unaccompanied children from central america.

we want to go outside of washington to get your take. how confident are you in president obama's foreign policy? (202) 585-3880, (202) 585-3881, interests. join the conversation on facebook.com. here is the headline in the "wall street journal" this morning, front page above the fold, pressure is upped on putin. here is what the president had to say at the white house yet. >> we emphasized our preference to resolve this issue diplomatically, but that we have to see condition greet actions and not just words that russia, in fact, is committed to trying

to end this conflict along the russia ukraine border. so far russia has failed to take any of the steps that i mentioned. on top of the sanctions we've already imposed we're therefore designates selected sections of the russian economy as eligible for. and we are blocking new financing of russia's most important banks and energy companies. these sanctions are significant but also targeted, designed to have the maximum impact on russia while limiting any spill over affects on american companies or those of our allies. now, we are taking these actions in close consultation with our european allies, meeting in brussels to agree on their next steps, and what we are expecting is that the russian leadership will see once again that its

actions in ukraine have consequences. including weakening russian economy, and increasing diplomatic isolation. now, meanwhile, we're going to continue to stand with the ukrainian people as they seek to determine their own future, even in the midst of this crisis they made remarkable progress these past few months. they held democratic elections, they elected a new president, they're pursuing important reforms and signed a new association agreement with the european union. the united states will continue to offer our support to ukraine to help stabilize the economy and defend its territorial integrity. ukrainians deserve the right to forge their own destiny. host: president obama yesterday talking about a new round of sanctions on russia. here is the reaction out of russia from the ministry of foreign affairs from the russian deputy foreign minister saying, u.s. sanctions versus russia to affect u.s. political and economic interests. from capitol hill the reaction,

hoyer, the number two democrat in the house, potus decision to enforce these sanctions shows we won't stand by the ukraine's sovereignty is threatened. senator corker, the number one republican on foreign affairs committee saying we will continue to urge the administration to ratchet up more pressure if putin doesn't change his behavior. the senator said on russia, the delay from the administration has been damaging to u.s. credibility but today's action is definitely a step in the right direction. and kelly ayotte, republican of, new hampshire, said this. administration's decision to impose additional sanctions on russia is important step forward. what is your thoughts this morning? we'll go to joe in las vegas, a democratic carl. you're on the air. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call again, greta.

i think president obama is doing a great job, using his wisdom correctly, and some people doesn't matter what he does or what he says, they just jump all over him constantly. you know, i got to laugh at all these people, because they don't even know t what wisdom means. besides that, like ted cruz, he thinks he can run for the president. he was born in canada. says in the constitution you have to be a naturalized citizen. host: let me ask you on foreign policy, what area around the world do you think the president -- where do you think there has been some missteps, if any? caller: well, from the missteps is the way the republicans make it sound. john mccain, he's still mad he

lost the presidency from him, you know. so really, you know, there isn't a misstep, it's just how they make it the reporting. actually fox news, all they do is make up lies constantly. so anyway. host: all right. we'll go to thomas in new jersey, republican caller. caller: good morning, greta, it's nice to speak to you. i spoke to you a month ago about eric cantor. it's nice to speak to you again. i'm calling because i'm concerned, greatly concerned that we don't have a strong foreign policy. just the other day the press secretary, josh ernest said on the international stage that it was training will. that couldn't be farther from the truth with the issues going on in israel and palestine and so many other places around the

world. host: so what do you think needs to happen? caller: well, i don't believe as a conservative, i don't believe we need on get involved in all the wars around the world, but i do believe we need to be more forceful force around the world in the sense that we need to show strength and not allow certain countries -- not allow them to exert too much power, because they're the ones that would use it for the bad and not for the good. host: and what countries are you thinking of? caller: russia, china, palestine, countries all over the world. host: okay. all right. from the "wall street journal" front page story this morning, they report the sanctions stop well short of crim ping international business ties or blocking deals with entire sectors of the russian economy. the u.s. and europe say separatest in ukraine are getting significant support from

russia, an accusation moscow denied. some u.s. lawmakers questioned whether the obama administration was ready to up the ante on the sanctions. "the new york times" also recording on this story this morning, on their jump page from their front page, obama announces new sanctions that hit top russian companies. this is what they report. the white house summonsed european ambassadors on monday to show them new intelligence on russian involvement in the ukrainian turmoil and press them to take stronger action. mr. obama called the british and french counterparts but the critical call came tuesday k with chancellor angela merkel from germany. the two oh cord nateed the actions on wednesday. in brussels, the european council told the european investment bank to suspend new financing for projects in russia and suggested that the european bank for reconstruction and development follow suit. the council also said it would decide by the end of july a list

of additional sanctions, targets, including those who actively provide material or financial support to the russian decision-makers. that language suggested europe might take an aim to a part of mr. putin's ruling clique. that is the latest on the president's decision to up the ante on russian sanctions. he also talked about negotiations with iran, as many of you know the deadline for a deal is this sunday, july 20t july 20th. here is what the president had to say. >> john updated me on the negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. over the last six months iran has met its commitments under the interim deal we reached last year, halting the progress of its nuclear program, allowing more inspections and rolling back its most dangerous stockpile of nuclear material. meanwhile, we are working with our p 5 plus one partners and

iran to each a comprehensive agreement that assures us that iran's program will in fact be peaceful, and that they won't obtain a nuclear weapon. based on consultations with secretary kerry and my national security team, it's clear to me we made real progress in several areas, and that we have a credible way forward. but as we approach a deadline of july 20th under the interim deal, there is still some significant gaps between the international community and iran, and we have more work to do. so over the next few days, we'll continue consulting with congress, and our team will continue discussions with iran and our partners, as we determine whether additional time is necessary to extend our negotiations. host: president obama at the white house saying that he will talk to congress about these iran negotiations. here is what -- how congress reacted on twitter. just spoke to barack obama. urged him not to make further concessions to iran, just for extending the current interim deal.

and then you have a republican from florida who used to chair the foreign relations committee saying iran's engaged in terrorists since '79 hostage crisis and has yet to be held accountable. administration can't reward it with concessions. 61% of americans support diplomacy with iran. congress should let diplomacy work. that's from the minnesota congressman, "the new york times" with the headlines, the president is likely to seek additional time for nuclear negotiations with iran. "the new york times" editorial board this morning, they weigh in on this, as well. and they say keep negotiating on iran's nukes. this is "the new york times" editor ile a, saying the extension should be given to these talks. that deadline is july 20th. the "washington post" editorial board saying the same this morning, the u.s. should

continue negotiating with iran. gal in highland park, michigan, democratic caller, we're getting your thoughts this morning on president obama's foreign policy. how confident are you in his foreign policy? caller: well, this is how i feel. i feel that our president is fully qualified. god put him there. he's a christian. he's a strong president. he's for the people. what the problem is, is what the congress, they need to stop putting him in a boxing ring, start agreeing with him more, working with him, so we can start getting things done. we're finishing watching a couple hour program on this about the lawsuits and all this, and you know, then i look at the foreign policy on this, we need to stop this. we need to stop this and come together as a whole nation. the congress needs to stop fighting him, putting him in the fight ring and let him do his

job and work with him so that we can have more peace here and in the foreign -- for the foreign countries. until we stop it, it's not going to get any better. host: okay. we're hearing from crazy democrats want republicans to call in. start dialing in. a democrat from memphis, tennessee, go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree with the president's foreign policy. we had mccain president, we would be at war somewhere. the republicans they want to go to war, like they did in iraq, and they don't care anything about people, they only represent corporations. we want to war in iraq for oil, so all these oil companies can make more money. they got billions of dollars. the republicans care nothing about the common man, they'll just -- they work for the people. the only people they care about, the people that got money. they send people to war, and

people diane they come back home and they get injured and wounded over there, and they can't get their v.a. benefits. they don't want to have any money. they accuse them of not wanting to work when they disabled and all this. these people, vote all the republicans out and we won't have to worry about going to war or none of this stuff no more. host: here are a couple tweets for you. if there's anyone in the world confident in o.'s foreign policy they need to be committed stat. and we have jean who says i have zero confidence with obama's foreign policy. it is not an american foreign policy. rust, what do you think? caller: the whole argument is bogus. president obama is a party to the industrial complex, just like the republicans. you can see a lot of republican support, intervention in

policies between russia, and ukraine. we went in there and decided the whole incident in ukraine. for us, the best thing would be allow the people to trade freely, or fairly, rather, and keep the military out of this whole situation. just make money and have good life for the people, so it's not rebellion. and our country wants to live inside the bubble and create this bogus argument between republicans and democrats, when there is no -- there is no argument. what we should do is allow the people to succeed in their countries. host: debbie you're next, republican caller. high, de the nny. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. what do you think about this? caller: well, in trying to respond to your question, i think that the obama administration foreign policy is not grounded on any fixed principles, it's more of an

ad hoc policy that is -- appears to make decisions based upon the short run analysis of what needs to be done, and as a result he has been very inconsistent in terms of supporting people seeking freedom. i think of the iranian situation, a number of years ago, and -- and on the other hand, he tends to pull the trigger very quickly on -- in circumstances where he thinks that the application of some force might be appropriate. i'm more of a long-term person, and i say you have to have a solid -- you have to have rules.

american citizens shouldn't be at risk when they travel in foreign countries. you know, those kinds of principals have to drive the policy, and i think that sadly our state department, which is the vehicle that is supposed to carry out the policy has basically taken an extremely narrow view where they believe that diplomacy is the answer to everything, no matter how horrible the situation is. host: so denny you might be interested in the article, the column, that david ignacius wrote yesterday in the "washington post" where he was critical of president obama's foreign policy and he wrote this. my colleague noted this week that obama needs a stronger team of rivals that can challenge his

ideas in foreign policy. but what he really needs is clarity and impact. that means a national security orchestra that can follow a well written score and a conductor who keeps the beat. in foreign policy the conductor is the national security adviser, susan rice. she is the chief implementation officer. she needs to help obama improve performance in the remainder of his second term. with this team or i different one. it won't be enough for obama to give a good strategy speech every few months, as he did at west point in late may. the white house needs to unknow kate its plans and directions every day in 100 subtle ways. rice was attacked so viciously in the benghazi uproar she kept her head down to a fault. she needs a higher profile and firmer hand. democratic call her, good morning, robert. caller: good morning, greta and america. what i want to say regarding president obama's foreign policy i don't think the question is so much about his foreign policy,

with all due respect. i think it's more about america's foreign policy, because i think overall view on -- the same lock step foreign policy approach that every president in the past 35, 40 years have followed. basically i'm referring to our unending, unyielding support of israel. we send over $30 billion a year to israel, and they build up a huge arsenal of -- host: how much did you say, rob shirt. caller: we spent over 30 -- we spend over $30 billion to israel. host: i don't think that figure is correct. where do you get that? caller: i had that from a book called the power of israel in america, written by a gentleman whose name i can't recall. host: the figure that has been reported in newspapers and on government web sites is more around $3 billion for military

defense. caller: i think it's more than that overall. that's a small point, though. what i want to say is i think with their current treatment of the palestinians, they have been killing iranian scientists, nuclear scientists a few years ago, everybody knew about that. also i want to say they invaded iranian air force trying to provoke war. a lot of stuff that takes place now in the middle east wouldn't take place because they wouldn't be so emboldened to do things they do. host: well, we'll tell you what the president had to say about the ongoing conflict between israel and hamas. i want to show you what the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the house had to say. on friday he participated in a christian science monitor breakfast and here is what he

had to say when asked wit aboute iran negotiations. >> this is a different kind of government, different type of thought process. do i feel i understand the ayatollah? no, we do not understand him. this is the old adage trust but verify. when you're dealing with someone that has used the type of rhetoric that he has used towards the united states, and not just towards the united states. this is a regime that has called for eliminating israel from the map. you know, my father reminds me when somebody talks about eliminating 6 million jews, we don't have an excuse, having gone through the history of what happened in the '30s and '40s of innorring that individual. when somebody says something along the lines of what was put in, about eliminating a race of people, or eliminating in this case the state of israel, and

again to put this into context, in his mind israel is simply the little satan. he has been very, very vocal about his animus towards other rereligious and the society that believes in freedom of religion, like our own. in this context, it's wise to be able to guarantee the security of the west in these negotiations with iran. host: republican california ed royce who chairs the committee in the house. in the papers today, "the new york times" said the president likely to ask for an extension, additional time beyond sunday, to broker some sort of deal. this is what "the new york times" reports. the iran proposal mr. kerry brought back to washington from vienna where he spent three days haggling with his counterpart is

widely judged as insufficient by american officials and intelligence experts. they argue it would not give the west the minimum mr. kerry said last year was acceptable. at least a year's warning time that iran was racing to produce enough bomb grade material for a nuclear weapon. that is something of an arbitrary measure, and in the minds of many nuclear experts a misleading one. there are many pathways to a bomb. iran could manufacture it in a covert facility, so far two such facilities have been discovered over the past dozen years. that from "the new york times." we're getting your thoughts this morning, your confidence level with president obama's foreign policy. you're up next,. caller: good morning. i think that obama is probably the worse president that i have ever experienced. i'm 70-years-old, and i've never

seen the rate of despair in this country over someone who has no idea what america stands for. you look at obama, and the rate that he has spent on going out to raise money is every five days, on an average, he's out at some college or some democratic organization raising money. every five days.

if he would spend that much time looking to our foreign policies, i think it might be a little bit better. another thing that i would like to say is you just made a comment about republicans not calling in. i call in quite frequently, as a matter of fact, and most of the time i don't get through. and a part of that has to do with the fact that when you have -- i don't know what you -- whether you know the people in your organization know the demographics of this country or not, but how many people that are calling in are blacks. their population rate is 12 to 13%. they're somewhere around 40% of the calls that you take on that program. i watch it every morning. host: what are you saying, john? they're calling -- caller: i'm saying that they either have too much time on their hands or that somebody in your organization is making a decision to let them on the program. host: john, that's just ridiculous but that doesn't happen. we don't know who is calling the

racial make up of our callers. we get a phone number that says their zip code and city and state. we ask everybody to respect the 30-day rule, don't call in if you've already called in before that 30 days. and to also call in on the line that represents you, whether independent, all others, democrats or republicans. we want to point you to the congressional research service that has put together this report. u.s. foreign aid to israel, this is from april of this year. and it goes through the aid that is given to israel, all the different areas, so take a look at that. you can find it, if you do a google search, if you're interested in the actual number. we'll go next to -- let's go to albert in augusta, georgia. hi, albert, go ahead. caller: this is albert calling in. and greta the fact that i am

afro-american, as the caller just stated, i'm a three time vietnam war veteran, i'm retired veteran, and i'm also in my 70s. but i would like to state let's stick to the facts. the fact is why we so upset with iran and most people are too young to remember that we supported the iran regime, we reported them when they -- for oil, and that's the reason we supported them. and the ayatolla when he took over the ran, the shah of iran had people in prison, as americans we supported those people. we also at that time prior to that had an iran, military bases, we had military people stationed there. we trained the iranian forces in america. i helped tha train those soldie, troops, during that time. and now we want to go to war

with them, but as far as israel is concerned israeli can put iran out anytime it wants. israel do not need our support. they've already bombed nuclear facility once, they can do it again. and they have more than sufficient weapons to take care of themselves. thank you. host: all right, albert. we'll get to more of your thoughts here on your confidence level in president obama's foreign policy, but i want to give you some other headlines. this courtesy of the museum in washington, the atlanta journal constitution, the cdc chief who testified yesterday on capitol hill vows to target lab safety. there have been lapse at several facilities with anthrax, avian flu showing sloppy practices. we covered that hearing. so if you missed it, you're interested in what's going on there, go to the web site, c-span.org.

you can find it there. on capitol hill as we told you earlier the gmceo, mary barra will be testifying, along with the head of parts maker to testify about the ignition switch problems, and we will have coverage of that on c-span-3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. so 10:00 a.m. eastern time, mary bar a back up on capitol hill. also the "washington post" reporting on that anthrax story that the fda found more than smallpox in one of the storage rooms. hundreds of vials of potentially dangerous pathogens, which is in bethesda, just outside of washington here. on the southern border story, the "washington post" this morning, the administration border crossings have slowed. the homeland security officials,

including the secretary, jeh johnson and other officials said apprehension of illegal border crossers has dropped over the past three weeks, to an average of 700 per day, down from 1600. that in the "washington post" this morning, about the border situation. so we will be talking about that more coming up here on the "washington journal" with two members of congress. also yesterday, we told you about the lawsuit, we talked about that here on the "washington journal." we also covered the house rules committee had a hearing about the gop lawsuit against president obama on executive action, the headline in "the new

york times" from jeremy peters is that partisan ship infuses that hearing on the health care and executive power. that expected to come to a vote in the house, possibly next week. back to your thoughts, your confidence level in president obama's foreign policy. thanks for hanging on the line. chris, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you. as far as iran is concerned, i personally feel that within the last six months they have been complying, and although we are a strong, powerful nation that doesn't mean we always have to use brute force. i think, you know, some extension on that time would definitely be in our benefit. i think that would also free up time for us to focus a little bit more of our policy on central america, to really get at the root of the problem going on across our southern border. host: all right, chris. we'll go to jerry in springfield, ohio, democratic caller. jerry, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. you know, i'm 65-years-old, and i'm a white american, not that that matters, but i voted for barack obama twice and i'm proud of it. i have a lot of confidence in him. i think he is extremely intelligent and analytical and i think that's just what we need

in managing a foreign policy in a very turbulent and difficult time. like i said i lived through 11 presidents so far, and they've all had to handle tough foreign policy problems, and decisions, and we certainly need somebody with a cool head like barack obama. we do not need a temperamental john mccain who made a little tune out of bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran. that certainly is not the right approach to dealing with problems in this world. host: all right. dennis in birmingham, alabama, is a republican. dennis, what do you think? caller: yes, ma'am. in response to the caller from georgia earlier talking about fighting the wars for oil, what i believe is that our foreign interests sometimes is -- we do have to look at the cause of the war, how it affects the everyday

individual, but moreover we have to find the foreign policy with sanctions and things like that that pertain to our homeland, our southern border right now these crossings they're finding, not just i grants that came, they're finding koreans and people that may be entering our country. a lot of these things connect with your headlines today, when you find anthrax, and things like that, that are getting loose. these could be coming across our borders. so that's one reason, not just because of immigration, this could enter our country. and put ourselves in danger of a disaster like 9/11 but in a bigger aspect. i think we need to deal with mexico and some of our southern countries, as far as, you know, to try to deal with them with economic measures to help protect our borders. host: and economic sanctions,

that type of approach you agree that that more than force? caller: i think we secure our borders but encourage those countries to -- you know, like to help their southern borders, in mexico, and things like that, so it makes us safer here, that we have more control over it also. but do economic things. host: all right. tracy you're up next an independent in sikesville, maryland. good morning to you. caller: i have a possible reason for obama's foreign policy problems, and it's found -- it's one sentence and i'm going to read it for you. host: okay. caller: the constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. must be found elsewhere to ascertain that. that common law with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar it was never doubted that all children born in a

country of parents, parents, that's plural, who were its citizens became themselves upon their birth citizens also. obama's father was a british subject. obama was born a british subject. and this case proves it and i have seven other cases that prove the same thing. host: all right. that's tracy. her opinion. we next want to show you what the president had to say at the white house when he addressed the conflict between israel and hamas. >> we continue to support diplomatic efforts to end the violence between israel and hamas. as i said repeatedly, israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks that terrorize the israeli people. there's no country on earth that can be expected to live under a daily barrage of rockets. and i'm proud that the iron dome system that americans helped israel develop and fund has

saved many israeli lives. but over the past two weeks, we've all been heartbroken by the violence, especially the death and injury of so many innocent civilians in gaza. men, women, and children who are caught in the crossfire. that's why we have been working with our partners in the region to pursue a cease-fire, to protect civilians on both sides. yesterday israel did agree to a cease-fire. unfortunately hamas continued to fire rockets at civilians, thereby prolonging the conflict. the israeli people and the palestinian people don't want to live like this. they deserve to live in peace and security, free from fear. that's why we're going to continue to encourage diplomatic efforts to restore the crease fire, and we support egypt's continued efforts to bring this about. over the next 24 hours, we'll continue to stay in close contact with our friends and parties in the region, and we will use all of our diplomatic resources and relationships to

support efforts of closing a deal on a cease-fire. in the meantime, we're going to continue to stress the need to protect civilians in gaza and in israel, and to avoid further escalation. host: the president on the situation in israel. up on capitol hill, here is the reaction, the speaker of the house, john boehner, tweeting this out. israel is our friend and israelis enemies are our enemies. and steny hoyer, the democrat from maryland, said friday the house passed resolution supporting israel as it defends itself against hamas attacks. you can read estatement. front page in "the new york times" on this, let me show you the picture here. with the caption, the aftermath of an air strike on a beach in gaza city on wednesday, four young palestinian boys, all cousins, were killed.

they stood out because they were blameless, children who simply wanted to play on their favorite beach near the fishing port where their large extended family keeps its boats. the killings crystalize the problem for the gaza people trapped, and its affiliates who fire rockets into israel with little regard for how that impacts gaza. israeli invasion of gaza is likely, officials say. it has already been -- the crease fire has already ended, cnn reporting this morning. the palestinian death toll reaching 214 on wednesday. israel and the gaza militants agree to end the violence for five hours today. it was a move that might help

mitigate international criticism of rising civilian casualties and that carried little cost. that's the latest from "the new york times" on the situation there. how confident are you in president obama's foreign policy? civilian in, mississippi, a democrat, go ahead, cecilia. caller: i'm very confident, because he is a cautious man. that's who got us into that last situation. i have to -- that comes clearly from the bible. and what we're seeing is the republican house i feel is responsible for all this conflict because they know if this people will treat a black president like that what will they do to them? what will they do to them? this is an honest man that tries to look out for the welfare of this country. leave it up to those people, we would be in a conflict all over

the country, and that is just not logical. we are in a different time at a different place. and if we're scattered out all over the world trying to put our conflicts, we cannot properly protect ourselves. these people need to stop hating, because that is what is going to destroy the country. host: all right. dorothy next from covington, louisiana, a republican caller. hi, dorothy. caller: what i'm calling about is i am an elderly woman but my husband was just before he was supposed to have been -- for british petroleum. he was -- he was supposed to -- we were supposed to go to iran when komeni took over, but he had health problem, and we didn't go. but before that we spent a great deal of time over in the middle east. he was in charge of research.

anyway, we were -- so he was working all over the world and doing these things. and he would take me along and i would get to know the different people. and i had a very dear friend who had two offices in egypt. one was called amaco egypt. host: we're running out of time. caller: okay. i'm sorry. what i wanted to tell you is there are two different kinds of muslims. there is suni, are the old muslims. khomeini, and the other -- what are they? anyway, the -- i rode around, he took me to visit every mosque in cairo, and they accepted me as a woman, except one little new kind, and it is a communist

backed, they took over -- it's the shiite, and we were -- we were supposed to go to -- host: i'm going to leave it there. i think we got your point. i want to show your viewers a couple more headlines. here is the world section of the "washington post." this on syria. causassad tells the world i tolu so. the syrian president says events in the region prove he was right. from the world news section of the "wall street journal," defiant syrian leader sworn in for a new term. below that story, the headline u.s. goes slow, starts small and plans to aid. ramping up slower over an extended period, while offering no quick support to modern fighters who are losing ground to both the assad regime and

jihaddists. the pentagon official said -- reflects the difficulty >> designed to weed out hardline islamists. that's the rationale from the pentagon in the "wall street journal" on that. also want to share with you front page of the "wall street journal," front page of "usa today," as well. time warner rejected the first offering of $80 billion. the "wall street journal" says, all big media companies are trying to find the magic formula that will inoculate them from the pressures that could come, for example from customers cutting their paid tv connections in greater numbers, and they are trying to position themselves to exploit rather than be buffeted by the growing viewership of content on line and on mobile devices.

then the front page of "usa today" on this story says a done deal, $80 billion offer is likely just the first act. if fox and time warner were to come together, and that's if regulators approve it, no sure thing, the combined mega entertainment would own two huge hollywood movie studios, 28 local news stations, as well as popular cable channels, hbo, tnt and tbs. that in "usa today." let's get in one last phone call here. independent caller, jack, what is your confidence level in the president's foreign policy? caller: i have to agree with the caller from ohio that said obama is analytical, and he is methodical about his foreign poll circumstances and has not got enus into war with syria and

iran. and it's easy to go to war, and lose treasure and lose lives. it's interesting, too, that we went to war in vietnam, now i'm wearing shirts made in vietnam. so really what does war accomplish? and lastly, with regard to the gaza conflict, i think it's a shame that the disproportionate amount of killing on the gaza side, over 200 civilians are killed and i think one israeli has been killed, we have to keep in mind israel is a colonial power occupying land that is notth theirs. host: all right. that was jack in false church, virginia. some of you might be wondering what happened to jay carney the former press person. politico says he has just left the white house and joined the

ranks of george bush, lecturing on the private speaking. that in politico this morning. coming up next, we'll get the latest on the situation on the border with iowa republican steve king, and later we'll continue our discussion on immigration with texas democrat eddie bernice johnson. but first, here is the headline from "usa today" about a hearing up on capitol hill yesterday. 636,000 vets wait a month or more to see doctors. the acting va secretary puts the price tag on addressing this situation at $17.6 billion. here is what he had to say yesterday at that hearing. >> to begin restoring trust we focused on six key priorities. get veterans off wait lists and into clinics. fix systemic scheduling

problems, address cultural issues, hold people accountable. establish regular and ongoing disclosures of information. and finally, quantify the resources needed to consistently deliver timely high quality health care. here is what we're doing now. vha reached out to over 160,000 veterans to get them off wait lists and into clinics and made over 543,000 referrals for veterans to receive care in the private sector. 91,000 more than in a comparable period a year ago. this is in the last two-month period. and i would point out here that for each of those referrals on average, they result in seven visits to a clinician. vha facilities are adding more clinic hours, aggressively recruiting to fill physician vacancies, using temporary

staffing resources, and expanding the use of private sector care. we're moving rapidly to augment and improve our existing schedule system while simultaneously pursuing the purchase of a commercial off the shelf state of the art scheduling system. i've directed medical center and visiting directors to conduct monthly inspections in person of their clinics to assess the state of scheduling practices and to identify any related obstacles to timely care for veterans. to date over 1100 of these visits have been conducted. we're putting in place a comprehensive external audit of scheduling practices across the entire vha system. we're building a more robust continuous system for measuring patient satisfaction, which i believe will be central to our measurement processes in the future. i've personally visited 10 va medical centers in the last six weeks, to hear directly from the field on the actions being taken

to get veterans off wait lists and into clinics. i leave later today for el paso. the inappropriate 14-day access measure has been removed from all individual employee performance plans to eliminate any motive for inappropriate scheduling practices. in the course of completing this tax over 13,000 performance plans were amended. where will phil misconduct is documented appropriate actions will be taken. this also applies to whistle blower retaliation. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and we're back now with representative steve king, republican from iowa. here to talk about immigration policy and the recent influx of migrant children over the border. congressman, thank you so much for being here. >> thanks for having me. i appreciate it. host: i wanted to point out that you are a member of the agriculture and judicial

committees and you sit on the immigration and border security sub committee, as well. and i want to start by asking you about the recent legislation from your colleague, representative john cornyn, that would make it easier for the government to turn away some of these legal immigrants at the border, send them back to their home countries. is this a proposal you support? >> i think it's unlikely it will be able to support the entire proposal. i suggested instead that we do the very simple thing, and first i believe the president has the authority to transfer these unaccompanied children back to their home country without changing the law. and i think that you look at the definitions a little more closely, it seems like they essentially exploited the language, and opened the door, rather than read the language more carefully and closed the door. but aside from that distinction, i've taken the trouble to write

the bill that fixes it and a very narrow bill and introduced it into the congressional record about three weeks ago but i did not file the bile so that it doesn't get assigned a committee and get moved through the process in the house because i'm concerned if we send anything out of the house that has to do with immigration it goes over to the senate, where they attach the senate gang of eight bill and send it back to us. i message it over to the senate and i asked i a couple senators will you pick that little fix up and send it to the house as a stand alone bill, a clean fix. it's more of a shield for the administration anyway. if we need to take that shield away and say you no longer have a reason or excuse, however you want to define that you can go ahead and start dealing with the unaccompanied children from other than mexican countries the same way you do the mexican unaccompanied children. the rest of this thing is because of the administration, and i would call it a man caused disaster and the man sits in the

white house. he had a lot of tools to enforce the law, and this is the product of him actually defying the law with his executive edicts. host: explain your fix more specifically. >> the current law in the 2008 human trafficking bill, and it sets up a provision so that unaccompanied children from contiguous country, canadaen a mexico, primarily mexico, we would direct health and human services, the state department and homeland security to negotiate with the adjoining countries for a provision to return their unaccompanied minors to them, to reach that agreement. that was a good piece of that bill, and it's actually worked well. it's turned the mexican unaccompanied minor children back relatively quickly, within a few days. we need to set the same provision um for the noncontiguous countries. and that's really all we need to do, and the balance of this actually we could get along without it. but the president's using that

as an excuse, so let's fix it but send us a bill from the senate. i sent it over there. pass it in the senate, send it to the house, we can send a clean fix to the president without a lot of contention, except i learned that there are liberals in congress that do not want to send these kids back. and so they're going to oppose a fix, because they want these kids to be spread across the country in the fashion that they are, and what we're learning is that health and human services will deliver them to just about any address that they request, and pull up at the curb or in the driveway and let this child out and check who is inside, they don't check on the verification of whether they're parents, related or whether they're lawfully in america or not but create eighting a big problem and the real truth of it is the administration is completing the crime of human trafficking. host: i want to remind our viewers about what the act actually does. it would require all unaccompanied minor children to be treated equally regardless of

the country of origin. it would also require immigration judges to hear cases of migrant children within seven days of the initial screening. it sounds like this bill does address some of the verification and procedural issues you just mentioned. what parts of the bill are you uncomfortable with? >> one part is to expand the adjudication process, this sets up a permanent system where we have a whole series of new judges and puts money into judges and prosecutors where currently we have border patrol agents and homeland security people that are making that decision for adjoining -- for the -- for those whom they pick up at the border. i don't think there is any reason to expand the adjudication. give authority to the people who are making the decision for the adjoining countries, mexico, for example. another it takes us down a path or its got border secure it language in it that mirrors much of the border security language that was in the gang of eight bill, which really didn't solve

the problem. and so i think that we get diverted down some other paths here. there is one person, and that can easily secure our border, it's the president of the united states. and you know, we get diverted going down these paths of trying to work a bipartisian bill that gets complex, and granted this isn't as complex as many that we have seen. we take our eye off the ball. mr. president, secure the border. stop the bleeding at the border. the most excellent statement on this that i heard in my years dealing with this issue, and he is an emergency room doctor, and he said when they bring patient in to the emergency room, and the patient is bleeding off the gurney all over the floor, i don't grab the mop and the bucket and start to clean up the floor, i stop the bleeding. and this doesn't get the bleeding stopped. you cannot force this president to secure the border, until he decides he's going to secure it. i don't want to get diverted, i want to focus this. calling on the president to do his job. if he doesn't, and i've come to the conclusion he will not, it's

not in his political interest to secure the border, the next person we need to go to is the governor of the border states, they're the only other people in the country or the planet that can actually secure the border. if the president refuses then the governor of texas can secure the border by calling up his own national guard. host: i would like to take call hers now and remind you you can join the conversation, as well by calling us at 202585, on the republican line, and on the independent line at (202)585-3882. we'll take our first caller now that is julia from north carolina calling on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on the air. caller: yes. want to ask steve king, why does he not like immigrants? you were an immigrant when you first got here. >> i think you leaped to a

conclusion, julian. here is where it is. so much of this dialogue that has to do with immigration, the term illegal immigration and legal immigration has been conflated to where when we talk to each other we miss that point. i don't know anybody that's not pro immigrant. that means pro legal immigrant. i'm for the rule of law. so i've taken an oath to uphold the constitution, that means to defend it, preserve, protect and defend the supreme law of the land, and that's the rule of land. i can't be pro illegal immigrant and pro rule of law. my decision is i want the integrity of this country to be held together. i think we're a far better country if we restore the rule of law and let's have a legal immigration policy that's designed to enhance the cultural well-being of the united states of america and treat everybody on the hadn't it with dignity that every human person deserves. host: our next caller is tyrone from south carolina, calling on

the independent line. tyrone, good morning. caller: good morning. mr. king, why is he following the rule of law? the rule of law was dictated in 2008 by george bush. everybody signed off on it. why ain't you fallin fall folloe law? >> i'm not sure which law you're speaking to. caller: talking about the law that when -- the kids come in here, and you can't just send them back, you have a day in court. >> tyrone, that -- first where in this business to change laws, to write them and change them. that law in 2008 was filed in the house of representatives on december 9th, 2008, the day before we gaveled out for the entire congress, the two year congress, and that was late in the day. the next day, it was referred to three committees. the next day after last votes in, everybody went to the airport to go home for christmas, they called up that bill and asked for unanimous

consent. they voice voted it over to the senate where they were waiting to do exactly the same thing. that bill was never debated, never voted on. it was slipped through and what you would consider to be the dark of the night. but i would still accept the law. and we have an obligation to change it. i'm saying this. that the language within the law does not produce the result as -- the interpretation the president is currently using, but rather than having that argument let's just fix the law and fix it so we can send these kids back to their home countries the same way we do the children from mexico

-- they are the one that are probably out of work. if they think they are out of work now, wait until you bring 17, 18-year-olds, that are uneducated, who is going to support them? i can hardly support myself. are speakingk you about people not telling the truth generally.

i pulled together a group that brought about a lawsuit because the president has ordered the immigration enforcement officials, particularly ice, to violate the law. to place them in removal proceedings. , the action oner childhood arrivals, it refuses to allow them to follow the law. it orders them to break it. million anding $6.6 mile to protect our border. only $4 million a mile to purchase land through expensive cornfields and build a four-lane interstate highway and do all of the things that we do. we could do that every year on our border for the full 2000 miles of that border and if you

pour another foot on top of it every year, you would be able to secure the border. we have a lack of political will. the lack of political will exists in democrats and a significant extent with some of the republicans. host: there was a poll that came out from the washington post do you approve or disapprove the way the republicans in congress are handling the issue of undocumented immigrants coming to the border from mexico. it was notable that the disapproval rate for the republicans was almost equal -- 48% approve and 45% disapprove. how much discord might there be in your party over the border? guest: it is hard to answer. i would break it out this way.

there is a number around 70 that say we are going to restore the rule of law. we will not compromise on that. that means we are not going to support amnesty. asesty, let's defined it legalization. about 70 stands strong on that. about two dozen would like to join with the democrats and support the senate toss again of eight bill. in the middle,m there is a varying degree. some say they would go a little ways. some would go a lot are there. forget thing i think we about is in this congress, we the members that have been here three and a half years or less. the intensity of immigration has been ramping up. when that happens, they get informed.

the more informed, the more likely they are, at least on the republican side, to come down on the rule of law and step away from amnesty. i see this shifting towards we have americans we need to be concerned about. we have plenty of americans to do this work. there are 92 million americans reporting they are not in the workforce. another 12 million are unemployed and listed as unemployed. there are 104.1 million americans not in the workforce. we have over 80 welfare tested programs. would expand the welfare and bring in other people to do work? we are paying out of one pocket to support people who should be working and we are paying out of

another pocket to bring people into do some of that work. we are creating a country that we are lowering the gdp of our people. we should be increasing the average individual gross domestic product of our people. more people to work for higher wages. not looser labor supplies. host: i want to read you paragraphs from the omaha world herald. opponent employees signature guidelines when discussing this issue. he questioned the need for time-consuming hearings for children. -- we catch you here, you go back. invasion into it -- this is an invasion into our country. do you think our country is

being invaded by illegal aliens? -- illegal immigrants? guest: i know it is. i remember at san miguel and listening to the vehicles drive through with the brush scratching on the side of stop,hicles, have them hear the doors. you could hear people get out. creekuld hear the fence 30 or 40 yards from down or i am. i have written for hours with the border patrol while we pick people up and arrested them and processed them and took them back to the borders. the testimony that comes from border patrol and other agents -- the highest testimony i have heard from the border patrol or other officers

is that the highest number they give is about 25% of those that attempt to cross the border. i go to the border and they say 10% has to come first. if we take the 25% and take the numbers of the interjections during its peak at 2007, there were about 11,000 border attempts a night. that is every night. that is twice the size of santa anna's army. numbers are probably about half of what they were in the peak of 2007, but there is a higher percentage of unaccompanied minors because of the reasons we know. is the situation we are facing now and issue of enforcement? are news reports showing the miners are trying to turn themselves into the border patrol?

guest: the border patrol used to say we chase them and now they chase us. that is a chocking -- that is a shocking phrase. transporting be unaccompanied minors or other north, east,s west. they should not be going into the united states. in an areahold them where we can contain them, where we know who they are. they should be fingerprinted and photographs taken. we need to say you're not going into america, you're going home. andan house them cheaply now they are scattering these kids all over america, to multiple locations. governors of states are not being advised when they come in .o be dropped off that is wrong. if the president wanted to fix

this, he would need to call the presence of guatemala, el salvador, and under us and say be on the tarmac. we have a plane of your kids that you will need to repatriate. that will be the media shot that will stay -- say to the rest of your country do not send your children across the desert. we should not be reprieve repatriating children back in the families who put their children on a journey like that. host: what is the likelihood of some sort of negotiation with some of these countries? it is a guest: diplomatic type of a discussion. we are not in a position to make a commitment for the governor salvador. we had a conversation. my staff said they could hear laughter, but they hurt us raise our voices.

we talked about a number of different scenarios. he said yes, we want our kids back. we do not want our children to leave el salvador. we need them in our country to rebuild our country and put it back together. accuratehat is an statement and the right policy for them to have. he also said, before we would take them back, we would need to have them certified. we did not know who their parents are. that we do not have the documentation here in the united states, so to put the onus on us, makes it a bureaucratic hurdle that is too great. it is three countries, primarily. i would have the u.s. immigration officials identify poolountry of origin and them by country and ask them to

come in from their consulate and say can you confirm the kids are from guatemala, salvador, honduras -- if that is the case, take them back. i want to bring you some tweets. do you perceive a difference between a refugee and analytical -- and and illegal immigrant? ays lso have a tweet that we need to show compassion and love for these children. does the fact that their children change the debate? it does. we need to take care the children a more protective way than we do adults. it is hard to draw the distinctive line between them. do not have identification. a good number of them do not have a legal existence in their home country.

some information out of mexico is that half the children born , those not born in a hospital may not have a birth certificate. it is hard to identify who they are. health and human services refugee resettlement website has data picked up by a guatemala city newspaper. of the unaccompanied children, 80% are male. we see a lot of pictures of little girls. pictures, but the proportion are 80% are male. of those children, 83% are ages 15, 16, and 17 years old. 80 percent and 83% are prime gang recruitment age. that is not good for our country to bring those young men into

america from the most violent countries in the world. 10 most violent countries in the world are south of mexico. fear that they will be recruited or killed by the gangs. these are difficult questions to ask and answer. we should remember that the unaccompanied minor children are young males of prime gain recruitment age. impact on a negative americans and legal and illegal immigrants in america. host: let's get back to some calls. they can call a special line for border state residents at (202) 585-3883. danny, birmingham, alabama. thank you, c-span. i have several comments. i will begin with the law. does it in fact expand to any

other countries or just these that might be connected to our borders? that china and immigrants come in or refugees or whatever they may call themselves, they come in on ships. i would like to see that law extended. we need to fix the gray areas in the loss of the law is enforced. so that the law is enforced. the children coming over now, they are sending their kids over on thed it pulls heartstrings, mine as well. it is a conundrum to me what you do with them other then send them back.

it is going to be like the dream act. it is to protect the children. it is no fault of their own. later on, they are going to say we need to reunite their and so now, one child or two children turns into an extended family. danny, the bill that i have written allows for that to be expanded into the countries -- it is not limited. it foresees there will be countries that emerged i need to be dealt with. i suggest we need to be negotiating. it requires a negotiation with each country. we should go where the biggest problem is. i think you could agree with that. working our way out and to countries where the smaller numbers are. we hear the discussion

about the dreamers and through no fault of their own, a lot of these kids would qualify for the dream act. heard of valedictorians, they came to america through no fault of their own, we should make them productive citizens. those are things that tug at our heartstrings. it is hard to see train loads of across 25 far miles and described them as they got here through no fault of their own. and that they are responsible. they know what is wrong. they know it is a violation of american law. when you're 17 years old, you have reached the age of consent in a lot of states to do a lot of things.

they have formed intent long before they are 17 years old. randy, own knowledge, iowa. iowa.ndy, o lived in texas in the 70's. i saw how their tradition and how they lived with this over the last hundred years. there have been illegal immigrants in texas exploited for profit. the american government was cheated out of tax dollars. we have this problem and i think that part of the problem came to washington with president bush. overall, when i think of a disaster in office, it started to2002, when you went

washington. that is when the deficit started building. that is when the balanced budgets ended. when we talk about truths, stopping the bleeding, clean bills, when was the last time congress sent a clean bill? guest: i've proposed a clean bill this morning. the last time we sent one out, that is a difficult question. all of us have a lot of frustration. ll.ike to do a clean bi i like the public to see what we're are doing with full transparency. it seems like they -- when they get a keep it -- try to bill passed, they often lose my vote. some of this problem existed when ronald reagan signed the amnesty act. it has gotten worse. each president since then, bill clinton deported the highest number of people in the year 2000.

this, it wasde of accelerated by september 11. votes that my staff pointed to. if the rest had followed, we would have a balanced budget and we would have paid off our national debt. there is much about this topic that you have discussed. we should always come back to the constitution and we should come back to the rule of law. great nation, but we need to restore the pillars and move on. sometimes, our heart gets ahead of our head. caller,e last democratic line. ernie, good morning. bernie, good morning. the illegals come into our schools, they make demands. i hate to say this. i never thought i would say this.

i never thought in a million years i would agree with anything that is written fairy or this gentleman on the line. i agree 100%. the thing about this, this will impact poor, black people. they will move into our communities. they are going to make demands and our children are being ignored. host: your comments, congressman. guest: i am glad to hear this. of people not in the workforce are disenfranchised because illegals will work for less. point one million people that i talked about, give them the dignity of jobs. all jobs had dignity. there are a few things to fix the pathology of society. get a job, keep a job. raise your children, raise them

well. raise them to be faithful and patriotic. when i walk through neighborhoods over this country and people get up and go to work and love their families, that is what america used to be about. we need more people working in pulling together. i see what you are looking at and talking about. we're going to come to the realization -- some good can come from this crisis. host: thank you for joining us. up next, we will continue the discussion with eddie bernice johnson of texas. "washington journal" will be right back. ♪

>> 40 years ago, watergate led to the only resignation of an american president. revisits theory tv final weeks of the nixon administration. membersstatements as consider articles of impeachment against president next and. is the one act in which the entire country participates. it stands as a symbol of our unity and commitment. peoplehe judgment of the that if the symbol is to be replaced, to the action of the elected representative, that

must be for substantial offenses supported by fact. >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night. on american history tv. >> c-span brings public affairs of vents from washington to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, briefings, and congresses -- and conferences. it is a public service of private industry. we are c-span. create a by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd. follow us on twitter. you can keep in touch with any phone at any time. can hear congressional

coverage, public affairs forms and today's program. you can hear audio of the five public affairs programs. host: our guest now is eddie bernice johnson. she is a democrat from texas. science space and technology ranking member. thank you for joining us. discuss the to current debate on immigration policy. our representative from iowa seated here, talking about the new proposal from your

colleagues. support for the proposal might be. he supports parts of it, but not all of the. where do you stand? the same way. at some portions i could support, other parts i could not support. i have not seen anything beyond thatmmigration reform bill i can wholeheartedly support. perhaps by the time it comes to a vote or by the time it comes to a committee hearing, there might be some areas in which i can support. some of the things the bill would do is make it easier for government officials to send back children who are crossing the border illegally. of there portions spending request that deal with

the issue of migrant children, are there portions that you feel are more likely to make it through congress than others? would like to see everyone make it. those departments cannot function without the dollars to do the job. i am not sure. we have had difficulty with everything the president has asked for at the house. it is difficult for me to predict at this time. i am hoping people will dealingnd what we're with -- the crisis of these young children and understand that these young children, in 20 years, they will be adults. we are dealing with international affairs. how we deal with other countries, how we are able to assist other countries develop some type of system for justice and equality.

it will make a great difference. host: steve king issued -- mentioned earlier, it is an issue of border security. you are claiming it is an issue of justice and equality. to look at the young children. in terms of security, we have to look at the world. these countries are not whereing by civil society you have law enforcement more strictly enforced. where most of the economy has come from your legal activities. a lot of gang activities. these children seem to be escaping, trying to find a better life, with the assistance of adults. these took one cannot do this

without adults. it is clear that this is a movement that has been well planned. from children have to come more than one country all the way through mexico into the border. it has been land for them. they cannot plan for themselves. i think how we treat the children well make history for them. or good.d this country is made up of immigrants. some by looking for a better life and some by imitation. this is no different from the past. it is just that, all of a sudden, we cannot get our act together in immigration reform. that the united

states is the place where you can reach the american dream and everyone is a magnet. it draws people from all over the world. it is easier for border states to migrate than for other .ountries host: you can call at republicans, (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. we have opened a special line for border state residence at (202) 585-3883. i want to get your reaction to this poll. do you approve or disapprove of the way president obama is

handling them coming into the you united states over the border with mexico. there was a recent poll in usa fory that shows support undocumented immigrants to stay in the u.s. legally. where is the plan failing to resonate with voters. guest: there is a great deal of fear and excited. -- and anxiety. people are having a harder time. this is a threat. if we had immigration reform, people would be much more

comfortable. we have had an influx. these people have been coming for quite a few years. quite a few people all the time. this is how they have been handled all the time. ofhas been going on a number years. since we do not have immigration reform we have parents who are -- the children, from what i understand, someone pays for their transportation. host: to our callers. barbara, summer, washington. caller: thank you for c-span. i started listening in the middle of steve king's program.

i took a study group on it and i have added the commuter right now -- at the computer right now. --y must have been president present in the united states at least five consecutive years prior to the bill. must have graduated from a u.s. high school or gotten a ged or been accepted into college. must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application and must have good moral character. when he is saying that these

people coming now could qualify and be covered and stay under the dream act, that is false. you --.like to hear how you.: i agree with it is not with the dream act is about. an attemptct is not to address the children coming now. this issue has not been effectively addressed. it has been a problem. 2000s been a problem since . has not been addressed because the numbers of children coming have never exceeded a certain number. is what in the number is causing the excitement right now. many of the faith community have been receiving and working with these young people.

some of them have attempted to build dormitories in their own country for when they go back so they do not have to go back into and into ainty crime-ridden community. host: lillian, go ahead. caller: i have a problem with the immigrants at our border, coming here. giving -- we are a giving country. i understand that. everyone is willing to pump all immigrants,y to the we have people in texas, what about the people unemployed here. they have been begging for this congress to pass a bill to let it go through. you can put money into

immigrants, people will come here with their children. god love the children. state thatple in our need help. agree with you totally. we have people in our state that needs help. congress is in this attempting to address many of the problems that people deal with. unemployment compensation, for example. there are many people unemployed that are desperately in need of it. one problem does not take away or solve another. each problem has to be dealt with. the children are not getting this money. provided,es that are the service people receiving the money, first of all, we have to give so much money to the justice department to establish additional courts and to give --

and to get the children to follow our own law. they have to have a day in court. that, we have to establish more court, hire more attorneys. the justice department gets so much money. that is not free. many of these facilities are .losed in san antonio, there is a closed military base. it seems to be working well. we have to have other facilities. in my area, there are closed schools. very few facilities for showers or bathing. it takes money to do that. mentioned the issue of housing and sheltering some of -- some of the

controversy is where the children will end up. i would like to read you an article that says there is a plan to house migrant children in a necessary move to care for them in a growing crisis. it would see the county house and care for as many as 2000 children who crossed the border alone. when dallasope is county steps up, the state and others will step up. do you support having these children in your district? how should they be cared for? guest: if nobody wants them in their district, every facility is going to be in someone's district. if america cannot reach out to children in need, i don't know what else we can do.

clearly it takes us out of our comfort zone. they have to have somewhere to go. are children up to the age of 18. in less than 20 years, they will be adults. baseduntry will be judged upon how we treat them now. a magnet. this is the country that we have had democracy for 300 years. that is different from where these children are coming from. wants to come here because they here you can make it if you work hard and follow rules. these children did not choose this country. this country has been chosen by the person who brought them here or by their parents who are already here. parents whom i want to come here. is a very different situation if these were all adults.

you met with rick perry and president obama during a visit to your stay. what did you tell them needed to be done -- what needed to be done? not tell them. they told me. my responsibility at that point was attempting to get the allocation so that we could do and follow the plans that we have for temporary housing for taking them through the process and following our own law as it relates to the young children that have come unaccompanied. it is not an easy situation. it is not a comfort zone for all america. nothing that we do brings about complete comfort. anything that we do to treat andr countries in a fair

dignified manner, to help them develop civil societies will rock our boat because it costs us money. it is a responsibility we have taken on. a lot of the dollars that we send to assist them in building civil societies are huge dollars and we could say that we do not want to do that anymore. care of our to take own business and ignore the rest of the world. we would find ourselves in a very different situation. international security has a great deal to do with that. how people feel about this with theas a lot to do security we experience. we have not have the kind of uprisings in this country as other countries have. we have been somewhat targets

and i think sometimes, because there is a lack of understanding of how we are being viewed in the rest of the world, we depend on other countries in many different ways, for goods, for selling our goods. we are not free of the need for the rest of the world. the rest of the world consists of people. the children grow up with renate to its. attitudes,d those how we can understand these children did not come on their own and they are not responsible for where they are and when they are here -- we have to be larger with them. i cannot believe we have a country who does not have enough cannotf humanity, that

be kind to children, innocent victims of their own system. host: to recap the legislation , the humaneeration act of 2014, it says that all unaccompanied migrant children should be treated equally, regardless of country of origin. we will turn back to the phone lines and hear from pete, ashburn, virginia. caller: i thank you for your service to the country. i am of that. you talk about humanity's in my son didy, multiple tors in afghanistan. our sons and daughters are stationed everywhere in the world.

80% of these are boys. deferred act as all government bureaucracy. enforce the laws. if you have to build refugee camps, do it. do not scatter them from maryland to virginia to california. i am from ohio. i have seen what immigration does to this country. americagrant people of -- the ignorant people of america have to realize this is an invasion. went democrats say immigration reform, does that mean amnesty? guest: it does not. as it has passed the senate, it provides for a pathway to citizenship.

this particular bill, it takes 12 or 13 years to achieve that status. most of the people that come to this country are looking for employment. they get it. if we do not want or desire to have people coming, we should not hire them. some of our wealthiest people look for workers who work below minimum wage to take care of their children and homes and yards. in some instances, even to do high-tech type work. to have themwant come, then, why are we hire them.to why are we allowing it to be a haven? reach whatld not they are coming for, they would

not be coming. just their fault. they're coming because opportunities are here. texas,tate, the state of there is controversy as to they -- because they make up a large portion of the employment of the employee benefits, with low income, and it overloads the .chools, emergency rooms that is not their fault. that is the fault of our system. our next caller is ken from beaumont texas. caller: i have been fortunate to have spent lots of time in central america and honduras,

guatemala, el salvador. one of the interesting things that i have seen as there is a problem with our foreign policy. i have a daughter who spent quite a few months teaching kids in school and one of the things they found is to watch the kids learn things that they can do that they never knew, then over -- that nobody put in front of them. south of theey minds, these kids are -- that arey cool very impressionable. if we take a little bit of the money that we are -- south of the border, running around the world, trying to solve issues

elsewhere, these are on our back torsos. we need to spend time and effort and look at these kids. send -- weill -- we spend billions on war and eight. that is still less than 1% of our total budget. solve problems as they occur. we spend ofwhen this foreign aid, we are attempting to avoid the problems that are occurring. we do get more immigrants coming from contiguous states and countries because it is easier for them to get here. countries, other than south and central america, will have to take boats and planes to get here. that is not true of south and central america.

they just have to come. they get to mexico, they travel the entire country. countriesan travel without the assistance of where they are. our borders are loaded right now . it is not new. it is just so many at one time. i think we do have to approach it in a humanitarian way. host: would you support sending the national guard out to increase border security? guest: i have a question about the national guard for this reason. we cannot afford the cost that that would be on the border. when we handled the situation as it is playing out, there will not be a need for that. to numbers will start diminish when we can provide help back in their countries it would help a great deal.

that the faiths organizations had is to build dormitories and their country so they will not have to be pushed back in the same situation for which they are escaping. that is already happening. in needs to happen more. it is no cost to the government. private dollars help with that. some of them might remain. some of them are joining their parents. know, they did not get here alone and somebody paid for them to come. host: you have mentioned the cost of dealing -- of dealing with the problem. at alicans are balking $3.7 billion spending request. is that enough to address this issue or do you think more would he needed? guest: i do not know.

let me say that whatever the president wants, the president -- the republicans balked. it does not make a difference about that part. there should be legitimate questions on the amount of dollars on how they are to be spent. there's nothing wrong with questioning that. there are four different agencies involved. it is a foreign issue. the state department has to deal with the. the justice department, providing for the following of our own law for courts and examining what direction to send the children. health and human services is responsible for finding housing while they are here. that is why the many facilities identified around the country, who put him of the children, because we have run out of space at the military base and in san

antonio and a few other places. got to deal with our immigration policy. that is going to be one of the major problems. host: we will turn back to the phone lines. taylor, michigan, good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. give [indiscernible] clinton. from -- foras a job mexicans to bring up their raises. they went to china. we go to canada. guest: i am not sure what the question -- ist: it sounds like he

bringing up the employment that you are experiencing in your home state of texas. guest: is a reality that there is a lot of question, especially from workers who feel they have been pushed out of jobs. that is why the immigration policy is important. that theat the need country will have and you get immigrants coming in to fulfill those needs. it is not just an open border where everyone flows and looking for jobs. we have numbers and caps on immigration. .e have the visas there is a cap for the numbers. if we do not bring some people in, we lose our own businesses. they go where the people are. consider that it has to be a balance.

with the no immigration policy, it creates more of a problem of immigrants who are not highly skilled because it does cause the workers weto have in the country. there's is a story that ran in the washington post that's headlined a stopgap bill fund transportation through may. . will offer a crisis and the senate is likely to tinker with it before it reaches president obama's. did you vote in favor of this?

guest: i did. it was not anything desired. it was necessary in order not to use -- not to lose massive numbers of jobs. we are kicking the can down the road. times in the last 10 years we have tried to solve this problem by a short-term reauthorization. this until may 31 of next year. it is unfortunate that we cannot rise to the occasion and take care of the situation we need to take care of. costly jobs, it is more to have short-term authorizations, especially srojects that take long period of time.

it costs more money to not go ahead and do multiple your authorizations. maintenance means a lot. in cannot build a bridge three or four months. it takes several years. if you cannot depend on the funding, then you do not start the project. that is when you have bridges collapsing. it costs more for constituents ,nd their own transportation the long lines get longer. it also interferes with the environment. there is a lot of negative in not taking on the responsibility that we know we have to do. the: what are some of long-term solution jew would be in favor of?

guest: we have not raised the gas tax in many years. alterations.ome we have had fewer people drive cars. we have cars that use less fuel. using natural fuels and gas or electric. be enough dollars. we probably are going to have to look at multiple ways of to keep in the dollars the cars moving and to keep the economy going. host: debbie, phoenix city, alabama. caller: i am hispanic.

i came to the country legally. you send these kids to military bases with diseases where they spread. use the money that is allocated for the military. you cut our budgets. you kill our vets. they are dying, 22, every day. when are you going to help us? when is the -- where is the humanity in that? lot ofthere are a problems on the table, including the problems of our veterans. that must be on the table with equal attention. that is what we are attempting to do. prior to going into public office was a registered nurse with the veterans hospital in dallas, texas. i understand the needs of veterans. i am one of the people who have pushed and pushed to get the

investigation on what is going on. you are right. we need to get that attention. this is not a nation that can settle for focusing on one problem at a time. we have multiple problems. we have a large population. everyone within our population can put our problems on the table that we need to address. host: danny, good morning. caller: i am puerto rican. the problem i have, we are not enforcing the laws. that is why people are coming here. there are no repercussions for anyone. the employers should be responsible and liable for hiring people illegally. it is all about the cost. everyone else's wages go down

and that is a problem for everyone. that is where the hate kicks in. this country is full of immigrants. the flow that we have coming in now is out of control and we need to do something about that. that is the bottom line. guest: i agree. we need immigration reform. it is our fault that we do not have immigration reform. that we havelt created many situations that cause these problems. we are a great country. it is a country that is like a magnet. everybody wants to come. we have to have some professional ways of dealing with it. ways that we can deal with it in a humane way. especially with children. i do not have all of the answers. together, we can come up with solutions if we will work together. unfortunately, we are not

getting the cooperation. i do not see many efforts being put forth that we should be putting forth. what the president wants, the republicans are against. host: thank you for your time. we appreciate you being here. the houses in the early session this morning. we will and our show here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. strengthen the constitutional commitments of the members of this people's house and their work today. guide and sustain them in your wisdom and inspire all, especially those in leadership, with the insights needed to assist our nation at this time. as the members return once again to their districts, may their encounters with those

whom they represent be fruitful and bring confidence to all, that our future as a nation will be secure and productive. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. enyart. mr. enyart: 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: 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 pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today as a co-sponsor of

the securing access via excellence, or save, medicare home health care act legislation introduced by mr. walden and dr. price to replace cuts from the affordable care act with a value-based purchasing program. it allows the essential care services, enables our seniors to have more control over our health care decisions. the affordable care act cuts home health by 17%. it's a devastating impact on the large portion of the 3.5 million americans who receive these services, including more than 143,000 in pennsylvania. of equal concern, these cuts could result in the loss of thousands of jobs for care givers and health professional. the save medicare home health act will achieve the same level of savings in the medicare program rather than indiscriminantly cut this funding. it makes these services more

effective and cost efficient. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation, america's seniors deserve as much and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. enyart: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to address the house? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to address the house? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. enyart: mr. speaker, today i rise to commemorate the life of a great southern illinoisan, a man who knew this chamber very well, u.s. congressman ken gray. kenny's ability to fight for southern illinois is unmatched. from building their state highways, rend lake, the penitentiary, to building bridges, countless post offices and waterlines. whether convincing president carter to turn underground mine or escorting president kennedy to carbondale and marion,

congressman gray was a one-of-a-kind advocate for southern illinois. i counted kenny among my friends and he loved serving in this house. we'll always remember him as the gentleman whose personality was as colorful as the suits he wore to the capitol each day. colleagues, join me in remembering world war ii veteran, congressman ken gray. kenny, thank you for your service to your nation, your state and to southern illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's important to highlight legislation that the house passed this week protecting the future of our digital economy. mr. paulsen: the rise of the internet has been a great success story and one of the biggest reasons is the fact that the government hasn't needlessly gotten in the way of innovators. this week the house passed with

bipartisan overwhelming support the permanent internet tax freedom act, to continue to allow the internet to flourish and protect the opportunities that arise with it. without this legislation, we will see taxes increased on hardworking americans and decreased access to the internet. it's estimated that low-income households would actually bear 10 times the financial load as high-income households just to go online. mr. speaker, the legislation that was voted on this week is as common sense as it comes. i ask and urge the senate to take action as well so we can protect internet access from taxation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last month's supreme court decision in the hobby lobby case is a serious step backwards for women's health, sets a dangerous precedent where bosses are in control of their employees'

health care decision. mr. bera: i know a woman needs to sit down and have a conversation with her physician, and it's important that we have all options available. long-term contraceptive methods, like i.u.d.'s, are often the safest option and 20 times more effective than the birth control pill. but upfront costs can make it difficult for some women, particularly low-income women, to afford these methods. prescription birth control can often cost up to $600 a year, and if a woman can't afford it they're more likely to use it in an inconsistent manner. that's why i'm proud to support the not my boss's business act, which ensures that employers can't pick and choose what health services a woman can receive. health care decisions should be made -- should be made between a patient and a doctor, not her boss. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition?

mrs. capito: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. the people of west virginia want to invest in the future of our state and our nation. we want save roads and we want the opportunities to work. this week we took steps in the house to invest in our infrastructure and our domestic energy production. actions that will help create and sustain american jobs. on tuesday, we passed a bill in the house to invest in and rehabilitate our nation's infrastructure. roads create jobs. investing in our roads, investing in our bridges create not only construction jobs but also grow the economy by ensuring reliable interstate commerce and travel. i've seen firsthand the difference good infrastructure can make, whether it's in berkley county or u.s. route 35 in pittman and mason county, have helped to grow that local county. my bill passed in the house transportation committee by bipartisan support. a robust mining industry is not only good for their families but good for the business who

depend on these workers and good for the communities who depend on those tax dollars. investing in our road and energy production will help my state, west virginia, and for our nation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the humanitarian crisis that is happening at our border. since october of last year, more than 50,000 children have fled their homes and turned themselves in to the united states border patrol. these children are fleeing extreme violence, extortion and poverty. as they await their hearings, some are being transported to my district.

several weeks ago the first wave of buses transporting these children was scheduled to arrive right outside my district. i was disappointed and disturbed to see some of my fellow americans curse, spit at and block one of these buses filled with women and children who have endured traumas many of us will never understand. mr. speaker, this is the united states of america. we are a nation of laws and compassion. and as this body determines its course of action, we should ensure that every one of these children are taken care of and treated with dignity. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? he gentlelady is recognized. mrs. hartzler: i rise today to highlight the real and present

danger that israel finds itself in today. quite simply, israel is under siege. hamas has fired over 1,000 rockets in the last few weeks into the country. millions of israelis are at risk. hamas calls for the destruction of israel. the aggression of hamas leaves israel with no choice but to defend its citizens and we must show that we stand with israel against unprovoked rocket attacks. hamas must end rocket attacks and agree to a cease-fire. mrs. wagner: israel is under threat of a nuclear iran. stringent economic sanctions remain our own peaceful options by which to persuade iran to suspend its quest for nuclear weapons. however, with the negotiation deadline approaching this sunday, we must present a credible military threat and strengthen sanctions should iran not respond to peacefully end their pursuit. the last window of opportunity

we have to keep iran from achieving a nuclear weapons' capability is closing. to prevent them is essential. we must stand with israel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, this morning i heard on the radio a palestinian mother who said, i wish the bombing would stop so that i could get food for my children. i don't expect that that mother ould in any way deny israeli mothers and fathers from their ability to live in peace. i rise today to stand with the right of israel to exist and to defend herself, and i rise today to call upon the

redoubling of peace efforts by the united states to ensure that there is a peace resolution. i also hope as egypt is negotiating now a cease-fire that the terrorist group hamas can be isolated, that the people in the palestinian area in gaza, in the west bank would come together as one with mr. abbas leading out for a peaceful region. it is time now for the rockets to stop, unprovoked, and it is time now for people to come together in a coalition of peace. i have been to israel. i've seen the iron dome. it is an iron dome of protection, and i've listened to the president of israel who has argued for peace. let us stand for peace but the ceases of the firing of rockets and a negotiation of settlement that is permanent. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania

seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. speaker, washington, d.c., is increasingly detached from the needs and concerns of western pennsylvanians. mr. rothfus: the spinea biff does association of pennsylvania -- the spina bifida association of pennsylvania helps families by providing much-needed service, education, advocacy and housing. mr. speaker, i recently met with the men and women who worked there as well as the participants of the facilities and programs they operate. the workers are dedicated and caring people and they do tremendous work. as of july 1, 2014, mr. speaker, the spina bifida association was forced to discontinue coverage for its 25 full-time employees because president obama's health care law made it so unaffordable for them to continue. another broken promise of president obama's oversold health care law. it's past time for president

obama and his unelected federal elites to change course and beginning pursuing policies that help people and not his out-of-control and out-of-control washington, d.c. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to address this body for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. our today to direct attention to the kidnapping of the nigerians in may and another eight girls just yesterday. the leader of the nigerian islamic group boko haram who claimed responsibility for the kidnappings called them slaves and threatened to sell them like cattle. these deplorable actions can only stop by bringing the full condemnation and law enforcement to bear on those responsible and the ideology

that they exploit. we must find the perpetrators and combat their backward ideas in the court of public opinion. every child has an absolute right to receive an education in a safe and protected environments. we must redouble our efforts to better the lives of people around the world who may be too poor and too isolated to protect themselves. these girls could have been our daughters, our sisters, our nieces or our friends. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report theres. lees -- resolution. the clerk: house resolution 670, resolved that upon its adoption it shall be in order to consider

4719 house the bill h r. to amend the internal revenue code, all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the me on ways and means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-51 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour.

mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time as he westerns to use. mr. burgess: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded -- yielded is for purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. house resolution 670 provides for consideration of a package of tax reductions for charitable organizations in the form of food as well as lowering the excise tax on private foundations and extending the date by which taxpayers can make charitable deductions to be considered for a tax deduction.

this is a package of policies which have been supported by overwhelming majorities of both parties. the rule provides for a closed rule for h.r. 4719, the standard rule for tax bills. the minority will have its customary motion to recommit. this is a straightforward rule. the america gives more act of 2014 will ben fete the countless numbers of americans who rely on and utilize charitable organizations in communities throughout the country. a great incentive for many americans to contribute to those organizations are contributing greater capacity than they -- or contributing greater capacity than they otherwise might are the tax deductions made available by the froth. congress long ago decided it was strong public policy to incentivize charitable giving, encouraging citizens to open their pocketbooks and lend a hand to those less fortunate and

americans are generous people. moreover and importantly, today's bill makes the tax provisions permanent so americans won't have to worry from year to year whether tax deductions on which they've come to rely will be able to them that year. cently, the house passed a bill, 62 democrats voted against the measure. the reasoning was not against the policy but maintaining that the measure was not paid for. however, paid fors are something in congress that we need when we are creating programs or allocating money, not previously appropriated. essentially, making the american people pay more in taxes. the offsets are unnecessary and not needed when we are actually shielding the american people from having their money taken in the first place in the form of a tax. moreover we heard on tuesday night in the rules committee markup of today's rule, and i

suspect we'll hear some about it today, the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in the rule are not paid for, congress only needs to pay for tax credits if one subscribes to the belief that all money in our country belongs first to the government, then to the people. i reject this mindset. congress does not need to justify or pay for for not taking more money from the american people. congress needs to justify and thus pay for policies that take money from the american people. mr. speaker, even if you did subscribe to the notion that all money in this country is first and foremost belongs to the government and the government has to pay for allowing americans to keeper that money, the exact provisions contained in the america gives more act have traditional hi not been offset and democrats on the ways and means committee, the rules committee, and democratic leadership have voted in favor of these same provisions in

unoffset legislation in previous years. in the absence of a larger comprehensive tax reform package, permanent extenders like these make sense, they bring back stability and certainty that businesses are constantly asking for and constantly having to wait and see if congress will in fact act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, and the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this

rule. the legislation consists of a package of five bills previously reported by the ways and means committee which would add an estimated $16 billion to the deficit over the next 0 years. please excuse me. like every member of this body, i strongly support charitable giving. i tout the fact in the rules committee frequently that i'm proud of the fact that i work directly with three food pantries, one that i'm extremely proud of, that works with grandmothers and grandfathers who are taking care of their children's chern and find great needs. i might add, that particular charity has seen a diminution

and diminishing of charitable giving and i might add additional to that, when elook across the board, in my community, i find that charitable giving is down and i think that's commensurate with the kind of economy that we're in. i aplayed americans who donate what they can to the causes they care about. i would go as far as to say that i support many of the measures that are in this bill. however, in its present form, i cannot support it. the republican majority has voided what used to be a couple -- a complete extenders package into smaller parts. some of which will be debated here today and some of which i predict will never reach the

floor for debate. certainly not a vote. my friends have managed to make a traditionally nonpartisan and noncontroversial issue both partisan and controversial. the provisions we are debating are not paid for and yet are made permanent. i'm afraid that this bill is part and parcel in a pattern of what i perceive as reckless, irresponsible behavior on the part of the majority. republicans -- republicans' inconsistency on fiscal responsibility and the deficit is stunning. bhfer we're considering a bill they -- whenever we're considering a bill they like, they're happy to ignore the deficit and waive all the rules that enforce fiscal discipline. but whenever republicans don't

like a proposal, they hide behind budget rules to block it. on the one hand, they've blocked or the layed everything from extending unemployment insurance to an s.g.r. doc fix to emergency hurricane relief demanding that they are fully offset. yet when it comes to tax credits , they waive their own budgeting rules as they're doing here and run up the deficit as they're doing here, this bill alone will add an adecisional $16 billion to the deficit over 10 years. these are the people that continuously decry the fact that we have deficits and these are he people that continue to say that they are spendthrifts in the sense sense that they are

taking care of the budget. that's just the againing. today, the ways and means committee has reported 12 unpaid r tax extenders at a cost of $614 billion over 10 years. the house has passed five at a cost of $518 billion over 10 years. i might add, this is budget hocus pocus. it was referred to as voodoo economics at another point in teem. for example you take sml like we id with the highway trust bill earlier and you pay for it, you spend the money in six months and pay for it over a 10-year period of time which substantially mitigate against what the intent is rather than do what is needed and that is a highway infrastructure bill that well give our nation reassurance

with reference to construction measures and make sure our bridges are not falling down and that our roads are safe to drive on. look at the bill that we are dealing with last week. a friend threw away another $287 billion, or at least they proposed to. much of this stuff isn't going anywhere. but they propose to throw away another $187 billion on an extender package just leek this one. let me repeat $287 billion. now we're going to add another $16 billion to that number. it's as if we are looking for new ways to be dysfunctional. instead of creating a stable onomy, they're picking and choosing their favorite provisions and extending them piece by piece. rather than reform our tax code,

they're making it up as they go along. assuredly, all of us have great respect for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have that awesome responsibility of finding the ways and the means to fund this government. and i for one, and i'm sure i speak for many, have great respect for dave camp, the chairman of that committee. at the beginning of this session, chairman camp proposed tax reform. i might have agree or disagreed with an awful lot of it but inside his own conference he could not get people that would support meaningful tax reform. instead, what they are doing in refuteation to much of what he had put forward by denying some of the 60-plus extensions, he

has said that many of them should not be in the measure and now they come and cherry pick and get the ones that they want and put them here. rather than reform this tax code. is there anybody in this country, in this congress, in the house or the senate, is there anybody what believes that the tax code is fair and simple for everybody? business and americans? but no, they're making it up. as they go along. tax extender here, a tax extender there, something i like here, i don't like that over there. let me tell you what we should be doing. we should be passing bills that create jobs in this country. we should be repairing our infrastructure and all of us know this. when i came to congress in 1992,

then-president bill clinton identified and we agreed that there were 14,000 bridges in america that were in need of repair. but now what we find is that there's substantially more bridges and some have fallen down in that period of time and yet we are piecemealing the transportation issue, kicking the can down the road. i commented in the rules committee some time back, this kicking the can down the road concept if it were an olympic sport, then congress would not and et gold and bronze silver they would also get aluminum because they're real good at kicking the can. . we should be passing bills that tackle comprehensive immigration reform. s there anybody, including all

of the people out there shouting at children, for instances, and mothers and people who don't speak our language that have undertaken the most unreasonable for any of us journey to try to get to a better life for themselves and people standing there shouting at them rather than collecting ourselves as a sensible country of immigrants, i might add, and allow, among other things, that we try to do, not just comprehensive immigration reform. indeed we should do border security, but we have to have clarity, not only for those who may seek to come here but for all of us, we need clarity as it pertains to immigration. and will they put it on the floor just for a vote? no. it will not happen, and yet we will see this piecemeal and we'll see this back and forth sometime next week. the president proposes $3.7 billion. someone on the other side said

that's too much money. the president says we need more judges and more lawyers, and we need lawyers on both sides, i maintain, and yet we find ourselves in the position of not being able to do anything and not doing it hurtedly enough. and yet we have this crisis on our border which doesn't come close to rivaling the many issues developing in the world from ukraine to israel to yemen back across the board to syria and countless other places. our relationship is in jeopardy. many of the issues that are developing developed over periods of time and they largely do so because this congress does not have the courage to stand up and do the things that are vitally necessary for all of america, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal. the needs are great and we are doing very little of anything

at all. we have 10 more days until we go on recess to campaign, and when we do go on recess to campaign, that will be for the whole month of august. then we'll come back here a few weeks in september and we'll be gone the whole month of october. what in the world would stop us then from having the time and the necessity to sit down together in a bipartisan way and come up with what's needed for immigration reform in this country? we have 3.3 million people, after the expiration of the unemployment insurance measures , in this country in the month of december. we now number 3.3 million people out of work in the cold and that has cost the economy more than $10 billion. of these 3.3 million people, i

remind my friends who stand up here with their patriotic notions that they espouse and i believe they believe in our troops. we are fond of saying that around here. i believe they believe that we should be secure, as do i, with reference to our military, but 300,000 of those people that are unemployed are veterans, not to mention all of the problems at the veterans hospitals that we need to attend rather than finger-pointing and trying to find measures to beat each other down rather than try to lift america up. and yet house republicans have found time to sue president obama for doing his job, but we haven't found time to pass these important bills. i said humor ousley before i began that if president obama

is going to be sued by the speaker for doing something, then i want to participate in the lawsuit against the speaker for doing nothing. we can try to appease the most extreme end of the republican party, but we can't pass the laws that address the challenges facing americans all across this nation, and for is deer election of duty, -- dir election of duty, maybe omebody may consider suing this institution and its speaker for not doing those hings that are a few that i've identified. in yesterday's hearing in the rules committee i ended my remarks and we had outstanding witnesses, experts in this area ranging from elizabeth cole

from florida, international university, to jonathan turley from george washington, simon laz russ -- laz wrath from the congressional -- constitutional group being experienced in the subject matter and each of them addressing the subject of standing as i did in asking them questions at different times. and most of us know that this lawsuit is not likely to go anywhere, and at some point all of the witnesses agreed that there are challenges ahead with reference to this lawsuit and all of them knew and know that there is absolutely no precedent for this action, none. there's a case, mcclure vs. carter, that has some similarities but even that one did not cross the threshold that is needed.

i did in my comments by saying -- i did end my comments by saying i am bart san and i will end my comments by saying i am bipartisan. the nearly 52 years that i've been a lawyer that have argued against frivolous lawsuits, if there ever was a frivolous lawsuit, then the one that is proposed to be filed by the speaker of this house gives frivolous new meaning. it is indeed just that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the the e has passed veterinary mobility act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

mr. burgess: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on is matter, the administration, as it is wanting to do, filed an administration policy. we refer to them as -- in our committees and around the house s.a.p. what the administration said is the following -- the administration supports measures that enhance nonprofits, fill an thropic -- philanthropic -- organizations, including the safety net for those most in need. an economic engine for job creation, environmental conservation that encourages land protections for current and future generations.

and an incubator to foster the nation's toughest challenges. the president's budget includes a number of proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals. i'm going to come back to this, if we ore we go forward, defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule that boo give members a second -- that would give members a second opportunity his week to consider reversing the damage done by the recent hobby lobby supreme court decision. no employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its employees, male or female. it is pure discrimination when 99% of women in this country have used some form of birth control during their lifetime

but now have to literally go through unreasonable measures to simply secure the fundamental health care they need. to discuss our proposal, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. clark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. ms. clark: thank you, mr. speaker. justice ruth bader ginsburg, stice sonia sotomayor, justice kagan, our three justices stood against the court's decision in the hobby lobby case. they sit on the highest court in the nation and by no coincidence the three women's dissent is representative of what i heard from the women i talk to in my district. i ask women at home to send me

in three words how they feel about the court's decision. this is what they shared with me. jennifer from melrose, sad, disappointing, disturbing. anna from framingham, backwards, scary, hurtful. jeannine, disgusted, wrong, outraged. usan from cambridge, need more ginsbergs. the court's decision to strike down women's access to basic health care is only the latest and systemic efforts to unwind the progress women have made. why aren't we demanding equal pay for women from our employers rather than giving a woman's boss the right to make the most personal health care decisions for her and her family? congress has an obligation to correct this course.

the amendment and the protect women's health from corporate interference act makes certain that a woman's boss does not interfere in her basic health care. it simply affirms that when the law provides for insurance companies to cover basic health care for all, all people are entitled to that health care, period. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts yields back her time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased at this time to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california who serves on the reign affairs committee, dr. ami bera, a good friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bera: thank you. i rise today to speak to this

body about the outrageous supreme court decision, the hobby lobby case. i look at this not as a member of congress but as a doctor. now, in my training we took an oath. that oath was to put our patients first, to do good. my core job as a doctor is to sit with my patients, answer her questions, talk about the risks and benefits and the various options that are available but then to empower my patients to make the decisions that best fit their lives. to women, there's no greater decision than when to start a family, when to become a mother. that's why protecting those reproductive rights and reproductive options are so important. that's core to our oath as physicians, and that's why the supreme court's decision on

hobby lobby was so outrageous. we've got to fight against this encroachment of the government or the justices in the supreme court coming into my exam room and getting in between me and my patients. that's outrageous. it's an affront to individual liberties. it's an affront to what we do as doctors. now, here's what -- and it's not just me speaking. this is is doctors all across america. the american college of ob-gyn's calls this ruling outrageous. we need to have all options available. but what am i to do now if a hobby lobby employee comes to me as a patient, sits down and says, you know, i'm not ready to start a family at this juncture and i'd like to know what my contraceptive options are, but i'd like to know what some of the safest methods are. well, i.u.d.'s often are 20 times more effective and

extremely safe, but the supreme court has now made that option unavailable for me. they didn't go to medical school. i did. as a doctor it is my oath to provide all those options. now, others might say, well, that patient can still choose to get it. the reason people have health insurance is because they want to have available health care when it's necessary. what if that patient can't afford that health care option? many patients, hourly workers often contraception can cost up to $600 a year. they're not able to afford it. that's why this is such an out rageous decision. we've got to -- outrageous decision. we've got to keep the government and the supreme court out of our exam room. it's even more personal than that. i'm a husband and i'm a father. i want my daughter to grow up in a country where she is in

control of her health care decisions. where she's in control of her body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. berah: as a doctor, as -- mr. bera: as a doctor, as a father of a daughter, i'm proud to support the not my boss' business act because it puts patients back in charge of their health care decisions and we as a country prize individual liberties and individual freedoms above all. so this gives those decisions back to the patients. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields welcome. the gentleman from florida has seven minutes remain, the gentleman from texas reserves. he has 26 minutes remaning. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings stk i'm pleased at this time to yield three minutes to my classmate and good friend, the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. nadler.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question in order to bring the protect women's health from corporate interference act to the floor. in 1993, i was a leader in passing the religious freedom restoration act, rfra. if you'd told me then that rfra would one day be used to allow employers to dictate to employees what preventive health care they can or cannot use, if they you told me then that i'd be standing on the house floor in 2014 fighting for women to have the ability to make their own most basic health care decisions regardless of their bosses' religious beliefs, i would yacht have believed it. we wrote that bill as a shield to allow women to have their to allow beliefs, not

employers to impose their religious beliefs. employers must not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs employees as a means of providing access to critical health care to their employees. i was proud to work with ms. degette and ms. slaughter. mployers cannot deny their employees access to health care. every woman must have the right to follow her own belief and guidance when making health care choices. this bill guarantees that the boss' beliefs cannot supersede that right. i was disappointed to see that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle protoed -- voted earlier this week to bring this bill to the floorful i urge them to stay with it today or else when they go home this weekend to tell the men and women of their district that their health care decisions will

be made for them by their bosses, regardless of their own choices, regardless of their own religious beliefs or their doctor's recommendations and tell them you believe that their boss' religious beliefs must be imposed on them notwithstanding their religious beliefs which don't count and tell them you did nothing to stop this this country will not stand for that. we have fought too long to preserve the right of all americans to make their own health care choices and i must add, to make their own religious decisions, to refuse to act now. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, allow this bill to come to the floor and send a strong message that health care choices are not your boss' business and that your religious beliefs trump your boss' religious beliefs. he, your boss has a right to his belief, you have a right to your beliefs. onk goth must not allow him to impose his beliefs on you. thank you and i yield become the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. guress -- burgess: i

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm a proud co-sponsor they have measure that was just spoken to and very pleased that my colleague came here to speak on it. rather than read the entirety of the statement of administration policy, i would ask, mr. speaker, at this time, unanimous consent that the statement of administration policy be made a part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. there's something else we need to discuss about this rule. once againing we're debating a closed rule. when i came to congress, i was listening on the radio, i didn't know much about rules and a part of why democrats in the majority lost in my opinion was the harang that was going on on the raid -- the harang that was -- the harangue that was going on on the radio about closed rules. now i know a little bit about

closed rules and i know we've set an all-time record in the history of the united states congress for now, in this particular rule that is before the house of representatives, for the 65th time this session, we are going to have a closed rule. what that means, america, is that your representative on either side will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this measure with reference to tax extenders. this is the most closed rules that this congress has considered ever and i expect we're not fin herbed yet, that the number of closed rules will continue to grow. started the 113th session with a pledge of transparency and openness from the speaker of the house. but that has fallen by the wayside and it is done -- and it has done so in historic proportion. enough already.

the majority should do the responsible thing and bring all bills that actually matter, bills that will address this many challenges facing this countrying challenges as i have pointed out before about our crumbling infrastructure and most importantly, creating jobs. even as it pertains to immigration reform. everyone that looks at that measure, that says if we had clear immigration policy, whether it was dealing with visas, whether it was dealing with farmworkers, whatever the measure, that it would increase our revenue in this country and enhance our overall economic circumstances. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question at this opponent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and to defeat the previous

question, i urge a no vote on this 65th closed rule and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. they have gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for the rest of the time. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, let me try to take some of these points in order that we have heard over the last 45 minutes. the gentleman talks about tax reform. i hope that means that he is prepared to join me on h.r. 1040, a measure that would provide a flat tax to the citizens of the united states. there's no more egregious function that most of us have to deal with every year than dealing with the i.r.s. unfortunately, because of the actions of the administration, the i.r.s. now stands in ill favor with a majority of americans. the president himself promised

in 2013 he would get to the bottom the problems of the i.r.s. and he would get them corrected. i believe he should. this is the agency with which we all have to deal every year. no one likes the tax man but it is imperative that the american people have the confidence in that agency that is tasked with collecting their taxes. on the issue of the v.a., it is in conference, we'll hear from them, is the v.a. going to require a higher appropriation than we gave a few weeks ago? perhaps, but i would also like to see the new administrator, the new secretary of the v.a., be able to discharge people from his employment if they have in fact acted in bad faith. i must have missed the firings have have occurred at the v.a. amongst the senior executiver is vess. i'm not talking about political

appointees, but the lifers in the v.a. who seem perfectly content to continue business as usual. you're not going to fecks that problem if you pump more taxpayer money into the system. i wouldn't disagree that more money may be necessary at the v.a. but we do have to fix the problem that is endemic in the agency if we don't expect the same result to be clearly evident two or three years' time. let me talk briefly about the issue that came up about the supreme court decision. unlike mr. nadler, i was not here in 1993. 1994. i was not part of the congress. that passed the religious freedom restoration act. but many of the same people who wrote and voted for and defended the affordable care act, the cast of characters is remarkably similar. in fact, mr. schumer, when he was a member of the house, was, i believe, the lead sponsor of

that. he's now in the senate. the majority leader in the senate was a yes vote on the religious freedom restoration act system of this is a law that was written by democratic sponsors in a democratic controlled house, signed by a democratic president, how could they not know? how could they not know of its existence when they were writing the affordable care act? let me continue with this thought and if there's time i will consider that. now while they were crafting the affordable care act, they were fully cognizant of the same reinstructions they had written into law in the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court simply looked at the facts and said that a federal agency, in this case the department of health and human services, in a rule making activity, cannot negate a law that was passed by the people's

representatives in the congress. i think that's as it should be. if there was any -- if there was anything, there were drafting errors in the affordable care act, aye spoken about that time and again. but why weren't the same people who were tasked with writing the religious freedom restoration act, why weren't they watchful while they were writing their own health care law? let's talk for a minute about the hobby lobby decision, first thing, it's important to stress this, no f.d.a.-approved contraceptive that was available to women before the decision is unavailable after the decision. the court simply said that the government cannot force a citizen to violate his or her religious beliefs, paying for medicine that a citizen believes takes a life. no employer before or after hobby lobby can prevent a woman from purchasing any contraceptive that is currently available. we also heard criticism from the minority that the house was

doing other things than doing its work. i would just point out that the house is doing this work. 40 jobs bills have passed this house and are sitting, waiting for activity in the senate. we saw how quickly the skills act, after the senate renamed it and it came back to the house, how quickly it got to the president's desk. the fact that the bills are over there waiting is a problem of the other body, it is not a problem of the house. the house has been doing its work. yesterday, we passed a financial service appropriations bill. mr. speaker, i'd ask rhetorically, when was the last time the house passed the financial services appropriations bill? it was 2007, the first year that the democrats had taken over the majority. we haven't heard an appropriations bill for the financial services in, what, in five years' time. this was a landmark achievement yesterday. let's look for a moment at the number of amendments that have been heard under open rules on

appropriations bills this year, which was seven appropriations bills, as we sit here in the middle of july, that's a significant achievement in and of itself. there have been 395 amendments heard to appropriations bills. hardly sounds like a closed process. 210 republican amendments, 185 democratic amendments and that was exclusive of yesterday's passed appropriations bill. so i don't think you can rationally make the argument that the house is not doing its work and that as we go through the appropriations process, that t is not open. i have some things i'd like to say about the deficit, but i'd be happy to yield to the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for yielding for just a moment. this is a colleague from texas and there are many issues that we have agreed on with respect to texas and i might say to you

that i'm a strong proponent of religious libber the you had mentioned hobby lobby in terms of some of the issues you were discussing. i think i have stood fast on that question. i only raise the point, and you made the opponent that anything that was approved prehobby lobby by the f.d.a. but in actuality we know that just from the religious liberty point of view,s that slibry slope because it pits the large entity against the individual's rights and we know under our constitution that the very premise of religious freedom is the idea that there is no pronounced, structured religious plan in place that denies me my freedom. that's what you've done to women -- when i say you, excuse me, that's what the decision has done, it has made the boss in charge of an individual and i would just make the argument, we can stand for religious