diesel fuel from one dollar from that $3.69 for america's workers down to $2.69, there's a 300 gallon tank on every

18-wheeler, if we can lower the price, we save every trucker $300 per fillup. think how that trickles down to the price of commodities when you go shop all across america. i support this amendment. i ask everyone to support this simple administrative change, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves. is there any member who wishes o choose time in opposition? if not, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. duncan: i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from south carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4, printed in house report number 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition?

mr. wittman: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, madam chairman. today in order to maintain our nation's competitive edge, to generate millions in much needed revenue, and create millions of new jobs, we simply must move forward with offshore energy development. it just makes sense. there are new areas in our nation that today we are not developing that energy. specifically the atlantic outer continental shelf. the mid-atlantic area. just as mr. duncan mentioned, it's incumbent upon us to make sure we are doing the science to

determine the extent of those resources. that i believe is a national osama bin laden case to develop the resources that we have. allowing seismic surveying in the atlantic is an important step toward achieving this goal. my amendment builds on that effort by promoting offshore seismic surveying through instructions of higher learning in those educational institutions, especially those that have done so much for our veterans. specifically, this amendment would allow the bureau of ocean energy management to partner with colleges and universities in the south atlantic region, including historically black colleges and universities to promote geological and geophysical educational opportunities. the amendment language specifically gives preference to higher education institutions that admit and educate our nation's returning veterans. this is a win-win, folks.

it helps develop our nation's energy resources and it helps our veterans. the time is now. these partner schools would be able to conduct offshore geological and geophysical surveys for research purposes. any data collected would be shared with the government and is prohibited from being used for commercial purposes. this language is modeled after existing regular -- regulations for seismic survey already in place at the bureau of ocean energy management. this amendment provides and promotes stem educational opportunities and prepares students in the south atlantic states of georgia, south carolina, north carolina, and virginia for cutting-edge, high-paying jobs of america's energy renaissance. just as mr. duncan spoke about, the time is now for that opportunity to be here. i would like to yield a minute to the gentleman from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman from

south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for the time and leadership on this issue. i'm wearing a clemson tiger orange tie today in support of clemson university. the university of south carolina on geologyng program and seismic testing. dr. james mapp testified before this committee about what they can do looking at 3-d and 4-d 21st century technology to find the resources, pinpoint those resources, and maximize the production of those resources. that's what we want. partnering with the universities as mr. wittman mentioned, to help shape the minds and opportunity and potential of future leaders within the energy realm. so i commend him. i support this amendment. i hope my colleagues will. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: i yield time to the chairman. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. once again the combination of

what you said and what the gentleman from south carolina said about the new technologies that will help us in the long run develop our own energy resources makes immensely good sense. i think this amendment adds to that process. i commend the gentleman and support the amendment. mr. wittman: madam chairman, i will close by saying this, it's about american jobs, developing our energy, educational opportunities, it's about promoting stem within our colleges and universities, it's about providing opportunities in historically black universities and colleges throughout the united states and providing opportunities for our veterans. this is a win-win for our nation. it's an amendment that should be adopted and should be voted on in favor by every member of this body. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does any member seek recognition to oppose the amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? miss caps: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. it madam chair, i rise in support of the capps-brownley-huffman-lowenthal amendment. this commence amendment simply ensures that the american public and safety regulators are kept nformed of offshore tracking

fracking activities in federal waters. last year a foia request revealed at least 15 fraks have taken place in federal waters off the coast of california during the last two decades, with several being approved as recently as last year. while we know little about the impacts of fracking on shore, we know even less about the impacts of offshore. any leak, spill, or blowout offshore would be very difficult to detect and contain. especially considering how little is known about the chemicals being used. exposure to these chemicals could seriously harm the sensitive marine areas in and around the channel islands national marine sanctuary and the santa barbara channel, where much of this activity is now occurring. such exposure would not only harm the marine environment, it would also harm our local economy. and that was why i was disappointed my amendment to simply study the impacts of offshore fracking was ruled out

of order. regardless of your views on offshore drilling, there should be bipartisan agreement that we need to fully understand the impacts of these activities, but the majority blocks debate on this amendment. so we can't even discuss it. madam chair, it's bad enough that offshore fracking is happening without a proper understanding of its impact. but it's even more troubling that no one even knew that it was happening in the first place. federal regulators claim they knew about these activities, but they didn't think it was necessary to notify the california coastal commission, local officials, or the public. if a spill occurs, the oil and chemicals don't stop at the three-mile mark where federal waters end and state waters begin. whether the spill is 10 miles offshore or four miles offshore, those chemicals will flow into state waters, they will wash up on to our local beaches. my constituents have a right to know what's happening in their backyard. that's why my amendment would simply ensure that the american

public and regulators like the california coastal commission, are notified whenever a permit to allow offshore fracking is filed. it doesn't slow down or stop these permits from being considered. it simply ensures that all stakeholders know about it and can respond accordingly. if as the oil companies claim offshore fracking poses minimal risk, then what is the harm of notifying the public of where and when it is happening? this is not a partisan idea. transparency is something both democrats and republicans have supported in the past. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to increase transparency in offshore fracking . i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: madam chairwoman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. hastings: madam chairman, i rise in obvious opposition to this amendment. theoff shore leasing process -- the offshore leasing process is managed by the federal government because the outer continental shelves are under federal jurisdiction, therefore you have that regulation from the federal government. that process, while there's always process i suppose with any regulation, this process is transparent. and the department is already required to publish a federal notice prior to any lease sale. in fact, when creating a five-year plan, the department is also required to consult with states and localities. this administration has just started their process right now r the time period of 2017 to 2022. mr. chairman, what this amendment really is is a red tape paperwork nightmare. it would have an overwhelming burdensome effect on all

existing offshore operations conducted today in the outer continental shelf. by adding additional layer of bureaucracy and by requiring notice for every permit application received, the amendment, mr. chairman, is so broad in its description of well enhanced activities that essentially every time a permit application that the bureau received would require a federal notice. think about that. every time you have an action like that that requires the federal notice, does it notlogically suggest that may be opened to some sort of legal activity? maybe that's perhaps what the sponsors of this amendment really want to do. so much down in the paperwork as to not have the activity of utilizing these resources. this amendment would inhibit offshore safety by turning the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement into a publishing behemoth. rather than allowing them to

focus on their mission of ensuring safe, offshore operations to continue. finally, i would like this notation, mr. chairman. all permit applications are made public on the bureau's website. i'll just put it part of the record, www.bsee.gov. why add additional requirements to publish information that is already opened and part of that website? mr. chairman, this amendment is unnecessary. i think it would add to the burdensome steps and hoops that one has to go through to utilize these resources that i think all americans want. keep in mind the issue is here in the long term. utilizing our resources to become more energy independent. utilizing these resources in the long run to have a vibrant energy component of our national economy. you can't have a growing economy unless you have certainty in the

energy sector. so this amendment in my -- from my point of view would slow that process down. i urge rejection of the amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i have no further speakers. i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, having witnessed the 1969 santa barbara oil spill, i know firsthand the devastation of community -- a community can experience when something goes wrong on offshore oil rigs. the marine ecosystem is devastated. local businesses lose customers, and they lay off workers. fishing boats are left idle in the harbor. given this reality, we owe it to those who suffer the impact of these spills, these mishaps, to make sure these activities are as safe as possible. increasing transparency will

strengthen oversight. it will improve safety. this is a commonsense idea that should have bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment that the burdensome paperwork it may create. the gentlelady lives in santa barbara and had a spill there many years ago, but i'd remind my friend from california that also within this legislation, within this legislation is language that strengthens the versight in a statutory way of activities in the outer continental shelf. currently, that's done no