i love being able to help them. they have nowhere to turn. this clinic i work at also had six other clinics that were dispersed out of the area. some of them were outside of the country. i was fortunate to be able to travel to all of these clinics and work and get a pretty good idea of what's going on. but the phenomenal cost, you just don't understand. most of the united states does it. it's really sad. i can tell you how much it cost for a person who has insurance to have a child. these immigrants can come in the day before because they all know where the clinics and places are before they get here. they are helped.

that was the total cost of their care. even if they were only two weeks pregnant. that was the cost they only have to pay. then to the doctor up to six week old age of the child, that was only $500. these immigrants could have a child which it cost a person in the united states at that time without insurance far more. host: all that said, what's a solution in your view? caller: we need to keep legal immigration. we just need to until we get the revised version or whatever they want. we need to enforce it. i'm sorry about these kids coming in. i really am. my heart went out to taking care of them. but also, we have to understand

when we have a responsibility to ourselves. host: how big a political issue is this to you? could your vote be swayed by this issue? caller: no. my vote won't be swayed. because it has been used as a political issue. host: thank you ma'am. dennis, minnesota, independent line. dennis, your on the "washington journal" this morning. caller: good morning. i wish i would have been on with zoe. she didn't mention there was already 400,000 person backlog on this immigration hearings. they're talking anywhere from seven to ten years before they can get a hearing. meanwhile, these kids all have been dispersed across the united states already. she said the backlog was taken

care of in the texas area. i guess -- i'm a little mad at the congress. we're sitting on a ship that's sinking. congress is rearranging the chairs. have a good day. host: donald, clarksville, virginia on our democrats line. donald good morning you're on the "washington journal" on this friday july 25th. caller: good morning. you know, i'm just getting sick and tired of seeing the politicians make this a political issue instead of an issue dealing with young children. i was looking on c-span the other day, looking at ted cruz do his normal i guess performance on trying to pretend like he care for the kids.

but yet still, you know, he's willing to shut down the government or he's willing to just want to send the kids back. we need to start electing politicians who are going to do their job instead of trying to play political games with the american public. host: donald, where is clarksville, virginia? caller: it's on the southern part of virginia. it's about ten minutes from the north carolina border. host: what do you do down there? caller: i am a retired high school teacher. host: what did you teach? caller: i was a businesseth teacher and a football coach. i did quite a few immigrant kids from south america and africa.

host: donald how did immigrant kids from south america and africa end up in clarksville, virginia? caller: i'm really originally from north carolina. i taught in the charlotte school district. but, most of the african kids i'm assuming that, you have a large african community there. i'm assuming that a lot of those kids came in through regular immigrational procedures. for the south american kids, we probably had some that were undocumented but, i still say that most of those kids probably fall under obama's dream act where their parents came in

probably illegally. these kids probably started school from the kindergarten on up to the high school level. host: you miss teaching? caller: no, do i not. host: why? caller: i'm enjoying my retirement. the thing of it is is that, you have so many restrictions being placed on teachers now where teachers cannot be innovative. teachers were came up with ideas how to educate the kids. now everyone wanting to put so much emphasis on testing. i don't think that's such a good idea due to the fact that most teachers they are so concerned about their students teaching

scores until they are teaching to the test instead of teaching kids how to be analytical thinker. host: thank you sir. when the house comes in at 10:00 a.m. one of the things they will be working on is a privileged resolution. this is jim mcgovern a democrat from massachusetts, privileged resolution. it would prohibit the president from deploying or maintaining u.s. armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq unless authorized by congress. that's one of the debate issues that they're going to have at 10:00 a.m. this morning. as always, we will be live and as always every weekend on c-span 2 is book tv. 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors for serious readers. this weekend, you can get the schedule at booktv.org and see some of the things that book tv

is covering. american history tv is every weekend at well on c-span 3, 48 hours of american history. now, next week is book tv's monthly in-depth program which one author his or her body of work. next month it is author ron paul and he will be joining us on sunday august 3rd from noon to 3:00 p.m. for a three hour live call in. looking at some of congressman paul's books. alicia, harrisburg pa on republican line. caller: good morning to you. zoe lofgren was on talking. she tell us to go back to our religious heritage. well, i'm there. at the same time, government is saying, i'm going to take your money to pay for birth control and i'm going to take your money

to pay for abortions. which i don't believe in. what would the american people really think of? number one, think of us first. us first. this government is such a cesspool, i went from democrat to republican and now i don't know where to go. because there is no way to go. i don't even i think -- i don't even i think will vote anymore. host: this is barbara in st. charlestown, indiana. up next. caller: good morning thank you for c-span. i think people are disgusted with politics because there seems to be no common sense. why is it that we don't have military bases along our border. we're paying for men to train.

it's desert conditions. i don't believe that the cost will be so severe that we couldn't protect ourselves. who has a home, a business, even our government that has a revolving door. take the doors down. if you're so for letting anybody and everybody in here. it's almost like we have a house and senate that should be called step for representatives. they all sound the same. they all have the same language but just different faces. host: barbara, where's st. charlestown, indiana. why does immigration affect you on a personal level? caller: it has in the past. i think both democrats and republicans are responsible for saying that first they'll secure the border. i have nothing against immigrants. we are a nation of immigrants

but we're also a nation of laws. if honduras and south america is having these refugee crisis, where's the u.n.? we're paying everybody and we're not getting anything in return for it. host: barbara in charlestown, indiana. new poll, senator mark warner has a 25 lead currently over ed gillespie in the virginia senate race. jim in melrose, massachusetts. welcome to the journal. caller: thank you. good morning. i appreciate the program very much because they educate. my comment is coincidence. i was sorting my little paper pads and low and behold as it

were, what is the header with "whoever welcomes one of those little children in my name welcomes me. ". that's mark 9:37. obviously there's much to be said on both sides. i thought i might contribute that. host: rick, louisville, republican lane. caller: yes. host: we're listening. caller: i want to thank you for c-span. but also want an answer to, how can we ever solve any problem when we cannot come to any agreement on anything and either party? and so much political influence

comes from not the common man but from the corporations? the people who do not trust this congress, it is going to take a group of both democrats and republicans to go against the grain and to challenge the corporations and those with influence, to start representing the common man with common sense once again. there's no way the american people will ever trust either party again and nothing will ever be resolved until they can show they can work together again. host: rick, you got a pretty big senate race coming up there in kentucky. mcconnell and ms. grames. what's your take on that?

caller: my take is we've seen enough of mitch mcconnell. we've seen enough of who he represents. he does not represent us. host: what about his opponent? caller: grimes? well let's just hope that she has the gumption and the gall to go against her own party and gets up there and doesn't become tainted and represent us as americans. whether you be from kentucky or whether you be from virginia or florida. let's hope that's what the outcome will be. host: from politico this morning, the three options for "meet the press." david gregory is toast probably both emily smith of new york post and lloyd grove of the daily beast say he will likely be pushed out following the

november midterms. all of the sunday shows have lost considerable influence. the programs no longer set the week's political agenda more often than not, they serve as a venue for the promotion of stale talking points and conventional wisdom. mr. byers goes on to suggest some replacements. number one cynthia mcfadden or savannah guthrie or chuck todd. gary is calling in from maryland, independent line. caller: i think representative zoe, i think she epitomize what most of the democrats in the house enhance the republican's

have in mind for the illegals coming across the border. they want to change the fabric of the voters in this country to mostly democratic votes. that's the bottom line. they have the chamber of commerce on their side. if the republicans don't go along with that, that type of voting, they don't get the chamber of commerce money. what happened in virginia with the representative down there, he got kicked out. i think there's the bottom lin. you just follow the money. they want to be able to rule the country. this is womb of -- one of the ways to do it. that's my opinion. host: washington post, obama's fundraising touch helps the dnc. president obama's hectic fundraising schedule landed him in the backyard of television

producer shonda rhymes. maybe most dazzling result of is the degree to which he has helped restore the democratic party to financial health, the dnc has reduced its debt. the democratic national committee has raised $116 million this cycle through the end of june. whittling down its debt to $3 million. at the beginning of this year, the party was mired in 15. $9 million in debt according to the federal election commission. fundraising in the past several months helped the party to pay its outstanding bills. since then the committee averaged $9 million a month in donations compared with an

average of $5.8 million her month during the same period last year. democrats outraised republicans in june but the rnc has $14.4 million in the bank. dayton, ohio, what's on the issue this morning. caller: long to everybody talk about immigration issues and the children on the border. i think it's too often we muddle those two things. when we're talking about immigration policy, we're talking about a much broader scope. it doesn't just address coming across the southern border. it talk about people coming from all walks of life across the globe. when we're looking at this children, i want to remind some of the callers saying democrats wants these folks to come over for votes. we're talking and babies. they're not coming up here just to try to sneak across the border.

they're trying to escape some really horrific things. it's shocking to me and saddens to me that we have so many this country that are seething with bigotry and hate. but they can't see the need to take care of these refugee children. they're looking at death, sex trafficking, sex trade. lot of these people have seen family members die right there in front of them. we need to take a look at that. we do need to address the refugee situation in a way that we can help these people. to hear people say we're being over run and we're being invaded by these folks. that's silly. we're a nation of over 3 million people. this is a huge nation. we have the although to take care -- ability to take care of

these kids. we have the capacity to do both. we should do both. we need to start with more compassion unless just straight up anger before you understand the situation at hand. host: tell us about yourself. caller: i've been in dayton all my life and i work for the lexus nexus a data company here. i've worked with government agencies. i worked with law enforcement. i've worked with a broad scope of industries and have a pretty good idea of what's happening. i follow politics pretty closely. host: thank you ma'am. fairfax, virginia, republican line. hi andy. caller: i just want to briefly talk about my own family

history. i'm irish and my great grandparents are ireland. two brothers married two sisters. one couple came to america. one couple remained in ireland all of those people who came here and european immigration were risk takingers. who raised their children to be risk takingers. there was nothing here at that time -- there was nothing but an opportunity. regarding the southern border, i can't believe the narrative that

these are poor children escaping the vince of drug gangs and what not. but their parents have money to ship them all across mexico. then they're going to come here and maybe they have relatives and maybe they don't. they will be -- host: fairfax, this is mo in auburn, alabama. hi mo. caller: i was wondering, i was listening yesterday, he was wondering where the illegal immigrants got their money from.

i don't think the i.r.s. brought the child credit back. i think the loss of that money to get the children to mexico. i see it from illegal immigrants point of view, we have to promise not to be a burden to this country. my tax money are being paid to send these children all over the united states. we should go after the illegal aliens of family members that are accepting these children to have to pay back the expenses that the children have incurred when they have come to this country. also, school systems in some places are over run. there aren't any room anymore. we have children who do not know the language. host: mo, from where and when

did you come to the u.s.? caller: i came in the 1950's. from scandinavia. i had to go through the regular thing. i have lived here a long time. but now we have -- there are people just come across border. look what happened to the philippines during the second world war. they were allowed to take one family member with them when they came to the united states. from the philippines, -- [indiscernible]. i have to be fair to the children. i have to be fair to the ones trying to do it legally.

host: we're going to leave your comment there. washington times, obama urges congress to tighten up tax loopholes such as minimum wage increase stalled. president obama turned his attention to corporate taxes thursday and said u.s. businesses should be concerned not just with profits but also with being good corporate citizens. mr. obama dent single out any specific company but said the hole of corporate america cannot focus on the capitalist pursuit of higher profits. here's some other headlines from earlier in morning. here's the detroit free press, local article obviously, gm expects to pay between $400 and $600 million to the victims of the car incidents that they've

had. from the arizona republic, the caution down there that took a couple of of hours, department. corrections director said thursday, that the two hour long execution of death row prisoner joseph woodson was not premature. while wood was snorting and dying on the execution gurney, corrections director charles ryan was on the phone with the arizona attorney general's office. that's a little bit from the arizona republic this morning. as we continue to talk about some of the public policy issues currently being discussed in washington and around the country. mark is in orlando, florida. democrat. caller: good morning. i have several things to say. first on nbc news, i've been so disappointed with them and their

reporting on the war in gaza. they took out the reporter that spoke arabic and covered gaza for years who reported on the four kids days on the beach. they took him out the country and only return to him when the -- msnbc fired a woman and has not renewed her contract, she was reporting on that war for years. she objected to the way -- host: did you see the tweet she sent out? caller: no. host: she called a group of israeli scum. do you think that's probably good idea for a reporter to opine on anything like that? caller: par choice of words -- poor choice of words, i agree.

the p.r. battle over this war was outlined -- they wrote a book on it years ago. host: what was the book, mark? caller: it was p.r. crossing points how to handle questions. host: who wrote this book, mark? caller: i can find out for you. it wasn't aipac -- host: next time you call in, you have the name that book. i want to see if we covered it on back tv or whether or not it's something a legitimate author has that we can cover on book tv. i want to share that op-ed with you. this is michael warren. sorry about that to our director, i changed op-eds here. this is michael. he was israel's ambassador to

the u.s. from 2009 to 2013. he's at the atlantic council center now. let israel crush hamas in the interest of peace. he writes the world must allow to this war to happen. operation protect edge enters its third week responsible world leaders can give israel the time and leverage it needs to alter hamas's calculus. they can make it pay a prohibitive cost for its attacks. they can create an outcome in which the organization even if it remains in gaza is defanged and deprived of heavy arm. of course hamas will resist militarization. by ending the cycle, thousands of innocent lives will be saved. life in gaza is miserable now.

if israel is permitted to prevail, circumstances can improve markedly. u.s. and canadian trained security forces of the palestinian authority can take over key crossings and patrol gaza's border with egypt rather than be funneled into hamas's war chest international aid can be transferred directly to the civilian population to repair war damage and stimulate economic growth, terrorist groups and their state patrons can be put on notice the game has changed. that's in the washington post this morning. now the "new york times," lead editorial gaza's mounting death toll. the war is terrorizing innocent people on both sides of the border. creating more appetite for vengeance. it is past time for an immediate cease-fire and for political strategy that offers a hope of a

more stable future for both israelis and palestinian. knowing full well they withdraw israeli fire to places where civilians live. unlike israel, hamas has not built bomb shelters where civilians can take refugee. as people are exposed, from versely, things seem to be going his way. "times" reported that hamas and was in a weaker political position before the war is now being held as palestinian as a champion. palestinian state and negotiation with israel. israel interest would ill-served

if mr. abbas end up being hardliners. that's a little bit from the "new york times" lead editorial this morning. cindy is calling in from sterling heights michigan. you're on the "washington journal." caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. i'm calling regarding an earlier caller who quoting a scripture in the book of mark. he was eluding any religious tenants of immigration. that is also in the book of matthew, chapter 10 i believe it was, who so ever receiveeth, you, he that receiveth me.

he that receiveeth a prophet in the name of a prophet -- he receiveeth a righteous man reward. this has nothing to do with immigration. this is talking about receiving jesus christ as savior and lord. sadly who regarded this scripture was using it improperly. you have to read the scripture surrounding the verse. he tack it out of -- took it out of context. lot of people do that with scripture. host: cindy thank you. lynn, california, independent line. caller: good morning.

i wanted to talk about the immigration in california and the representative from san jose. i just have a hard time understanding how they can want to take on more people in our state when if you looked at them now as far as the drought goes, 80% of our state is in extreme drought. host: where's bishop? caller: bishop is in the valley where los angeles gets its water. host: you're in central california? caller: i'm in the sierra valley mountain range. we're about 40 miles from the border. it's northeast. what happens if you seeing some of the footage of the central valley where california was a huge world grower of food, the

farm is dried up. when you get to a point, you can only help yourself. we are in a situation where we cannot even help ourselves. we cannot supply water and food to any more people until we get over a critical stage. big cities like san jose, they just keep building and adding and money dominates the environment every single time. i don't know where jerry brown has been. i haven't seen what he said about the crisis on our border and the fact that they bring in diseases that are basically is eradicated because of our immunization program. anybody out there paying

attention to the sinking, crushing debt to where we can't take care of ourselves anymore? i don't know what's going to end up happening to this. at some point, it's like i believe there needs to be a moratorium on building. i know developers probably -- there's billions of dollars. people want to talk about the environment and say they care about the environment but yet, economic always comes with the environment. if you came here and saw the lakes that are drying up. i don't know what it's going to take to wake these people up to make them realize that we are in a serious crisis. we need to be able to take care of ourselves. host: what do you do in bishop, california? caller: i have a couple of businesses that i run here. host: what kind of business? retail or other types?

caller: they are both retail businesses. then i have a service industry as well. host: thank you for calling in. we will get on to margie in hollis, new hampshire. caller: thanks for taking my call. for detects, our congress has been biased towards israel. i believe it's detrimental to our democracy. i'll give you an example, in 2006 israel attacked lebanon, they killed over 1300 people totally devastated lebanon's infrastructure. at that time iraqis just selected al maliki at their leader. now they criticized israel for bombing lebanon. now congress was outraged. maliki was scheduled to come to washington. our congress said they did not want him to visit congress. so, our soldiers who are fighting and dieing in iraq, but when the newly elected leader

dares to criticize israel, all bets are off? something is very wrong with this picture. host: there is a house foreign affairs subcommittee meeting today. this is at 9:30 a.m. this morning. it will be live on c-span.com. you will be able to watch it on c-span a little bit later. and it's on c-span 2. there's two resolutions dealing with the ongoing fight between israeli forces and hamas and gaza. one condemns the killing of israelis and palestinian children and the other denounces hamas for using civilians as human shields. this will be live c-span 2 at 9:30 this morning. bonnie, maryland, republican lane. caller: good morning. my question is, is how many children come over.

how many adults are coming over. we have no idea. when they showed pictures of the children, they glanced across it like they have a few small ones placed in it. they're mostly teenagers. we don't know how old they are. it appears our federal government has buses and planes waiting for them at the border and they bring them across, hello, come in. we don't care if you got diseases. a thousand dollars a day to take care of them. i raise grandchildren. i got $150 a month for each one of them. now why does it cost a thousand dollars a day to take care of illegal people? they're illegal. the democrats are just bringing them in because they are they

are older. enough is a enough, they're using these a political stunt. they showing little children and what about the adults? host: that's bonnie in maryland. this is bert in california independent line. caller: you allowed lofgren get out of there before anyone can rebut her open border talking points. couple of things i wanted to make. they keep saying that these children are released and have background check. they admit a lot of them get released to family member who maybe undocumented. i like to know how they do background checks on documents people? the other point that she said,

she said an 8-year-old child doesn't take a job. that's true, an 18-year-old child goes on welfare. you fast forward ten years, will she still be on welfare and will she take jobs from americans then. you go on and on with these points with her. thanks. host: sumter, south carolina, what's on your mind this morning, don. caller: good morning. you know the ineffectiveness of our government as of late, i think primarily due to the tea party section of the house, they current the act like a veto. kind of like the u.n. to make our government ineffective. i would like to see the democratic party may be start a -- governor haley has been

blocking medicaid expansion. maybe the democratic party can start a petition online to getting people to pledge that they will not vote for anyone that is blocking the expansion of medicaid. it affects 400,000 people in the state of south carolina. it would be a way of kind of grassroots way that people can may be make a difference. certainly with the tea party being able to kind of veto everything making the government ineffective. i would love to see them start this petition. i would certainly sane and -- sign and pledge not to vote for any congressman or governor that or state senate that was blocking medicaid. that's all i have. host: thank you don.

in the loop. often has different information in there. senator on the way out by way of europe. senator saxby chambliss will cap his congressional carrier with a trip to europe courtesy of u.s. taxpayer. he will retire at the end of his term. he's taking advantage of being a member of congress. his swansong junket will take them and spouses to belgium, portugal, spain and of course italy. we hear there's a stop at lake lake como. the male only group of senators

on chambliss which includes lindsey graham heads over on the military jet with staff and escorts at the end of the august recess for some serious fact finding and what better find to find these facts to europe. chambliss' office confirmed the trip. the itinerary of the trip has not been finalized. he is currently the ranking republican on the senate intelligence committee. that's al cayman's column in the washington post. another live hearing today beginning about 15 minutes ago is political activities in the white house. the house over sight and government reform committee is meeting to talk about political activities in the white house. the house comes in 15 minutes on c-span 1 on c-span 2 is the hearing on the

israeli-palestinian resolutions. right now we want to show you some video from yesterday. senator dick durbin, senate whip came to the floor to talk about the meeting that the senators had with the three central american presidents who are in town. they are meeting with the president today. here's senator durbin. >> first the child refugee crisis on america's boredders a human tragedy. two weeks ago in chicago, i met with 70 of these children.as a it was a meeting i won't forgete these are children. some are infants. how they ever made it to the united states is nothing short of a miracle. many who tried didn't. those who made it, some of them come scared from a journey, young women who were assaulted, children who were beaten up. on

some lost their lives on the way. these were the survivors, they made it. they were in a transitional shelter in chicago that has been there for 19 years. and 70 of them were getting p physical exams and meals as one person which said, for the first tame in their leaves, many of them were free to be children. these children are here in the united states and they arehe testing us. a it is a test for the united states as to whether or not we cared. i believe we're a caring nation. we've proved it over and over. how many times in places of the world have we rallied politically and stand behind 300 girls who were kidnapped in n nigeria toig be there during the haitian earthquake to make assure the families and children would have at least have shelter, medicine and food.t

the list goes on and on. this caring nation but this is different. this is not about a problem over there. thisth is about a challenge her. what president obama has said to us, we must raise to thisge, challenge as we have in so many places around the world, we muse rise to this challenge at home. when it comes to these children, we can be humane and caring and do the right thing. he sent us a bill to pay for the services they need. it's expensive.. some people argue it's too expensive. we can argue about the exact a amount of money. i hope we aren't arguing about the value and the principle that is being tested.e' i hopere not arguing about whetr the united states is caring and compassionate nation. i just left the presidents from three central american panes.

it is easy to understand what is happening. it is easy to understand when economies is so par in this --ir poor in this area that families cannot feed their children.d it is easy to understand when the drug gangs are so powerful that these children are being threatened, exploited, raped and killed. it is only this that in desperation some member of themy family says there's only one chance.chan we send you to the united states. putting these children in thn e hands of coyotes and smugglers, imagine a mother taking her child to the freight train, this 12-year-old boy watching him claim up the ladder and hang on and say, you'll be there in four days. can you imagine that?

can you imagine the family in honduras, before they send their young girl on this journey with the coyote, they give her birth control pills. how desperate must that family be. that is the relate of this human child refugee crisis that we face. the president said we need to do several things. first we need to tell these no children don't send these children. when they arrive here, they have to right to be citizens and stay hear. do notar send your children. the countries involved, honduras and joining us now getting that

message out. we need to prosecute these snug hers. they extort from these families a year's wages to try to bring t children into this country. some of these children are teenagers, most of them are. many are babies and infants. all of them were from honduras, all victims of rape.l v they have gone on these buses for eight days to bring these newborn infants to a safer place so they might survive. religious groups all around thea united states have rallied behind these children.ren. i'm proud that the catholic church, which i associate with, i'mme proud that the catholic church and the bishops have spoken up on this. evangelicals, one of the first groups to come forward.ot we've got to do something forre. these children. even some of the most

conservative politicalaid commentators said, first america show your heart that you care for these children.e that's what the president is asking us to do. let us take care when we consider supplemental appropriation bill. that we don't lose sight of our values. those who politically disagree d and sometimes even despise the president, i urge them don't show how tough you are with this president at the expense of these small children. let's show how big we are as a nation first. the political debate can be saved for another day.uppo i support this legislation. i think it's the right thing to do. iut want it to be a chapter we'e proud of. i want a future generation to look back to this year and sayn that in this year when the united states was presented with this border crisis withch children, america showed its

heart. america stood up and did theng right thing for these children as we have so many times in the past. there are other things in this bill, one of them is a section in the bill i worked on in my capacity as chairman of the defense appropriations d committee. much different than the debate about children and refugees. over the past three weeks, more than 2000 rockets have been fired from gaza into israel. according toco press reports, civilian casualties have been limited. maybe even only two out of 2000 rockets. many of these rockets landed unhabitted areas. second, these rockets are headed for cities and towns. r these rockets are stopped and destroyed before they strike their targets.-- the reason, the iron dome missileef defense system. a joint effort by the united states and israel to protect

israel from just such an attack. the united states have deep ties in this program of the ten iron dome batteries that have been fielded and united states provided s thendin funding for eight of them.lad i'm glad we have. this system has saved innocent lives. our country has been asked fordi additional assistance to ensure that the israeli stockpile of iron dome interceptors is adequate to the challenge. we don't know when this crisis will end. secretare y of defense chuck hal endorsed an additional a $225 million in funding for iron dome in a recent letter. the request of funds are in addition to next year's appropriation. it may be some time before the appropriation bills is enacted. that's why the president askedhs to include in thisp appropriation, $225 million to speed up the production of iron dome missiles. the senate has two little time left, next week and then we're gone for five or six weeks.e

return for perhaps two and then gone until november. we have to act and act now. this bill needs to pass. i'm going to be supporting it. this is an emergency which is front and center. the ambassador from israel to the united states came to see me last week. tim he said at one time, two thirdss of population in israel were the bomb shelters during these attacks. let me add too, all of us have prayed that this violence end,se war between gaza and israel come to an end soon. that they will institute a cease-fire. set at the s table and resolve their differences. we cannot expect any country, notices, -- not the united states, to set and take 2000 incoming rockets and not liv

respond. this saves lives.me now we need to take the nextngin step bringing peace to the region so that innocent peoplete will be spared. ate hamas, characterized them as terrorists are leading this attack on israel. this terrorist group is politically popular in some g parts of gaza. however they protect their rocket launchers, they place them in homes.. they put them in crowded areas and they build tunnels under gaza to secret dome weapons. latest report they were building these tunnels under hospitals. knowing that israel and other countries wouldth spare these hospitals. meanwhile the hospitals are covering tunnels which are justi the source of much more violence in the area. i like to close on this issue oi

about child refugees. one of the questions which i asked of the ambassador from honduras, guatemala was this, we believe that the children who come intoe the united states once given a t chance to state why they are here, we believe at least halfae of them, maybe more would be returned to their countries. i ask the ambassadors from these countries, can we have confidence that if these i children who come to our border are returned back to their c countriesou that they will be safe. saf simple question. do you have people, charities, government to guarantee that when they returnn when they get off the plane that they will be safe? the ambassador from guatemala said yes we do. the ambassador from honduras said no we don't. the ambassador from el salvador

said nearly do we -- neither do we. let us make sure we do everything to hand theseth children over to a safe situation. let us work with these countries to stop the flow to make sure when they return they return to a safe setting. can you believe that in chicagoh a brother and a sister one 6-year-old and one 3-year-old came to the one of the shelters? they could see from the bruisess on their bodies, they've been through something. the 6-year-old finally talked about what she can remember from this journey. i won't recount the details hear. it's heart breaking. let's do right by theseen. children. let's make sure atle the end ofy the day, that america has proven

again that we are a caringe nation and for those children come to our border, we will treat them humanely and compassionately as we would want our own children to be treated if they a were ever in such desperate circumstance. let's setit politics aside. i yield the floor. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington, directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences. and oftenning complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we're c-span created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. watch us in hd, "like" us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

>> michelle flournoy is our guest on this week's "q&a." >> if you're in government. you are focused on the crisis of the day. part of my responsibility under secretary deft was representing the defense on the so called deputies committee which is the senior level group that's working through the issues, developing options for the principles and the president. a lot of crisis management focus. when you're in a think tank, your real utility is not trying to second guess the policy makers. but help to do some work to raise their day. help them look over the horizon to see what are the issues i will confront and how do i think more strategically about america's role in the world. >> former secretary of defense and cofounder for the center fr national security, michelle flournoy on the education of canns. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and

pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> u.s. house is about to gavel in after one minute speeches, members will debate a resolution to require most u.s. troops to return from iraq and require president to come to congress before any more military action in iraq. ... the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 25, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the eaker pro tempore:

prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. please hear our prayers for the members of this assembly upon whom the authority of government is given. help them to understand the tremendous responsibility they have to represent both their constituents and the people of this great nation of ours. this is a great but complex task. grant them as well the gift of wisdom to sort through what competing interests might exist to work a solution that can serve all of the american people. finally, give each member peace and we can nimity and give all equinimity and understand that government is not simple and difficult work at times

sometimes requiring sacrifice and forebearance. may all that is done in the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from exas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute.

mr. poe: madam speaker, the border crisis continues with the influx of migrants, mostly honduran teenagers. rather than take them to their homeland, the president is considering of giving them refugee status. the president is going to go his own way. obviously he doesn't understand the consequences of his new proposed executive mandate made from behind the white house fences. the migrants are coming to the united states illegally because the president has sent the word out far and wide that he will not enforce the border security laws. the president of honduras, whom i met with in january, said as much again yesterday. he said the minors are coming is because the drug cartels who smuggle the minors for a hefty fee tell them this president will let them stay in the united states. so now the americans struggling to take care of their own families will be expected to permanently pay for the housing, education and health care of these individuals. the rule of law seems to be a

mere suggestion to the amnesty president. this crisis, that is the president's doing, will just continue. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, two weeks ago representatives barbara lee, chris gibson, richard hudson and i hosted a poverty simulation for us in capitol hill. runned by catholic charities u.s.a., this similar proliferation provided a way for policymakers and their staff to experience poverty in a new and different way. they experienced firsthand what it's like to be poor in america. far tour often we talk about poverty but we don't understand it. being poor is hard work. it's hard to figure out how to stretch your food dollar and get home -- and get from home to school to work with limited

transportation, for example, when you're poor and living on a limited income. this simulation is one step in understanding how we end hunger and poverty. we can't begin this fight if we can't come together as republicans and democrats and simulations like this could prove to be the way we all start working together on this common goal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wolf: pope francis has spoken about the conditions in iraq for christians. now his grace bishop of the orthodox church in the united kingdom has said the following today -- as the widespread violence and aggression facing christians and minority groups in mosul, iraq intensifies, it's evident that the fundamental right and freedom to practice one faith continues to be grossly violated. we are currently witnessing an unacceptable widespread implementation of extremist

religious ideology that threatens the lives of all iraqis who do not fit within the ever narrowing perspective. while this situation stands to eradicate centuries of coexistens and culture in the region and threatens to significantly and negatively impact these communities for generations to come, if left unchallenged, it is not iraq alone that is at risk but the potential that is intensified for the replication on this ideology and a viable and legitimate model across the middle east. he then thanked the royal institute from faith studies jordan ghness prince of for expressing his concern for the current situation in mosul. everyone, the president, the congress, religious leaders should speak out on the eradication of christianity in the middle east. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. bustos: i ask the house d senate to forgo the august recess and pass legislation that will give veterans the timely and quality health care they have earned and deserved. in light of the allegations of wrongdoing within the department of veterans affairs and unaccept isably long wait times at facilities, it's urgent that a fix be put in place now. last month, both the senate and house passed legislation that would expand veterans' abilities to seek care at non-v.a. facilities under certain conditions, strengthen congress' oversight of the v.a. and eliminate performance-related bonuses for v.a. employees. since then, the conference committee, tasked to work out a compromise between the two bills, has yet to do so. i know i speak for many when i

say the health of the veterans who have served us so bravely should not be placed on hold while congress is away in august. i urge all my colleagues to join me in calling on congress to stay in session and to do right by our veterans. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise today to discuss the national defense authorization act and to call on congress to come together and pass this important bill so that our troops have the support they need to succeed in the field and our military commanders and policymakers have the certainty they need to conduct our nation's national security affairs. this year's ndaa has already been voted on by the house, passing with bipartisan support. in addition to keeping troops adequately equipped and trained, this year's legislation also includes a piece of legislation called the

medical equity -- medical evaluation parody act, or the meps act, that will help our military move forward toward a more comprehensive and approach toward suicide prevention and detection. while our military has made great strides to address the issues of mental illness, the tragic events such as those at fort hood reminds us we must do better. madam speaker, i'm calling on the senate to move forward on this legislation so we can help those in uniform. they deserve as much and i yesh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, to request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: as a former state supreme court justice and now as the ranking democrat on a subcommittee whose responsibilities include child well-being, i ask my colleagues to avoid the easy political path advanced by those who

claim they would help vulnerable children by deporting them. we must say no to those who would hold up needed homeland security funding unless we agree to blame the victims, stripping these desperate children of their vital right to be heard. let's cede the good council of a.b.a. president. quote, the u.s. finds itself at a critical crossroads. the american bar association has long recognized the special vulnerabilities of children. we oppose any dem anything in the rights of central american children under the rights of the law. it's imperative that children's immigration cases be conducted in the presence of an adjudicator. in addition, added resources are needed to reform and bolster our system for adjudication, a system that's been severely short funded for many years.

shortcutting justice for children cuts short justice for abuse. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. madam speaker, moments ago the house opened in prayer and today i'm rising in solidarity with those who are calling for a worldwide day of prayer for christians suffering in iraq, syria, egypt and across the middle east. radical islamists have a phrase. first, the saturday people, then, the sunday people. those who call for israel's destruction are the same radicals who are persecuting christians throughout the middle east. reported cases of christians killed for their faith doubled worldwide from the previous year. others have been kidnapped, forcibly converted or exiled while churches and holy sites

have been destroyed. iraq's christian community has dropped from 1.5 million people in 2003 to only 200,000 today, and in mosul, home of the world's oldest christian community, one of the world's oldest christian community, isis militants have overrun the city and they're using this arabic symbol, painting to on homes to identify nazarenes, or christians. they're told to convert to islam, pay a religious tax or be executed. now almost no christians remain in mosul, a city of 2,000 years relationship with the christian faith. and the situation is dire in syria, elsewhere. middle east christians need our prayers, our support and our voices and i'm proud to stand with those who follow the nazarenes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: thank you, madam speaker. , and in gaza continues every human life that is killed is a tragedy, particularly civilians. but i think it's important to perspective. the fight is between israelis and hamas, which is a terrorist organization. week after week, month after month, year after year hamas has lobbied -- lobbed missiles into the israeli civilian population killing israelis, maiming israelis. israel is fighting back in order to try to stop the onslaught of hamas. what would we do, madam speaker, if missiles came over the border in can -- from canada or from mexico, attacking population areas of the united states? of course we would go over the border and attempt to stop the

terrorists that were doing that to our civilians. that's precisely what israel is doing, and quite frankly the media coverage of the war in gaza has been absolutely one-sided against israel and absolutely disgraceful. hamas uses its people as human shields. they build bomb factories and missile factories in heavily populated civilian areas and so when civilians are killed it's the fault of hamas, not the fault of israel which is trying to defend its way of life and defend its citizens. i'm proud that america stands with israel and we'll continue to do so. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: madam speaker, last night on the national news, i saw the terrible agony and tears of a man whose children have been, according to the report, blown to pieces when a school was hit in gaza. hamas started this war. israel certainly has a right to

defend its people. in today's "washington post," michael orrin, the former israeli ambassador to the u.s. said, quote, it is indeed agonizing, unquote, to watching the images of the dead and wound and i might especially add, the children. israel agreed to an egyptian sponsored cease-fire. hamas did not. i rise today to plead for both sides in this war to at least let the little children get out of the war zone. the united nations has never been very effective, but it should at least attempt to lead an effort to get children out of harm's way. if this fighting unfortunately has to continue, our president and state department should at least do everything possible to get little children out of gaza in to some safe place away from the bombs and the rockets. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i thank the speaker.

i rise to congratulate the toledo zoo recently voted the best zoo in america on its dedication of a new 2.1 megawatt solar array. the project is a win for everyone involved. it embraces the future. it will supply 30% of the zoo's electricity needs, and it makes use of a vacant brownfield site in the city that would otherwise be a financial and environmental burden. it serves as a wonderful educational tool for the zoo's more than 800,000 annual visitors. unfortunately, this is a success story that will be difficult to replicate in ohio due to the backward energy policy recently enacted by ohio's governor and state legislature. as america strives to regain energy security, we must embrace all energy options, especially innovative renewable energy sources that will power our future into and beyond the 21st century. hats off to the toledo zoo for

serving as a national leader in advancing this goal. madam speaker, i'd like to include for the record a recent article from the toledo blade detailing this really incredible success. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: i the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. royce, seek recognition? mr. royce: madam speaker, pursuant to the order of the house of july 23, 2014, i call up house concurrent resolution 105 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tile of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 105, concurrent resolution directing the president pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution, to remove united states armed forces, other than armed forces required to protect united states diplomatic facilities and personnel, from iraq. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the use of wednesday, july 23, 2014, the amendment numbered 1

printed in the congressional record is adopted and the concurrent resolution, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to submit any extraneous materials for the record on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. i very much appreciate the way in which mr. mcgovern, mr. engel, the bipartisan leadership of the house, and the staff of the committee have worked through this issue to bring us here this morning. i thank all -- i thank all of the members. i also thank all of the members of this body -- think all the members of this body can support this motion.

earlier this week the foreign affairs committee heard testimony from senior officials from the department of state and defense on the situation in iraq. madam speaker, the situation in this critical immediatele eastern country is precarious -- middle eastern country is precarious. it has turned its sites on baghdad and may be preparing to launch attacks against the united states. never has a terrorist organization cell controlled such a large resource rich safe haven as isis does today. never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that isis does today, which includes thousands of western passport holders. what started as a crisis in syria has become a reasonablal disaster with serious global implications. including credible threats of international terrorism, humanitarian disaster, and

upward pressure on energy prices in a fragile global economy. the top state department official told our committee that isis represents a growing threat to u.s. interest in the region, local population, and the homeland. calling it a vital national security challenge. this is a common assessment outside of government as well. as part of the response to this threat, the obama administration has deployed additional military assets and up to 475 troops to secure our embassy, our personnel. a few hundred u.s. military advisors are evaluating how we might best train, advise, and support the iraqis to take on isis. as the department of defense testified this week, these small teams are armed for self-defense, but do not have an offensive mission. it was noted these teams are not unlike the missions being carried out by u.s. forces

around the world, u.s. forces currently maintain these types of troops in more than 70 droins in africa, the americas -- 70 countries in africa, and americas. if they did decide to take more action in iraq, members on both side of the aisle would be -- sides of the aisle would be deeply split. some believe we should be more active in this region believing our absence has turned into a vacuum. where i think all members can agree is that if the president of the united states ordered u.s. armed forces into sustained combat in iraq, then he should be coming to congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and backing, the backing of this body. that is the text before us today. quote, the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained

combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution. at the same time, this text preserves the flexibility the president may need to respond to the rapidly evolving national security to protect our embassy, to conduct search and rescue, or target an al qaeda-type terrorist who poses an eminent threat to the united states among other things. nothing in this text impacts the war powers resolution, which, of course, requires the president to withdraw u.s. forces from hostilities within 60 to 90 days after introduction absent an authorization from congress. the gentleman from massachusetts brings a critical issue to the house floor. the use of force by u.s. armed forces, and the appropriate role for the congress in that decision.

any military officer will tell you that the support of the people is critical to the success of the sustained combat operation. as the representative body, that responsibility falls to us. it's an obligation that i know all of my colleagues take seriously, and it is why i expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res. 105. it reaffirms our belief that u.s. troops should not be deployed in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific

congressional authorization. i yield my southwest five minutes. since last december, the terrorist group, isis, has marched across iraq with lethal efishency. cities have fallen to their control. thousands of iraqis soldiers have been killed. the military equipment they left behind, some supplied by the united states, is now in the hands of these fanatics. after easing the -- erasing the border between iraq and syria, isis has advanced toward our ally, jordan. and the leaders of isis have declared an islamic cali fat, promising to rule with a brand of barbarism, such as mandatory female genital mutilation. madam speaker, the threat posed by isis is real. iraq is teetering on the brink. we can't allow that country to become a safe haven for terrorists that could be used to launch another 9/11. while the hamas terrorists are pushing forth in gaza, the isis terrorists are pushing forth in

iraq. at the same time, however, we need to make clear to the american people and the iraqi government that the u.s. combat mission in iraq is over. after losing more than 4,000 american lives and spending more than $1 trillion, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into another sectarian quagmire. the crisis in iraq cannot be solved through military means alone. the solution will be rooted in real political changes in iraq, more inclusive polcy, and greater effort to avoid sectarian conflict. president obama removed the last american combat troops from iraq on december 18, 2011 under an agreement reached by the bush administration. and he has no intention of sending them back, a position with which i firmly agree. as the president said last month, and i quote, american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq, but we will help iraqis if they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the iraqi people, the region, and american interests as well.

unquote. in the last several weeks the president has expanded intelligence and surveillance efforts. he sent a contingent of troops to protect our diplomatic personnel at the u.s. embassy in baghdad, and he's deployed small military assessment teams to get information about the threat that isis poses to iraq, to the region, and to american interests. identify support these measures. they represent the sort of security cooperation with the iraqi government that we should be offering to support our own national security interests. but they don't require the sustained presence of american combat troops in iraq. at the end of the day we all know it's past time for the iraqi government to confront some serious challenges. these will require an iraqi solution when based on respect for each other and the rule of law. i'd like to thank representative mcgovern, representative jones, and representative lee for their tenacity and leadership in sparking this important debate. they have worked with us in the foreign affairs committee, constructively with me and chairman royce, both, along with the house leadership on both

sides of the aisle, to ensure that the amendment we are considering today would enjoy broad bipartisan support. so i hope that the process which brought about today's bill will serve as an example of bipartisan cooperation for the house to follow in the days to come. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield the balance of my time and the rest of the time in doing this debate to mr. mcgovern, who will manage the rest of the measure. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walter jones, a member of the committee on armed services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. jones: thank you very much, madam speaker, and mr. royce, thank you for the time. i am pleased that the house is debating h.con. resolution 105. i want to thank the republican leadership for working with mr. jim mcgovern, barbara lee, and

myself, and our staffs to get this language so that we could debate it today. as james madison said, the power to declare war, including the power to judge the cause of the war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. unfortunately, we in congress have for too long abdicated our constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of military force. this began for me personally with my vote for the 2002 authorization for the use of military force against iraq, which is one of the biggest regrets during my tenure of congress in voting for that. with that vote, we gave up our constitutional authority on one of the most important decisions a member of congress can make. the decision to send american men and women into war to possibly die. mr. speaker, it is -- madam speaker, it is my hope that one day we ask congress -- in

congress will repeal the 2001 and the 2002 aumf. until that time comes, i believe that today represents a strong step toward reclaiming the constitutional power that we each have and are entrusted with to make decisions about going to war or declaring war. . i cannot emphasize enough that no decision is more important for a member of congress than a vote to send young men and women to fight and to die for our country. the main text of this resolution is simple. the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization. madam speaker, this is what madison meant when he said the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and

exclusively vested in the legislation. may i have 30 more seconds, mr. chairman? mr. royce: i'll yield the entleman another 30 seconds. mr. jones: this is a monumental step toward reclaiming our constitutional authority. in closing, i want to thank representative mcgovern, lee and members in both parties who have fought with me to come to congress to declare war. we have been calling on debate with regard to the use of our military. i also want to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel and their staffs for this opportunity today. may god continue to bless our troops, their families and may god continue to bless america. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i

rise in strong support of house concurrent resolution 105, as amended. this important bipartisan bill asserts the important constitutional role of congress in matters of war and peace, and it is my sincere hope that every single member of this institution will vote in favor. it is important for our colleagues to know that this resolution is the result of open discussion and dialogue between both sides of the aisle. it is an example of what can happen when members come together and decide they want to accomplish something meaningful, and i want to thank speaker boehner and the majority leadership, leader pelosi and minority whip hoyer, foreign affairs committee chairman royce and ranking member engel, and i want to thank my good friends who have helped lead this effort, my colleagues, congressman walter jones and congresswoman barbara lee for working together on this language of this resolution. i want to send a special thanks to all the staff who spent many hours listening to the views and concerns that span the political spectrum of this

house about america's engagement in iraq. in particular, i want to thank jen stewart, emily murray, wendy parker, dan silverberg, doug andersen, jason steinbaum, anice, doug campbell, myra redznik, ray, cindy and keith. i am very grateful for how hard each of them worked to achieve a consensus. madam speaker, this resolution is quite straightforward. it requires an authorization from congress should the president determine that the united states should escalate its military presence in iraq. it does not change the president's existing authorities to protect and ensure the security of u.s. diplomatic facilities and personnel, and it does not alter the requirements of the war powers resolution. this resolution makes one clear statement. if the president decides we should further involve our

military in iraq, he needs to work with congress to authorize it. i don't know how congress would respond and vote for such a request. and for the record i want to state in the strongest possible way that i think it would be a grave mistake for the united states to re-engage militarily in iraq. and i want to make clear that the intent of this resolution is not to criticize president obama. i believe him when he says that he has no intention of significantly expanding our military presence in iraq. and so far each of the three recent deployments to iraq that he has announced, the president rightfully and formally informed congress scuent with the war powers resolution. -- consistent with the war powers resolution. nor does it criticize the republican leadership. rather, the intent of this resolution is to begin to re-establish congress' rightful role under article 1, section 8 of the constitution when it comes to matters of war and peace. i believe there is broad bipartisan and growing concern

that over the past several decades congress has ceded far too much of its power to the executive branch. it has happened under democratic and republican presidents. it has happened under democratic and republican control of the house and senate. it is not really a partisan issue. it is an institutional one. we simply haven't done our job. my concern all along is that congress has not lived up to its constitutional responsibilities to debate and authorize the introduction of u.s. forces whether they are engaged in roles related to combat. so while this resolution clearly puts the president on notice, it also reinforces the institutional role of congress in matters of war and peace. madam speaker, the time to debate our re-engagement in iraq should come to that before we're caught in the heat of the moment, not when the first body bags come home, not when the first bombs start to fall, not when the worst-case scenario is playing out on our tv screens.

the time to debate iraq is when we can weigh the pros and cons of action, the pros and cons of supporting the violent and sectarian violence of the maliki government or whatever overnment cobble ready together. resolution is receives are the careful debate that it deserves. we owe at least that much to our men and women in uniforms and families and we owe that much to our democratic institution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: well, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. thomas massie. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. massey: thank you, mr. chairman. -- . massie: thank you, mr.

chairman. article 1, section 8, gives are the sole power to go to war to congress, not the president. the situation in iraq is deteriorating as we speak. isis is tare rising the people of iraq -- terrorizing the people of iraq and destroying the ancient culture of mosul. some have called on america to intervene once again. if we do so and send our brave men and women into harm's way overseas, we must honor the constitution. congress must authorize any such military action. it would be illegal for the president to do so alone. any future military action in iraq would conconstitute a new war with new enemies, isis, and require a new congressional authorization. the president cannot use the 2002 authorization for the use of force in iraq to justify any new action. it is important for those who are quick to rush into another war to remember that wars often have unintended consequences. iraq is a prime example.

in a recent article in "the telegraph," historian dr. tim stanley pointed out that prior to the 2003 iraq war there were 1.5 million christians in iraq. today there are only 400,000. as dr. stanley writes, quote, the lesson is either leave other countries alone or if you must intervene do so with consistency and resilience. the consequences of going in, messing things up and then quiting with a weary shrug are terrible for those left behind, under -- unquote. if we go to war we must have congress to declare and fight to win. anything else is illegal, unconstitutional and likely to lead to unintended horrific consequences. that is why i support h.con.res 105, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, it's my privilege to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from california, one of the leaders

on this resolution, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. first of all, let me thank congressman mcgovern for yielding but also for your tireless leadership on this very important issue. i am proud to join congressman walter jones and congressman mcgovern in introducing this bipartisan resolution and for their consistent support and work as great americans to address these serious issues of war and peace. this resolution simply prohibits the president to deploy armed services our to engage in combat operations in iraq without specific debate and authorization from congress. this resolution also seeks to reclaim a fundamental congressional responsibility, the constitutionality protected right for congress to debate and to determine when this country enters into war. i also am personally concerned

about mission creep. we hear many of the same voices who champion the unnecessary war in iraq, once again beating the drum for a renewed war in iraq today. last month, president obama announced that 300 personnel would be sent to iraq, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support supported by attack helicopters and drones. a few days later, he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. their promises to send many additional hell fire earth to surface missiles. now i, too, believe that president obama does not intend to send ground troops to iraq, but we need to make sure -- make sure, find you, that congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility on this grave issue. after more than a decade at war in iraq and afghanistan, thousands of united states lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for congress to

reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than ever. and let me remind you, it was the absence of full debate that led congress to passing the overly broad 2001 authorization for the use of military force in the wake of 9/11. this law was used to justify everything, from the war in afghanistan, warrantless, domestic and international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in guantanamo and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not at war with. i couldn't vote for that resolution because, you know, i have always believed that such consequences are grave for the united states' national security interests unless we fully debate these issues and of course in the war, we didn't debate that resolution any more than one hour. and i continued to attempt to repeal and address the problematic actions justified

under this law ever since. now, on july 16, congressman mcgovern, jones, rigell, myself and others, over 100 members of congress from both parties, we wrote a letter and we signed that letter to president obama to come to congress to debate and for an authorization before any military escalation in iraq. exactly what this resolution would do. madam speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to insert that record into the letter, please -- into the record -- excuse me. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: and also, let me remind you during last month, we debated the defense appropriations bill. over 150 bipartisan members supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from conducting combat operations in iraq. but this resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the president to come to congress should he decide to engage in an escalated combat role in

iraq. the pretty is, though, there's no military solution in iraq. this is a sectarian war with long-standing roots that were flamed when we invaded iraq in 2003. any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides. the change iraq needs must come from iraqis rejecting violence, in favor of a peaceful democracy and respects for the rights of all citizens. madam speaker, the american people agree -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: thousands of american lives and billions of dollars, the american people are rightfully war weary. before we put our brave service men and women in harm's way again, congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on whether or not we should get further involved in iraq militarily. and of course after we pass

this resolution, i urge the republican leadership to bring up our bill, h.r. 3852, to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. i want to thank once again congressman mcgovern for staying the course. he was one of the first members calling for an end to the war in iraq and to bring our brave troops home. he's provided tremendous leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. this is just another one of those efforts. so i want to thank you, again, congressman mcgovern, congressman jones. i want to thank all of the members who are supporting this, including our leadership. congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. we don't do this for the farm bill. we don't do this for the transportation bill. sooner or later, we need to repeal the initial authorizes. thank you, again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: well, thank you,

madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. adam kinzinger, a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you. and i want to say thank you to the chairman for yielding me this time. thank you to both sides for your hard work. it's rare that we get compromises in washington, and i appreciate the work you've put in, but i cannot in good conscience support this. . i'm a veteran of irblinge. i saw many people that -- of iraq. i saw many people that fought hard to bring the iraqi people freedom. and i saw a war that was won in 2011. what we are watching happening in iraq right now is the worst case scenario in the middle east. there is a march of jihadism and extremism that makes al qaeda look like puppy dogs that's happening in iraq. a president that's indecisive on what to do. we have genital mutilations ordered in mosul just the other

day by isis. and we are here in washington, d.c., debating what we need to do to hamstring the president who is already indecisive enough about this. you know, when american military, american marines and army get themselves into sustained combat, they often call on strong air support to help them win the fight. that's why as well as the strong marines and army we have, that's why we are so good at what we do. we are asking the iraqi military to take back their country and take land, but yet not providing them substantial airpower that's needed to destroy this very evil cancer that's growing in the middle east. that's what we ought to be here discussing today. is how to stop this cancer of jihadism in isis that's growing in the middle east, how to stop that from growing, and ultimately prevent it from coming here to the united states of america and potentially to our allies. so while i again strongly respect and fully understand what my chairman is doing here and appreciate his hard work, i

think instead of giving the president an ability to blame congress for his indecisiveness, i think it's time that we stand up and say we have to defend our interests and defend people that want to defend themselves. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for his comments and his service to our country. but the gentleman should draft an authorization for war and ask for his leadership to bring it up. that's what the constitution tells us to do. with this resolution -- what this resolution is about today is not whether -- this is not a vote on getting out of iraq or staying in iraq or expanding our role in iraq. this is a vote on whether or not our -- we are going to live up to our constitutional responsibility. this should not be controversial, no matter what one's views are on military re-engagement in iraq. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman

from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, who has been a leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding. i rise today in support of h.con.res. 105, having already taken action on this issue that has every american gravely concerned, i opposed our involvement in iraq in 2002, i opposed it last month, and i oppose it today. while i intent -- intend to support the resolution at hand, i believe we should have required the president to recall any troops not in iraq for security. this was the original purpose of the resolution. notwithstanding, it is very significant that this house of representatives will probably pass overwhelmingly this resolution that takes a very firm stand that congress should be authorizing any further military action in iraq. we owe it to the people of this nation. let's be clear, the president invoked the war powers act under

the guise of protecting our embassy. there are now nearly 1,000 u.s. troops in harm's way. apache helicopters to name a few. we are taking sides in a sectarian civil war let's not forget that's what we are doing. congress must reject a new war in iraq, and i urge my colleagues to demand further action to take further action to withdraw our troops now before our men and women in uniform are again asked to pay too high a price for our inaction. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, an article was written in defense 1. i want to quote part of it. he says, the hard truth is that there is little we can do to

save the corrupt, incompetent government we installed in iraq. if 10 years, millions of hours of work, and hundreds of billions of dollars cannot build a regime that can survive, it is difficult to imagine any fix that can. those seeking to blame the obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a cynical game. there is not a quick fix to this problem. the hard truth is that like the collapse of the government in south vietnam a generation ago, there is little we can do to prop up this government. as military expert tweeted, i quote, unless the u.s. has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into prime minister maliki, air strikes in iraq would be pointless, end quote. i ask unanimous consent to insert the article. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. mcgovern: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three meant. mr. holt: thank you, madam speaker. i commend the authors of this

resolution, representatives mcgovern, jones, and lee, for their leadership on this issue of war and peace. the topic of limiting our future military involvement in iraq deserves more than one hour. it deserves an entire legislative day to discuss this resolution and the larger question, the issue of the war making powers of congress. the history of our involvement in iraq and exactly how we came to this point is of paramount importance. in understanding why it's vital that the house pass this resolution. but since time is limited, let me come to the point. no more american soldiers should kill or be killed in iraq to redeem our past mistakes. the united states has spent years and billions of dollars trying to rebuild iraq's armed forces to no end.

sending 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 advisors to iraq would be a pointless exercise when the iraqi army continues to melt away in the face of rebels. unless the iraqi government can inspire confidence in kurds, sunni, shiia, that it is a fair legitimate government concerned with the welfare of all iraqis, no amount of money or american advisors will save it. we have already lost more than 4,000 americans in one war in iraq. let's not invoke the insidious, hellacious argument that our previous heavy investment justifies further heavy investment. had america not waged an unnecessary war in iraq starting in 2003, there would be no need for us to debate this resolution now. like so many misguided military interventions in our history,

america's misguided war with iraq unleashed forces that we cannot now control. we should not compound that error by squandering more lives and money in iraq. i hope we can have beyond this moment now a fuller debate of the war making powers of congress. i hope as representative lee said a few moments ago that we can have a debate on the repeal of the authorization of the use of military force. much s the excuse for ilitary, paramilitary, and domestic intrusive activities in this contry. but for now -- in this country. but for now we should, i think, recognize the good acts of representatives mcgovern, jones,

and lee in bringing this resolution to the floor. i think it will help further the debate greatly. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i'm going to reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 33 national organizations in support of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, regarding the term "sustained combat role," this resolution specifically states that nothing in this language superseeds the war powers resolution. the war powers resolution lays out very clear time frames beyond which we should consider troops to be deployed for a sustained period. combat role implies the many

roles our troops may be engaged in while supporting combat operations in iraq. i think, however, this resolution is based on the president and the congress acting in good faith and working together to authorize any deeper involvement in the ongoing conflict in iraq. madam speaker, i think that there are -- at this point we have no further speakers on this time so let me close. i want to again acknowledge that this is an important resolution and this is an important moment for this institution. we have bipartisan collaboration on this language. we have bipartisan agreement that we ought not to give up our constitutional responsibilities when it comes to declaring war or getting into wars. and again i want to thank speaker boehner. i want to thank leader pelosi.

i want to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel and everybody who is involved in working together in understanding that no matter what your view is on what we should be doing in iraq, that we all agree that we have a responsibility here. that we matter in this debate. i think it's also important to realize that we are coming together to acknowledge that it is important to debate this issue before we get into the heat of battle. i hope it never comes to that, but for too long i think this institution has not done what it is supposed to do when it comes to war. both under democratic presidents and under republican presidents. as i said in the beginning this is not a critique of president obama. i believe the president when he says he does not want to see anymore combat troops deployed in iraq. i believe him when he says he

does not re-engage militarily in yet another war. but i also know from history that there is such a thing called the slippery slope, and there are events that happen that sometimes overtake people's original positions, and then we find ourselves in a situation that we did not expect to be in. what we are saying here is that if, in fact, the president for whatever reason decides to escalate our military involvement, congress needs to debate it and congress needs to authorize it. it is that simple. this resolution is not as strong as some of us would want it to be, and it's not as weak as some would want it to be. this represents a compromise. i also think it's important to point out that every once in a while this place works. i think this is one of the moments where we can point to that the congress is working.

and we are working on an issue that i think is of incredible importance. i just close by saying like so many of my colleagues here, i have been to countless funerals of soldiers who have been killed, not only in iraq but in afghanistan. i have talked to parents, i have talked to brothers and sisters, i have talked to grandparents during very difficult times when they have lost a loved one. it is important that we recognize that going to war, deploying our troops in hostilities, is a big deal. we ought to be very clear that this is important. that we ought not go down that road lightly. and i am grateful that this solution makes it clear that we are going to debate these issues, and that we are going to

authorize these issues, and we are going to respect the constitution. so with that, madam speaker, i want to thank mr. royce, i want to thank everybody who has been involved in this. this is an important statement. and i am very hopeful that we will get a strong bipartisan support. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, let me begin by saying i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts' spirit of cooperation. mr. mcgovern and i have worked on a number of issues from victims rights to trying to stop the exploitation of child i iers in africa, and so appreciate that spirit on his part. as i noted in my opening testimony, my opening statement here, the threat of isis is real, and i do think we should

reflect on that as we debate this issue. never has a terrorist organization itself controlled so much territory, especially such a large resource-rich safe haven as isis has in this caliphate as they perceive it, as they control in this caliphate now. never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that isis does today. . and this includes thousands of western passports and thousands of individuals who are passport holders from the west. one militant engaged in this battle recently returned to europe and attacked a museum in brussels. so more of that is coming as a result of isis. and let's not take this debate

to mean that we should not be doing anything to offset that organization. i think the president has failed u.s. national security interests by not, for example, authorizing or accepting the quest made by the government in iraq and by our personnel in our embassy for drone strikes on these terrorist isis camps. remember, this is a situation where the drone can actually see the isis combatants, with the black flag of al qaeda waving. as they move across the desert or as they are had encamped, this was an -- are encamped, this was an opportunity to hit them when they were vulnerable, before they began or as they march to march across the desert, as they began to take those cities with

their columns, their armed columns. i do think, as the u.n. reported yesterday, that there are going to be consequences to these fatwas that come down from isis. the one yesterday specifically, according to the u.n., isis is requiring female mutilation in the new caliphate it is establishing. at least in the mosul area and around that area. that's about four million females that would be subject this if they are as doctrineaire as they have been on other issues. so we will be wrestling with what to do about isis, what we can do. , and is resolution says i think the overwhelming majority of us in congress

agrees with this, is that if the president of the united states ordered u.s. armed forces into sustained combat in iraq, then he should be coming to congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and the backing of this body and that is the text before us today. it says again, the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution. that is the position of the members of congress, as the representative body, frankly, and as any military officer, by the way, will tell you, support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. as the representative body, that responsibility falls to us

. it's an obligation that i know all of my colleagues take seriously and, again, it is why i expect overwhelming passage of this motion, this morning. and again i thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. royce: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the order of the house on wednesday, july 23, 2014, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts eek recognition? >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 680 i call up the bill h.r. 4935, the child tax credit improvement act of 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 4935, a 393, h.r. bill to amend the rev frue -- internal revenue code of 19 6, to may -- 1986, to make improvements to the child tax

credit. the speaker pro tempore: in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill on amendment in this nature of a subblings fought to consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-54 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair roadways -- recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 4935. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, if one thing has been consistent about the obama administration, it is the failure of its economic policies. the president's economic policies make it harder for american families to get by every day. a record number of americans aren't able to work and those who can find work are unable to

secure full-time employment. and instead are forced to accept only part-time jobs. this last quarter, the economy actually shrunk and real wages, what americans used to pay their mortgages and put their kids through school, are continuing to fall. worse yet, the cost of raising a family is only getting more expensive. the price of clothing, food, child care and schooling all continue to climb. according to the department of agriculture, since 1960, the cost of raising a child has increased by about 4.4% a year. but more recently, since 2004, the cost of children's clothing has gone up 89%. the cost of food since then, 21%. and the cost of child care since 2004, 107%. and since then, the child tax credit has remained unchanged.

currently our tax code helps ease some of this burden by providing a child tax credit. the credit which has been around since the 1990's now provides $1,000 tax credit for each child. unfortunately that credit is not and has not been indexed for inflation. so while the cost of raising children continues to rise, the value of the child tax credit actually decreases. today's legislation, h.r. 4935, the child tax credit improvement act of 2014, will fix this problem by indexing the child tax credit for inflation. making a commonsense change like this will ensure that families can make every dollar count. the current child tax credit also disadvantages those who file jointly. compared to those who file as single individuals. creating what is known as a marriage penalty. this bill would eliminate the marriage penalty imbedded in the child tax credit, helping millions of families across the country. the family research council, which supports this bill, notes

the importance of the child tax credit. they say, and i'm quoting, this tax credit recognizes the important contribution of the family and children to our country and starts to address a problem with our tax code today. the marriage penalty. fairer system of taxation does not penalize marriage and family. in addition, this bill contains strong antifraud provisions to ensure that the child tax credit goes to those who are truly deserving. the bill would require one parent to submit a social security number to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. according to a report by the treasury inspector general for tax administration, the number of filers for the additional tax credit without a social security number grew from 62,000 filers, claiming $6 million in benefits in -- $62 llion benefits in 2000, to

$3.2 billion in benefits in 2010. this is a commonsense provision that will help safeguard taxpayer dollars from fraud and put it in line with other refundable credits like the earned income tax credit, which require a social security number. i hear too many stories about families struggling to afford basic necessities to care for their children. it's time we make some simple improvements to the child tax credit so it keeps up with the cost of raising children. improving the child tax credit would give moms and dads nationwide relief, much needed at a time when their budgets are tight and they're forced to make difficult choices about how to spend their money. the provision has earned bipartisan support for years, so let's vote yes on this opportunity to help american families and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: yesterday in the topic of poverty, congressman ryan spoke. today he and his house

republican colleagues will vote . actions speak louder than words. and at every turn over the last three years, the actions house republicans have taken have cut programs for low and middle income families. funding for medicaid and children's health insurance program slashed in the ryan- republican budget. social service block grants, eliminated. food assistance, pell, higher education grants, job training and housing assistance, dramatically scaled back. an extension of unemployment insurance and a raise in the minimum wage, both blocked by house republicans. the new republican rhetoric on poverty is no match for the deeply troubling actions they have repeat lid taken and

continue to take -- repeatedly taken and continue to take with this legislation today. this bill leads to harm for millions of low and middle income families and their kids. it completely ignores the need to extend the 2017 expiration of the expanded refundable portion of the child tax credit. which if allowed to occur would push 12 million people, including six million children, into poverty or deeper into poverty, according to the center on budget and policy priorities. republicans may say that such an extension could be done later, as they claimed in our discussion at the rules committee. but that talk about future ction is made incredulous. republicans this week add another $187 billion to the deficit, bringing the total they have passed in unpaid for

tax cuts to more than $700 billion. this comes after republicans have slashed nondefense, domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a percentage of g.d.p. in contrast, this bill expands and makes permanent the availability of the child tax credit to many new upper middle income families whose incomes are too high to qualify under current law. under this legislation a married couple making $160,000 with two kids would get an tax onal $2,200 in their refund, according to the center on budget and policy priorities, while the single ther of two making $14,500 ould see her refund cut by $1,750.

but it gets still worse. republicans this week inserted a provision into this legislation requiring recipients of the credit to provide their social security number, a change that could lead to the loss of this credit for families of five million children, four million of whom are u.s. citizens. and 400,000 veterans and armed forces families will lose all or part of their credit. that's a reason that the u.s. conference of catholic bishops opposes this requirement. because it is deeply flawed and it would leave millions of families with children behind. ben franklin once said, well done is better than well said. today it is even truer that well said cannot obscure what

is harmfully done. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i feel compelled to correct the record here. the opponents make a false claim. that somehow this bill eliminates benefits for millions of low income families and that's just wrong. the provision lease talking about is the failure of the obama administration to make that provision permanent. the provision he refers to does not expire until 2015. what he's saying is in a order nonsense. at this time i yield such time she may could be sume to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from kansas. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that ms. jenkins control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, and i thank the chairman for yielding

and thank him for his leadership on this particular issue. we are a nation that is struggling to make ends meet. the rising costs of everyday essentials such as gas, gaucheries, and electricity, all continue to rise while household incomes remain stagnant. there is no need to compound these problems with a tax code that punishes working parents by making it hard for them to keep up with the rising cost of raising a family. the child tax credit was originally enacted in 1997 to ease the financial burden on families. over time the original credit amount was eventually increased and made partially lee fundable -- refundable to help more families. however, since being expanded to $1,000 back in 2004, the child tax credit has failed to keep pace with costs. kids are expensive.

diapers and car seats, hair cuts, toothbrushes, books, clothes, and even sporting equipment. a recent study by the u.s. department of agriculture estimated that for a middle income couple, it will cost over $240,000 to raise a child until 18 years of age. i did the calculation for a middle income, two-parent household with three kids, ccording to the u.s. calculator, the average household will spend $3,500 on food, $4,000 on transportation, $1,600 on clothing, and nearly $7,000 on childcare and education for a total of over $30,000 annually. contributing the most to these rising costs are items such as spending on education and childcare. in fact, since 2000, the cost of childcare has increased twice as

fast as the median income of families with children. the child tax credit improvement act, which is before us today, indexes the credit and the limitations to inflation to help parents keep more of their hard-earned money to use for the mounting expenses of parenting. in addition to indexing the credit and limits to inflation, the bill also eliminates the marriage penalty by increasing the joint filing phaseout threshold to exactly double that of single filers. removing marriage penalties and indexes for inflation have become a recognized part of our tax system. the lack of indexing of a particular provision to inflation means that a provision is worth less to taxpayers every year. in the case of the child tax credit, this means working low-

and middle-class families. this legislation essentially removes the annual hidden tax placed on these families and recognizes that a dollar of ncome in 1998 and in 2004 is not the same as a dollar of income in 2014. similar tax credits that congress has smartly indexed to inflation include the adoption tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and education tax credit. all of these tax credits make it easier on working families to put money aside and save for the future. increasing the phaseout level is a family friendly change that greatly simplifies the cost for middle class parents currently forced to do a complicated computation and increases the

fairness across the code. it also includes an anti-fraud provision championed by congressman sam jonson seeking to curtail tax fraud by requiring a social security -- johnson seeking to curtail a tax fraud by requiring a social security. it is a simple procedure as supported by democrat united states senator claire mccaskill put it, if you are breaking the law by working illegally in our country, you should not be getting a tax benefit for it. this is sensible legislation that will help hardworking families keep more of their paychecks and help pay for the rising costs of raising a family. a vote for this bill will give americans more freedom to save their own money and help struggling families who are just trying to get by. i urge everyone to support h.r. 4935, the child tax credit improvement act of 2014, because when working families succeed,

the nation's economy succeeds. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas reserves, the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. always interesting to hear the debate. i wonder if the gentlelady believes the analogy she made in terms of cost of living applies to the minimum wage as well. if she does, i would ask her to urge her leadership to bring the minimum wage bill to the floor. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill which takes from those who have little in order tomorrow give to those who have more. for many working families, the child tax credit helps parents keep their children and themselves out of poverty.

it is a program that ronald reagan liked. it's a program that works. and it's program we ought to reform and expand. sadly this republican bill would allow provisions that most directly support low-income working parents to expire. while expanding the credit to families making up to three times what an average household brings home. how perverse, how predictable. $115 do so by adding billion to our deficit. in a time of economic recovery, mr. speaker, we should be doing the opposite. providing a leg up for struggling families while paying for what we buy. members on both sides of the aisle agree that the right way to do this is comprehensive tax reform. the chairman of the ways and

means committee, mr. camp, again i commend him for putting on the floor, putting on the table, at least, a comprehensive tax reform bill. he showed courage and good sense. that was done just a few months ago. and it shows the difficult choices that are necessary. this bill makes no choices. it just borrows more. and puts us more in debt. while hurting families. i don't agree with all of what was in mr. camp's bill, but it was a starting point that through a bipartisan process of amendment could provide a path to where we all know we need to go. this bill shirks that responsibility. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: i ask for 10 additional seconds. mr. levin: 20 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 20 seconds. mr. hoyer: the gentleman is so generous. this bill, this bill shirks that responsibility. and adds $115 billion to the

deficit and will make the children of low-income working parents less economically secure. how sad. reject this bill. vote no. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from texas -- kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you. at this time, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, i will yield him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. this thing working? i thank my colleagues for yielding. i would also like to thank chairman camp for including in this bill my commonsense measure to require tax filers to provide

their social security number in order to claim the $1,000 refundable child tax credit. formerly known as the additional child tax credit. y measure would save $24.5 billion. now, that's real money. sadly, there's been a lot of misinformation about this commonsense measure. i'd like to clear that up. first, this is basically a benefit check handed out by the i.r.s. second, this measure is based on the good work of the treasury inspector general for tax administration. right now the i.r.s. is providing this refundable child tax credit to those who are here illegally. but don't take my word for it.

this is what the i.g. said about the refundable tax credit, and i quote. although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the united states from receiving most federal public benefits and increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the additional child tax credit, or the actc. notice the i.g. refers to this as a public benefit. the i.g. also points to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants claiming this benefit. i would add that some are claiming children who don't even live here. third and even more troubling, in light of the border crisis is that the i.g. says, this credit can encourage individuals to come illegally to the united states. the last thing we need is to continue to encourage folks from central america to make the

dangerous and life threatening trek to texas. accordingly, the i.g. has recommended the i.r.s. require social security numbers. why is that? because social security numbers are provided to those who can legally be in the united states. additionally, this credit is based on earned income, income that should be earned by those who have social security numbers. period. fourth, it's not just republicans who have expressed concern and the need to take action, but also democrats. yes, democrats. about the i.g.'s work. for instance, following the 2011 i.g. report, democrat senator claire mccaskill from missouri demanded answers from the i.r.s., and more importantly vowed to end payments to individuals without social security numbers.

also, then finance chairman and democrat senator max baucus from mon -- bachus from montana, expressed serious concern to mesh treasury and the i.r.s. fifth, requiring tax filers to include their social security numbers for the $1,000 refundable child tax credit is a long-standing commonsense idea. for instance, the i.r.s. requires social security numbers for the earned income tax credit. a similar refundable credit for low-income families. congress included this anti-fraud measure in the 1996 welfare reform law signed democrat president, bill clinton, democrats such as then senator joe biden, senator harry reid, and congressman steny hoyer voted for that law.

now, let me ask, do democrats now oppose requiring social security numbers for the earned income tax credit? and in 2008, 215 thousands democrats voted for the economic -- house democrats voted for the economicle sthragse act of 2008. -- economic stimulation act of 2008. guess what? that bill also required social security numbers. do democrats now regret supporting that policy? back in 2008. what's going on here is that president obama and his democrat allies in congress are now playing politics with taxpayer dollars. it's wrong and irresponsible. there's no policy reason for this opposition. bottom line, my measure is about protecting the hard-earned taxpayer dollars of americans,

especially those who are struggling to make ends meet in this economy. it's time to stop playing politics with this. it's time to stand up for the american taxpayer. i thank the chairman again for working with me on this important taxpayer measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to my friend from texas. this isn't politics. this is five million children, the estimate is, four million are citizens of the united states. i now yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker,

h.r. 4935, the child tax credit improvement act of 2014, the are offering a bill that claims to help families. but actually does great harm to low income families with children. it's really quite a surprising piece of legislation, actually. because it's a backdoor pay increase for congressmen and congresswomen who have children. now, we don't give ourselves any kind of cost of living increase, but this is a backdoor pay increase put forward by the republicans. under this bill couples making etween $150,000 and $205,000 would be newly eligible for the child tax credit. so that's all of us, folks. thank the republicans for this. this bill does not, however, make permanent a key provision made to the law in 2009 that's

set to expire in 2017. this improvement expanded the refundable portion of the tax credit for millions of hardworking, low income americans. under 4935, families making minimum wage would lose a portion of their tax credit in 2018. this means that a single mother in south lake union in seattle working full time, making $14,500 a year, struggling to support two children, will lose $1,725. in 2018. in addition, this bill requires one of the taxpayers claiming the child tax credit to have a social security number. this provision will harm millions of american kids who are in the united states, living in immigrant families. these children and their families would be cut off from crucial tax relief if this becomes law. that's why the catholic

bishops, the united states conference of catholic bishops, opposes this bill so -- bill's social security number requirement. they recognize what you're doing. you're going after people at the bottom to give a pay increase to congressmen. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jenkins: i want to commend the gentleman from washington for recognizing that this does put more money back in the pockets of hardworking americans. but i just want to correct the record that this is in no way, shape or form a tax increase. there certainly have been a lot of inaccuracies and highly misleading statements from the other side of the aisle about this bill this morning. this bill does not end the credit for low income working families. it is not a tax increase on

them. and it certainly does not cast millions of children deeper into poverty. the tax provision in this bill originated from the stimulus extended back in 2003 for five additional years. so it is not currently expiring and it will not expire until 2018. all h.r. 4935 does is it keeps that in place. and does not even address that particular provision. it does not call for ending that provision, it does not call for reducing or altering that provision. rather this bill deals with the immediate concern and that is the erosion of the value of the child tax credit for every family struggling today. so following this absurd logic

from the other side, every single bill and amendment that comes to the house floor that fails to address or does not extend their provision is a tax increase. this bill, the one before us today, will have and deserves bipartisan support. it is unfortunate that some have resorted to recycled talking points and outright falsehoods to conjure up some reason to oppose the bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: what you say totally is wrong. you make permanent under your provision a child tax credit or a couple making $160,000, while you do not make permanent the tax -- that refundable tax credit for families making much, much, much less.

that is a fact. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reminded to receive all remarks toward the chair. the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent that i revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: to the chair, i ask that perhapses we could ask someone from the ma -- perhaps we could ask someone from the majority as to whether or not the accusation made by the member of the ways and means is correct. to the chair, i ask that the intention of the majority be given to the speaker at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: thank you. i want to be recognized. mr. levin has said that this

feat in the law in this to remove marriage penalty has people making $150,000 and $205,000 to become eligible for he tax credit. i'll wait until staff finishes talking. would staff please stop talking? because you may be called upon to justify your majority's position. it also says that a family making $160,000 a year would receive a new tax cut of $2,200. now, it just seems to me that the majority in this house is not going to allow this to stand unchallenged. and i would hope that either those that are controlling the time or the staff have enough interest to protect the

integrity of the ways and means committee, to say that these child tax credits are for the working people that need assistance, that they can't get except through the tax code. and if we're going to go near $1 trillion in extending tax credits and extending our national debt, we certainly shouldn't do this for the benefit of the higher income middle class people. so please don't let this debate close without hearing an answer as to why in the world would we extend the deficit for the benefit of people that are making up to $200,000 a year to receive benefits for child credits? i yield back the balance of my time because i'm so anxious to hear the response from the majority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. again, the chair will remind all members to direct their comments directly to the chair. the gentleman from michigan reserves.

the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i would like to yield to the distinguished chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. the bill before us actually evens the playing field. if two people are single and have children at the income level the previous speaker just mentioned, they get the credit. under current law, if they're married, they don't get the credit. so what this bill does is it actually extends the benefit that goes to singles to married people. we do away with what's called the marriage penalty. now, i don't know why the other side is opposed to people getting married. but what's really important about this credit is that it helps middle class families who have seen the credit erode over the years as the cost of food and clothing and housing and schooling have gone up. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, across america there's many a young couple devoting time to determining the name of their newborn. a happy experience. but i can tell you there's no couple in america that devotes more time to selecting names than our republican colleagues. much of the session -- much of this session name making has been about naming post offices because if they weren't naming post offices and beginning to rename post offices, they run out of excuses for doing nothing on the great challenges that our country faces. but republican name making creativity, the essence of it, is directed toward bills like this. they are so good at applying names to their bills and so sorry at what goes in the

bills. today's child tax credit improvement act only lacks the fact that it represents no improvement for the working poor. it neither improves the child tax credit nor improves the lives of millions of children living at or near poverty. under this bill, a single mom with two children who works full time at the minimum wage loses almost $2,000 a year. this bill does deserve a name. i think the best one would be, pushing more people into poverty act. since its net effect is to push 12 million people, including six million children, right into poverty or deeper into it. that includes 400,000 veterans and armed forces families who would lose all or part of their child tax credit. now the republicans may curse lyndon johnson's war on poverty on this big anniversary for it, but they continue to wage a war on those in poverty, especially

america's most needy children. a leading advocacy group, first focus campaign for children, reports that our federal investment in our children has fallen 60% faster than overall federal spending. this analysis shows that small children are the big losers in the federal budget battle because their voices aren't heard the loudest. now, we know that every dollar, every single dollar, do you have another 30 seconds? mr. levin: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. doggett: every dollar that these republicans add to the national debt, and they propose to add about $1 trillion to the national debt with these unpaid tax breaks, every one of those dollars is another excuse, $1 trillion of excuses when it comes time to renew the child health program next year, chip, when it's time to invest in early education and head start, when it's time to invest in preventing child abuse and strengthening our adoption

program and having a family -nurse partnership to work with these young families, those are the excuses, the excuses while one house republican group calls all of these welfare. this ote for -- against act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you. i would allocate myself as much time as i can consume. because i'm just puzzled by this logic that the minority is concerned about a provision that expires in four years. they're worried about that today. but yet they're not worried about the loss of buying power for hardworking american families starting next year. they're willing to give up helping families next year and they want to debate an issue that we aren't going to even address for another four years. and as it relates to their charge that this in some way

helps the wealthy, i would like to point out that a foundational principle of the tax code is that it should be, at worst, neutral towards the decision to get married. it should not be a deterrent and certainly not make taxpayers worse off merely by making the decision to marry and start a family. marriage is beneficial to society and something that we have and should continue to encourage. removing the marriage penalty is about one thing and that's fairness. this is especially true for today's two-earner households, where both spouses have to work just in order to make ends meet. congress has had the wisdom to remove the marriage penalties from many other part it's of the tax code, including the standard dedirection, a deduction for married couples is twice the amount for single filers, and in tax brackets,

the income range is 10% to 15% brackets for couples is twice that of individuals, as it should be. we are asking for that same parity to be afforded the child tax credit. i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. schwartz from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. . ms. schwartz: this legislation has been described by the republican majority as an extension, improvement, of the child tax credit according to many american families. the fact is this bill is deeply flawed. at a cost of nearly $100 million, it increases a child tax credit for those with higher incomes while failing to extend needed relief for lower income families. consider the consequences. a single mother with two children, working full-time, at

minimum wage, earns just $14,500 annually. she will see a tax increase of $1,725. a lance corporal in the marine corps with two years' of service, married with two children, earns about $23,000 a year in base pay. this family will see their taxes go up by $750. and for those with higher incomes, including members of congress, with two children, who earn $174,000, they will receive a tax cut of $1,600. and in the hastily added provision, a child who is a legal resident or u.s. citizen whose parent uses an individual tax i.d. number rather than a social security number will be denied the child tax credit no matter what their level of income. as a result of this legislation, six million children will fall deeper into poverty.

in my own home state of pennsylvania, a family making less than $40,000 a year will see their taxes increase by an average of $456. while families making more than $100,000 will see their taxes cut by $685. this bill ignores these harmful consequences. it will hurt too many hardworking families and children in our nation. it is wrong. it is a bill that is fiscally irresponsible. it is morally reprehensible. and i urge my colleague to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i would like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, another member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is ecognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr.

chairman. i join with dozens of religious child tax and poverty organizations to strongly oppose h.r. 4935, because it would push an estimated 12 million people, including six million children, into deeper poverty. the child tax credit is one of the most effective tax benefits for families with children, and is a shining example of smart federal investment. the credit encourages work, raises millions of dollars -- millions of children from poverty, and helps grow economies and support businesses. rather than strengthening this anti-poverty program, the bill will take away, eviscerate, wipe out benefits while the most vulnerable americans, denying financial assistance for basic necessities like rent and food, and eliminating an average of $1,800 from low-wage families

per year. the child tax credit was designed to help hardworking, low-income families meet the needs of their children. this child tax credit deal harms these families and threatens the well-being of millions of american children. in reality, the bill does exactly the opposite of what the child tax credit was designed to do. in essence, you could really call it the reverse robin hood child tax credit bill. take from the poor, benefit the more affluent. urge that we vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i strongly support the child tax

credit. i support expanding and strengthening the child tax credit. the problem is this bill does just the opposite for the most needy families with kids in the united states. they don't get a tax cut under this bill. in fact, they deliberately left behind because this bill fails to extend a critical improvement to the tax credit that's only currently temporary in law, and they don't extend that. now, i heard the chairman of the ways and means committee earlier blaming that once again on the president. as if the president made a our republican colleagues not include that provision in their bill. well, extending the child tax credit is in the president's budget. extending the child tax credit is in the house democratic budget. extending that child tax credit enhancement is not in the house

republican budget, and that's why it's not here today. now, what is the impact of this? the impact is to hurt our low-income families with kids. and as mr. levin pointed out earlier, it's really ironic that just yesterday the chairman of the budget committee gave a big talk in washington about how he wanted to, quote, start a conversation about poverty and help families get ahead. that was yesterday. those were words. here we are on the floor of the house today with an actual deed, an actual act, a vote that will put 12 million more americans into poverty or deeper into poverty. six million of them children. now, the president in his budget extends those benefits, those tax strengthening, tax cut

provisions and pays for them by getting rid of some of the big tax breaks for corporations. the republican approach has been just the opposite. in the last six weeks they have permanently extended tax breaks for big corporations, but when it comes to the kids, today, they leave them behind. they don't extend those enhancements. who are these individuals? let me point out to our colleagues here are the folks that are being left behind. a single mother of two working full-time at minimum wage will lose a tax credit of $1,725. this is an individual making about $15,000 a year. these are the people we are trying to help with the child tax credit. yes, we'd love to expand it, but not at the expense of this single mom. who else gets left behind? an army private, e-1, married, one child, they are going to ose, $229 in their child tax

credit because this republican bill refuses to extend those enhancements. so, mr. speaker, yes let's strenten it but not at the expense of our most vulnerable families. i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i'm amazed by the other side doing time travel four years into the future when a lot of hardworking families are struggling every day right now to deal with this economy. and that needs to be the focus of this debate. i would yield as much time as the gentleman should consume, the gentleman from texas, a fine member of the house ways and means committee, chairman brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. first i want to thank the leadership of congresswoman jenkins on such an important issue for families. i don't know -- we have two

young boys. it is expensive raising kids. it just is all across america. i don't know what you make or where you live. this is about making it a little easier to raise your children. you heard today everyone's for the child tax credit except, of course, when they have to vote for the tax credit. then you hear every excuse in the world. here's what this bill does. first what it does it makes permanent this child tax credit so people can count on it. it's indexed for inflation, that means when your dollar buys less and less you shouldn't be punished by uncle sam because inflation is going up. families can more closely keep up with the real cost of raising their kids. it eliminates the marriage penalty. so uncle sam doesn't punish you. the federal government doesn't punish you simply because you're married in raising your children. we think it's important that married couples struggling to raise families aren't punished by uncle sam. and it makes you sure more

americans can take advantage of this. here's what it doesn't do. it doesn't include the same failed stimulus programs the white house brought down upon america. as you know, we are promised the economy would be roaring. today, america normally bounces back from tough economic times. but not this time. this is the worst economic recovery in more than half a century. president obama's unfortunate example, the worst economic recovery in this president's lifetime is his economic recovery. we are missing almost $1.5 trillion out of our economy. we are missing jobs for 5.8 million people. put that in perspective. if the president just led like an average president, just a c grade type of recovery, everyone looking for work in 44 states could have a job today. as a result also of this very weak recovery, you know what the

family of four in america is missing each month from their wages? $1,120. , $1,120 that should be in families' pocketbooks to pay the rent or utilityity or food or all of that is missing today because of this poor recovery. some people say let's stay the course and do more of it. this bill says no. let's change course and get people back to work, and let's help them raise their children. final point i would make, this provision including the key anti-fraud provision by congressman sam johnson of texas. what it says is that -- what we know is that billions of dollars each year are being sent to people whose children don't exist. their children don't exist. some of the children live outside the contry. others aren't eligible for this at all. yet washington sends them a check, your hard-earned tax dollars, to people who don't deserve this. so congressman johnson's

provision says, you'll actually give us the social security number, an accurate one, of that child you're seeking the help for. we make sure the money goes to those who are eligible for it. i don't understand sort of the pro-fraud lawmakers who say we don't need to do this. we don't need to save those dollars. the truth is, as hard as you work for your money, the dollars that are out of your paycheck each week or each month for what you pay april 15, your money goes to help people deserve the help. not to children who don't exist. not the families who don't exist. this is a critical part. it saves billions of dollars. so let's help families raise their children. let's help our taxpayers go to people who actually need t and let's save some money for uncle sam. this bill deserves our support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: yield two minutes to

another member of our committee, mr. crowley from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, mr. levin, for feeling me this time. mr. speaker, when i go home, i often hear people who are disillusioned with politics in america. some even say that they don't really see a difference between democrats and republicans. today, my republican colleagues are demonstrating just how significant the differences really are between republicans and democrats. especially when it comes to who is looking out for corporate america and who is looking out for hardworking middle class america. this bill claims to do a lot of things, but what it really does is it shifts the tax burden away from large multinational corporations and puts it on the back of working families with children. now, they are going to tell you that they are fighting fraud. but that's not what this bill is

about today. if my republican colleagues wanted to crack down on fraud, they would have joined with democrats in closing loopholes that provide tax breaks to large companies who ship american jobs overseas. but they haven't done that. they would also join democrats in cracking down on multinational corporations who avoid paying their fair share of taxes by simply changing the address of their headquarters to a post office box on the cayman islands. i will tell you if middle class americans could change their post office box to the cayman islands, my republican colleagues would have a bill on the floor to stop that. but they don't have that luxury. hardworking americans can't change their address to a cayman island address. so they are just flat out of luck. where is the outrage for my republican colleagues, my friends, on these abuses? ladies and gentlemen, there simply isn't any outrage. in fact, the house has taken

more than a dozen votes to end these abusive practices, and the majority of my republican colleagues have opposed each and every one of them. a contrast could not be clearer between republicans and democrats. could i have an additional 30 seconds? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: the contrast between republicans and democrats could never be more clearer than it is right now. republicans continue to want to protect corporate america and democrats want to protect average hardworking middle class americans. that'sed clear distinction being demonstrated by this bill on the floor. vote no on this bill. vote no on this bill. it is time to tell our republican colleagues to put the interests of the middle class before corporate american interests. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is

recognized. ms. jenkins: wli reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is ecognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition against this cruel half measure by the house republican majority. the bill is a boone for upper middle class families. but failing to extend the child tax credit expansion for lower income families means 12 million americans will be plunged deeper in poverty. that includes six million children, infants and toddlers. it also includes 400,000

veterans and members of the armed services. men and women who are giving their lives and sacrificing their families for this nation. yesterday in an article, bob woodson, the president of the center for neighborhood enterprise, and i might add a mentor for chairman paul ryan, my republican colleague, he told the "wall street journal" that we cannot and should not, and this is a quote, should not generalize about poor people. there are the deserving poor and there are the undeserving poor. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this republican majority, you tell me which are the infants and the toddlers who are the deserving poor and those infants and toddlers who are

the undeserving poor. this is not right. i've always been a strong supporter of the child tax credit, research has shown that this sort of income support for parents, it boosts employment, increases earnings and income, reduces poverty and improves kids' school performance. i've worked hard to pass the expansion of the child tax credit in the recovery act. 30 seconds? mr. levin: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. delauro: i've long called for the lowering of the eligibility threshold to zero so that more families in need could benefit. but like so much else from this majority, this bill unnecessarily leaves working families who are struggling behind. i cannot in good conscience support it and nor should any of my colleagues support it.

oppose this cruel, cruel elimination of a child tax credit for deserving families. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i will reserve. i have no further speakers and will be prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, barbara lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me thank my ranking member for yielding and for your tremendous support on so many issues that affect working men and women, the middle class, the working poor and the poor. thank you. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 4935, which is a so-called child tax credit improvement act of 2014. mr. speaker, this is not an improvement at all. this bill fails to make permanent a key child tax credit improvement for working families earning less than -- excuse me, as little as $3,000

a year. instead, this bill permanently extends this to higher income families. a permanent child tax credit must address the needs of all families, especially the ones who earn the least. extending a permanent child tax credit that helps wealthy families while failing to make permanent the credit for those living in poverty is just not fair. it is unamerican. this failure -- u.n. american. this fail wure -- un-american. this fail wure would have a devastating -- failure would have a devastating impact on families. the president clearly understands this. in the statement of administration policy -- may have another minute? mr. levin: i yield an additional minute. ms. lee: thank you. in the statement of administration policy, it is clear that the president understands this. after -- actually he understands that this also not only affects the five million families, it cuts it for an additional six million families. so i'm very pleased that the white house is advising that

they not support this and hopefully a veto threat would come if it ever got that far. yesterday, i might say, chairman ryan, and i have to remind us that he rolled out his plan to reduce poverty, yet today we see this bill, which would increase poverty. i'm not sure what's going on, mr. speaker. we're here to protect our families, particularly those living in poverty. why in the world would we try -- or the republicans at least -- try to put a compassionate voice and face on such draconian policies? the rhetoric of yesterday as it relates to the ryan rollout of the antipoverty program is totally inconsistent with the reality of what we are dealing with and seeing today. i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: is the gentlelady on the majority side ready to close? so am i.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. for three minutes. mr. levin: so under the republican approach here, they a e permanent, permanent child tax credit for families , ing $150,000 to $205,000 while refusing to do the same, a refundable tax credit for 12 million people, including six million kids. and 400,000 veterans and their families. and they make permanent cutting off another five million kids. the estimate is four million of hem are american citizens. this is why the statement of administration policy says this , if the president were presented with h.r. 4935, his

senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. what the republicans are doing, making permanent a tax cut for families $150,000 to $205,000, while refusing to do that for families making much less, this takes the mask off of their rhetoric about poverty. it takes off that mask. vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. chair. one goal of tax policy is to strengthen the economy so that there are more jobs and bigger paychecks for american families. today we have an opportunity to put more money in the pockets of hardworking families. this commonsense bill reforms

the child tax credit so that it can keep up with the rising cost of living and eliminates the current marriage tax penalty. i have a letter of support that says it best. and i quote, representative jenkins' bill indexes the credit and income limits for inflation, inflation erodes the value and purchasing power of the u.s. dollar and as a result a dollar is worth less today than it was years ago. this important piece of legislation adjusts the credit for inflation to ensure that the value of the credit continues to maintain its value. we know that family and marriage is beneficial to society and the federal government ought to promote economic policies that allow families to thrive. this tax credit recognizes the important contribution of the family and children to our country and starts to address a problem with our tax code today, the marriage penalty. a fairer system of taxation does not penalize marriage and

family. with that i would ask the body to vote yes on h.r. 4935, the child tax credit improvement act of 2014, to honor families with children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 680, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to make improvements to the child tax credit. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of h.r. 4935 will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house concurrent resolution 105, adoption of the motion to instruct on h.r. 3230, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5081. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237, the nays are 173. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of -- the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house concurrent resolution 4935. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 105, concurrent resolution directing the president, pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution, to remove united states armed forces and other armed forces required to

protect united states diplomatic facilities and personnel from iraq. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 370. the nays are 40. the resolution is approved. without objection, the motion

to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended to read as follows. the clerk: a concurrent resolution prohibiting the president from deploying or maintaining united states armed forces in a sustained combat le in iraq without spuff subsequent statutory authorization. -- specific subsequent statutory authorization. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. brownley, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clork will designate the motion. the clerk: motion to ininstruct conferees on h.r. 3230 offered by ms. brownley of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. this is a five-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on his --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 213. the nays are 193. the motion is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, to suspend the rules and

pass h.r. 5081 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5081, a bill to amend the child abuse prevention and treatment act to enable state child protective service systems to improve the identification and assessment of child victims of sex trafficking and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 399. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to how resolution 680, h.r. 4935 is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please clear the aisles, take conversations out f the chamber. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table, s 517, and ask

for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 517, an act to prevent consumer toys and wireless competition by permitting consumers unlock mobile wireless devices, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign affairs be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 562, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 562, resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives with respect to enhanced relations with the republic of moldavia, and support moldavia's territorial integrity. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have

an amendment at the desk to the text at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: whereas the united states has enjoyed good elations with -- mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be ispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment to the text. the clerk: strike after all of resolving clause and insert the following, that the house of representatives, one, reaffirms that it is the policy of the united states to support the off rent, independence, and territorial integrity of the republic of moldavia and the

vulnerability of -- mr. smith: i do ask unanimous consent that the text be dispensed with, reading of the text. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is suspended with. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have an amendment to the preamble at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment is agreed to. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have -- i have a an amendment to the preamble at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title the -- amendment to the title of the preamble. the clerk: strike the preamble and insert the following, whereas the united states has enjoyed good relations with the republic of moldavia since the republic of moldavia's independence in 1991. whereas the -- mr. shoot: i ask unanimous consent that the read -- mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the preamble text be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the reading is suspended. without objection, the amendment to the preamble is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey -- mr. 134i9: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from 6653.eaker's table s. the clerk: senate 653, an act to provide for the establishment of the special envoy to promote religious freedom of religious minorities in the near east and south central asia. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is thravenlt -- is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table s. 1104 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1104, an act to measure the progress of recovery and development efforts in haiti following earth quake of january 12, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the

consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is thravenlt -- is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table h.r. 3212 with the senate amendment thereto and to concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 3212, an act to assure compliance with the 1980 hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction by countries with which the united states enjoys resip prokohl osama bin laden tations -- reciprocal obligations -- mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the senate amendment be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the original request of the gentleman from new jersey? without objection, the senate amendment is agreed to anti-the motion to reconsider is laid

pon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 106 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 103, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitor center for a ceremony to award congressional gold medals in honor of the men and women who perished as a result of the terrorist attacks of the united states on september 11, 2001. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the

speaker's table, house concurrent resolution 103, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight of the resolution. the clerk: house haled number 127, house concurrent resolution 103, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the district of columbia special olympics law enforcement torch run. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3486. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. any --

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland -- mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday, the

house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week. a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider a package of bills to ensure transparency and accountability with the endangered species act. included in this package are, h.r. 4315, the 21st century endangered species transparency act authored by chairman doc hastings. h.r. 4316, the endangered species recovery transparency act authored by representative cynthia lummis. h.r. 4317, the state, tribal, and local species transparency and recovery act authored by

representative randy neugebauer. nd h.r. 4318, the endangered species litigation reasonableness act authored by representative bill huizenga. the house will also consider house resolution 676, which provides for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the president or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the constitution of the united states. finally, mr. speaker, members are advised that the house will -- may also consider legislation to deal with the ongoing crisis on the border. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. as the gentleman knows full well, we have 3 1/2 days next week. have i guess nine full days

and three half days scheduled in september. and the first couple weeks in october, assuming that we meet in that last week of september. is the gentleman -- there's been some rumors, members have been asking me about, whether or not there is serious consideration being given to not using the last week of the scheduled in september, does that have any credence? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. currently there has been no changes to the schedule. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. in any event, as the gentleman knows there are there is a very short period of time we have left before the election, and there is a lot of very substantive work that, in my view, still needs to be done and we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle. the gentleman posits that we

have four endangered species bills on the floor. very frankly they probably could all be done by suspension on monday, but i understand they are going to be under a rule. in addition to that, we have legislation which is designed to authorize a suit against the president of the united states or trying to do things when we can't get the congress to act on them. so that there can be some movement forward on behalf of the american people. does the gentleman believe there's any possibility of bringing up comprehensive immigration reform either a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the majority supports, individual bills passed out of committee, border security, which has passed out on a bipartisan way out of your

committee here on this side of the house, on this side of the capitol, or legislation which we believe would have had a direct effect on the crisis to which the gentleman refers may be addressed next week. it's not scheduled. i understand that the majority leader's party is divided on the issue of what ought to be done to meet this crisis, but there s no doubt, mr. leader, that there are going to be additional resources necessary to meet the challenge that we are confronting now. the administration has requested, as the gentleman knows, some $3.7 billion. the senate, as i understand it, is suggesting $2.7 billion.

part of that, of course, is to meet the needs of fighting wildfires. in the senate bill there's also money for iron dome, to beef up iron dome in israel. but we don't have any language, if language is contemplated, so i'm hopeful that language will not be included in any effort that is made next week on meeting this -- you refer to it as crisis, whether you refer to it as crisis, challenge, whatever, we know that resources are needed. everybody seems to agree on that. unfortunately we have not had that bill on the floor now so we can get it over to the senate and get it to the president before we leave. we are at risk, in my view, mr. leader, of leaving here without addressing this issue. furthermore, last week as the gentleman knows i suggested that

if we included legislative language on that bill, it would be almost impossible to get to the administration the resources it needs to comply with the law and to meet the challenge that has been presented. does the gentleman have any expectation that we will either consider a competitive immigration bill, which -- comprehensive immigration bill, which. a., has resources, senate passed, we have a bill here, as the gentleman knows, we introduced many, many months ago, which is a bipartisan bill, all the provisions have been supported in a bipartisan fashion, some in the senate, some here in the house committee unanimously, does the gentleman have any belief either, a, that we will consider next week a clean funding bill at such level as is necessary, at least until the end of the fiscal year? and/or some comprehensive

immigration bills which will meet the issue and establish a process, the lack of which clearly is causing people to take actions which we do not approve of and not agree with, but are manifesting the frustration that a broken system remains broken. i yield to my friend. . mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend. members should be possible for consideration for legislation to address the ongoing border crisis. the rules committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the house and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response. does the gentleman contemplate that that legislation, that bill will include substantive changes in law or will simply be restricted to additional resources necessary to meet the crisis that confronts this country? nd i yield to my friend.

mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as i said earlier that you should be prepared for a possible consideration, and once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the house and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand the process will come from the rules committee. is the gentleman telling me the text of language -- there is no text, mr. leader. e have seen no text to apparently amend legislation which was adopted overwhelmingly by this house, signed by president bush. we need resources today, and we'll certainly need them next week and we're going to go on a five-week recess, work period, at which point in time we'll come back here and meet for a very brief period of time and we don't have any text in this

very substantive, very consequential area of the law which is -- was adopted overwhelmingly and we have no text. understand the process the rules committee. there have been no hearings, no debate in committee, no subcommittee, no full committee hearings on any legislation. and as i suggested to you last week, mr. majority leader, if you put legislation on there inevitably, you and i know that legislation will not pass within the time frame necessary to meet the crisis. so the responsible thing, i suggest to my friend, the majority leader, mr. speaker, is to do -- provide the resources necessary to meet the hallenge right now and then if substantive changes in the law are needed and hearings show that to be the case and hearings further show what substantive changes ought to be

made and can be considered in a thoughtful, effective fashion, then we can move forward at some point in time, perhaps as soon as september on that legislation. but to do otherwise will put at great risk the ability of the administration and this country to respond consistent with the law that we passed and was signed by president bush. i yield to my friend if he wants to comment further. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the gentleman's passion for crisis just as we have on this side. you know, since we have taken the majority, you know in the pledge to america that we post bills for the three-day process. so as i mentioned, in the schedule announcement for next week, members should be prepared for possible legislation to address the ongoing border crisis. once the timing is finalized,

the rules committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the house. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank, mr. speaker, the majority leader for that information. and i'm glad that he brought up the processes that will be followed and i want to quote to him something speaker boehner said on january 5, 2011, when he took the gavel. quote, but you will always have the right to robust debate in open process that allows you to represent your constituents, to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard. now, the gentleman has told me now three times that the rules committee hearing is going to be open and they'll decide the process under which a bill is going to be considered.

apparently, i'm presuming the gentleman doesn't know what the substance that that process will affect. i don't know the substance. i don't know any language that is being proposed. no member on our side of the aisle -- maybe members on your side of the aisle -- know what language is being proposed so what you're apparently telling me is we'll have the rules committee solely for the purposes of learning what substantive changes are suggested in the law. and i suggest to the majority leader, mr. speaker, that if that is the case, we will not be able to thoughtfully debate, we will not be able to have a process that's open, we will not have a process which allows us to make our case or offer alternatives or be heard. and i would predict, as has happened 67 times to date, there will be a closed rule. one of my staffers suggested that open rules ought to be

included in the endangered species bills we're considering, because they seem to be an endangered species we're do so many closed rules. mr. speaker, i ask the leader to please report if we're going to consider, as i think we should consider, a supplemental next week which gives our country the resources to meet the crisis to which you referred, we possibly would consider, it's our responsibility to consider it, it's our responsibility to give the resources. we passed the law which is being implemented by the administration. we passed it overwhelmingly sponsored by a gentleman that spoke on the floor just a short time ago to prevent human trafficking. a number of bills we passed this week on human trafficking, they were unanimously passed.

that bill that was passed overwhelmingly was also about human trafficking, and i tell my friend, we need the resources. it is the responsibility of the majority party and the minority party to join together, to give the administration the necessary resources to respond to carrying out the law that we passed. if we want to change that law, that is also our responsibility. but i tell my friend, it cannot be done in the time frame that is available to us. we have delayed this so long that there is no time, and the gentleman keeps responding to me that the rules committee will decide the process. the rules committee normally does not decide the substance of legislation. it decides the process under which we will consider substance. authorizing committees, as my friend so well knows, decide the substance of that legislation, but we will have no opportunity to see that apparently until either perhaps

this weekend at the earliest or next week. that does not give us time to debate it, and it certainly, and everybody knows, does not give time to go to the senate, be debated. i think they'll disagree perhaps on the language that suggested. i don't know what it is, but there is high probability of disagreement. conference will have to occur, and then it will have to get to the president and both the senate and the house are leaving next week for their district work period. i would urge the majority leader to make every effort with his party to bring what i think ought to be responsibly our obligation, a bill which provides the resources necessary. and we may differ on that number, but the resources necessary to carry out the responsibilities to implement the law that we passed. and if the gentleman wants to respond further i'll yield. if not i'll go on.

mr. leader and mr. speaker, i'd ask the leader, we have five appropriation bills which have not been brought to the floor. the ag bill was on the floor. it was pulled. it has not been brought back. the labor-health-human services bill, the interior bill, the foreign ops bill has not been brought to the floor. nor has the gentleman indicated it was going to be brought -- any of those will be brought to the floor next week. can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any plan to bring those bills to the floor in the three weeks that we will be back in september? and i yield to the majority leader, mr. speaker. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i know we originated this for the schedule for next week. as the gentleman knows, the house passed seven of the 12 appropriations bills in an open process. to the fact that even one of your members, congresswoman sheila jackson lee, has had 50% more amendments offered on this

floor than the entire republican conference in the senate for the last year. we're very proud of the open process that we have brought back to the floor. while the house is not scheduled to consider a regular appropriations bill next week, as the gentleman knows, as i stated already the house may consider a supplemental appropriation request next week. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, but that's, of course, does not give me any clarity in terms of the appropriations bills. the supplemental appropriations bill is not part of those bills although obviously health and man services being under pressure. they need resources. the supplemental is to give them those resources. but i ask the gentleman, are there any plans -- this is a scheduling conference. it's just not, from my view, limited to next week because we're not going to be here for

five weeks thereafter and members want to know what they should anticipate as substantive -- is substantively going to be on the agenda in the three short weeks we will have essentially before the election so that i can't tell from the gentleman's answer, mr. speaker, whether or not any of those five appropriation bills -- i know seven have passed -- whether any of those five bills are intended to be brought to the floor. and i yield to the majority leader. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman initiated inquiring for the schedule of next week. as i said earlier, the schedule for next week -- we do not have anything considered in the regular appropriation process. but you could possibly have a supplemental appropriation next week. nd i yield back. mr. hoyer: maybe i should print that out and i'll read it, mr. speaker. we have an export-import bank that is going to expire very

shortly. it's of great concern to many people on both sides of the aisle. there are 41 -- the republican members, mr. speaker, have signed a letter urging that this be brought to the floor. it's a very timely issue, critical issue for the competitiveness of our country. it has been twisting in the wind for this entire year. i worked with, mr. speaker, with the leader's predecessor to see whether or not we could get this bill to the floor. i ask my friend -- i know what the schedule is next week so he doesn't need to repeat that to me. i thank that very much. does the majority leader have any idea whether we're going to consider export-import bank before the election, and i yield my friend such time as he needs? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as my friend, the gentleman,

knows this is in regards to the schedule for next week and it's not scheduled for next week. any consideration of it coming up, we will notify you and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i'm not going to ask the majority leader any more questions because i'm not going to get any answers. the american people have a right to those answers. the american people need to know what transparency, which was going to be brought to this body, frankly, by the young guns and right to debate, right to anticipate, right to participate, but the answer i get is it's not scheduled for next week. mr. speaker, i know it is not scheduled for next week. critical legislation was not scheduled last week, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that and every week

before that. critical legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of the american people. and i am simply inquiring of the majority leader, is there any contemplation of bringing that legislation to the floor before this congress leaves for the election so the american people who are going to either re-elect this congress or seek new leadership have an opportunity on which to make an informed decision which, of course, is what the speaker said we would have. certainly have equal consideration for the american people as well so they have the right to robust debate an open process and allows them to understand what we're doing. i regret that the majority leader in critical issues like export-import bank which relate to the competitiveness of this country, like make it in america legislation that we defeated last week on suspension, which we agreed upon.

the majority leader voted for it. i voted for it. i presume -- and i'll ask him anyway -- i said i wasn't going to ask you -- is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which got 260 votes on this floor, back to the floor under a rule which provides, again, for america's determining whether or not we can find additional rare earth so necessary to be competitive in international markets? and i'd ask my friend if -- i know it's not on the schedule, so he doesn't have to repeat that litany to me because i get it. i've heard it now four, five or six times. i get it. it's not on the schedule for next week. so the question i ask, is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which has 260 people who voted for it, back to the floor under a rule so we can provide for a better opportunity to make it in america and to be competitive internationally? and i yield to my friend. . mr. mccarthy: as the gentleman

knows this colloquy is always based on the schedule for next week. as the gentleman raise the -- raised the question. he very knows we did agree on that bill as we did on quite a few. as of today there are 333 bills that have passed this house that get stuck in the senate. of those 333 bills, 40 are jobs bills. we know we linger in a very tough economy. the gentleman voted for a few of those 40 bills. so let me repeat, the 40 jobs bills is still stuck in the senate. we want to encourage economic growth and innovation. we can ensure robust american sector and put americans back to work. as the gentleman knows as we sat down to lunch, we want to work together on that. as of right now it is not scheduled for next week. it was on this week. unfortunately it did not pass. i would look forward to continuing working with the

gentleman and hopefully we could work together to make that senate move on those 40 jobs bills and those 333 bills that the american public would like to see move forward. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, the majority leader and i have worked together. we have sat down for lunch. we agree on the bill that i mentioned, mr. swalwell's bill, o try to make america more competitive by producing more rare earth here in this country. so essential in the electronics industry and other places. i can't control the senate, mr. speaker. the majority leader cannot control the senate. what the majority leader and i can do is control what we do. here in this house, to which we were elected. we can control either urging or

in the majority leader's case and as a former majority leader of this house i can tell you, i could put a bill on the floor if i thought it was important for the american people and for the best interest of our country. i think export-import bank falls in that category, minimum wage falls in that cat gorery, comprehensive immigration compall falls in that category. -- comprehensive immigration falls in that category. i think the swalwell bill falls in that category. we cannot control what the senate does. but we can control what we do. and we can move in as responsible fashion, which the american people, mr. speaker, expect us to do. and not blame some outside group, whether it's the administration or the united states senate, for our lack of addressing important issues.

tria is an important bill, mr. speaker. it's not on the schedule. i presume if i ask the majority leader what -- about tria, he would tell me it's not on the schedule next week. that would not come as a news flash to me, mr. speaker, because he's told me that now seven times. i believe if the house is going to act in a collegial manner and constructive manner, in a manner that the american people want them to october, we will exchange information not just on what's next week. there's not much on next week, mr. speaker. i know that. there's in my opinion, mr. speaker, a political bill to sue the president of the united states. the american people don't think that's a very good idea. that's on the calendar. so we are using the few short minutes that we have available to do the people's business on four bills, with the endangered

species, to send a message that we could pass, and frankly, a very short period of time. monday night, on the dangerous species. we are filling time. we are treading water, mr. speaker. i will conclude with this. you have put the possibility that we are going to have a bill on the floor next week dealing with the crisis, your word, at the border. when will we see text of that legislation that might possibly be on the floor? i yield to the majority leader. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate his concern in the crisis. it's just not my word, it's the american word. if it was not a crisis, we would not have three presidents from central american countries here

in america today to talk about the crisis. we would not have three presidents that are asking to reunite their children with the family in their country. if there was not a crisis, would you not have a task force that was introduced by this speaker on this side to address it. if there was not a crisis, you wouldn't even have members on your side of the aisle partnering with their senator from another party sitting in the senate to address the crisis. many members of this house have gone there to see the crisis. some in the administration have not. this house is committed to addressing it. as soon as it's available. we take great pride of changing this house as the majority

leader knows, he cares about the institution. but when the majority changed over here, one of the number one things we said we would do is a three-day process. as you would know in importance so people can read the bill. because too many times have i thousandsis floor for of pages coming out at 2:00 a.m. and vopetted on in that day. we -- and voted on that day. we have made a commitment to the american people and we have kept that commitment. just as we'll keep our commitment we'll end this crisis no matter what it takes. this house will act. i thank the gentleman for ielding. mr. hoyer: when it's available. that was the answer to my question. we don't know when it will be available, what it will be, and whether it will be considered because the majority leader

tells me, mr. speaker, that it may be on the floor. we know that it hasn't gone to committee. we know that there's no subcommittee hearing that's been held. we know that there's no committee hearing that's been held. the gentleman talks about thousands of pages. we can get into that debate at some other time. i know which he refers to. a bill that had literally more consideration than any other bill i have seen considered by the congress of the united states, the affordable care act, which is having, in my view, a very positive effect. we don't need to debate that today. but i would tell the majority leader if the crisis was going to be addressed, the first step is having the resources necessary to carry out the law. then if the law needs to be changed, deciding how it should be changed, having debate on that, bring it to this floor out of committee, and considering that legislation.

there are differences of opinion on that. i recognize that. the gentleman has pointed that out. that would be the way to do it. that's the regular order of which you spoke and you promised. mr. speaker, i hope that that could be followed. there are many of us who believe it's not being followed. and that's to the denigration of not only this body but the american people's ability to see what we are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it. unless the gentleman has something further to say, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, july 28, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. rahall of west virginia moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses of the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3230, an act to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the department of veterans affairs, and for other purposes, be instructed to, one, receive from disagreement with section 203 of the senate amendment relating to the use of unobligated amounts to hire additional health care providers with the veterans health administration. and two, receive from the house

amendment and concur in the in all other instances. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7-b of rule 22, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, and the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, the house has just finished its roll call votes for this week. the conference committee at an impasse on h.r. 3230, the veterans access to care through choice, accountability, and transparency act, hope is fading that any legislation will be enacted this summer to address the urgent needs at the department of fairs. -- department of veterans affairs. this is truly shameful. and as an american, i think this is shameful. it is beyond me to understand why our legislative branch of government cannot get this done. it's true that this body has taken some modest steps toward

improvements, like allowing veterans to seek care at nonv.a. providers when they cannot get a medical appointment. i have supported that effort. that's fine when private sector health providers are available. but for elderly veterans in rural areas where physician shortages and medically underserved areas are abundant like in southern west virginia, that doesn't help much. my state's v.a. facilities need funding to hire doctors, lots of them. we need primary and specialty care providers, and mental health specialists. we need the resources to train and recruit health professionals and to pay them competitive salaries. our v.a. health providers, many of them veterans themselves, have a unique understanding of our veterans' needs. that expertise cannot be duplicated in the private sector. the v.a. health system is designed to take care of elderly veterans with special needs. it is designed to treat combat wounds, physical and

psychological, something not commonly seen in the private sector. the v.a. health system is designed so that doctors can build long-term relationships with their patients and build expertise in illnesses unique to veterans. clearly a vietnam veteran suffering from exposure to toxic substances like agent orange, could expect to find a greater depth of knowledge and experience with that particular infirm it from the v.a. than from a private sector facility. my state needs v.a. doctors. we need v.a. specialty care providers. we need v.a. facilities. the veterans bill in conference can provide relief to our veterans in need of care, but it remains stuck in conference, frustratingly hung up in partisan politics. when it comes to the shortage of health providers in general, that is not a local problem affecting only my state, the association of american medical

colleges estimates that nationwide doctor shortage of more than 91,500 physicians by the year 2020. the shortage will grow to more than 130,000 by 2025. the impact is most severe in rural states. so any motion of private sector medical care serving as a backstop to the v.a. is completely wrong-headed. . this is not a new problem either. it has projected going back before this administration, from the affordable care act, from the president bush and beyond. baby boomers are getting older, doctors are retiring, more people require specialized and extended care. we, this congress, must address this cry ace cyst, and it is a crisis. but the house stands immobilized, frozen in the ice of its own indifference as a great american president,

franklin roosevelt, once said. so today i'm calling upon this house. i'm imploring this house to put politics aside, advance the work of the ongoing conference and get this bill done. this motion calls this house to recede from section 203 of the senate amendment relating to the use of unobligated amounts of hiring health care providers for the veterans health administration and recede from the house amendment and concur in the senate amendment in all instances. i urge the house to support this motion to instruct conferees, and i reserve the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flores: mr. speaker, the motion to instruct would instruct the house conferees to recede the senate with respect to section 203 of the senate amendment to h.r. 3230, which would require the department of

veterans affairs to use unobligated balances to hire additional health providers. it would also instruct the house conferees to recede to the house -- to the senate position on all other matters. this is the fifth such motion that has been introduced in the last 10 days. none of them have brought us any closer to reaching the compromise our veterans deserve in the fiscally responsible manner that respects the rights of our taxpayers. in addition, none of them have brought us any closer to correcting the systemic bureaucratic deficiencies that have led to thousands of veterans waiting for weeks, months or even years to get the care that they need. today our attention is best spent devoted in working with our senate counterparts to find a true compromise. instead, here we are yet again debating an unnecessary, unhelpful and unbinding motion to instruct. mr. speaker, just yesterday afternoon, chairman miller offered a formal proposal to

the conference committee that would do the following. first, it would accept title 1 through title 7 of the original senate bill along with additional amended language to include the oklahoma lease authorization that was included in the house-passed bill, h.r. 3521. but that was left out of the senate language. secondly, it would provide the v.a. with $102 million for fiscal year 2014 to address the department's internal funding shortfalls. number three, it would provide $10 billion of no year mandatory emergency funding to cover the cost of the senate's choice provisions with the remaining senate provisions subject to appropriations on an annual basis. i am supportive of chairman miller's proposal, and i, like him, continue to remain optimistic that the house and senate conferees will be able to successfully accomplish our mission and to come to an agreement in advanced of the

august district work period, which is scheduled to begin next week. there are many important aspects of the bill where the house and the senate do agree. recently, however, senator sanders, who's the chairman of the senate veterans' affairs committee, and the co-chair of the conference committee, have indicated his expire to expand the scope of the conference to include the v.a.'s recent request for as much as an additional $17.6 billion. the v.a. health care system has not yet proven itself able to make effective use of the resources that it has been provided. increasing those resources significantly this time will be irresponsible, particularly in light of the insufficient details that the v.a. has provided about how it arrived at this request and how specifically this money will be used to increase access for our nation's veterans and, two, increase accountability for v.a. bureaucrats. this summer the house veterans'

affairs committee has received hours of testimony from v.a. leaders and key outside stakeholders in an effort to thoroughly understand and evaluate the access and accountability failures of the v.a. and by extension our nation's veterans, the problems they have been experiencing. those hearings have confirmed that the problems v.a. is facing today require long-term and large-scale reform that more money, more people and more buildings will not bring by themselves. mr. speaker, we're continually trying to work out a deal with the senate, and i would argue that these motions to instruct have become not just tiresome but in fact they have been very counterproductive. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to instruct and to allow the conference committee the time and the latitude to work and reach the best possible compromise for the benefit of america's veterans. our veterans deserve nothing less. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm honored to yield at this time to a true leader on veteran issues and a member of the v.a. conference committee, the gentlelady from arizona, ann kirkpatrick, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: i want to thank you for this motion to instruct to. i urge all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct the conferees. both the senate and the house amendments will expand access to non-v.a. care for veterans but this program will only last for two years. it will only address the current emergency by ensuring those veterans who are waiting too long for appointments receive timely care. f we do not address the v.a.'s doctor, nurse and medical support staff shortage now, we will face the same crisis again

in two years. just yesterday i learned that the one physician serving the community-based outpatient clinic in flagstaff, arizona, where i live, is leaving and there is no physician identified as his replacement. in another v.a. clinic in my district, the one doctor there is planning to retire without a replacement doctor identified. our rural veterans struggle to access care, and v.a. hospitals and clinics must be able to recruit and retain doctors and nurses to serve veterans in rural and underserved communities. currently, 10% of all health care provider positions in the v.a. remain unfilled. by ensuring that the v.a. has the ability to quickly hire doctors and nurses and fill these positions, we help the v.a. ensure it has the capacity to provide timely world-class

care to our veterans before this two-year program ends. as a member of the conference committee, i strongly believe that the negotiations between the house and senate must continue. we need to put political differences aside and maintain our focus on the veterans we are here to serve. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes at this time to the gentleman from texas, mr. pete gallego. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. gallego: thank you. thank you to mr. rahall and, mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity. i'm constantly frustrated in this chailber by our inability to come to an agreement -- chamber by our inability to

come to an agreement. and we're arguing whether a senate position sbetter and whether the house position is better. and the thing is the american people want action. one thing we can agree on is we do not have enough medical providers in our system. we see a lot of veterans and we try to force a lot of veterans with a small funnel with very few providers. in fact, if you look at the data recently as men and women come back from different places across the world like iraq and afghanistan, we have a much higher pronounce need than ever before for physicians to treat ptsd and yet we have fewer physicians able to do that because in that area of specialization we do not have enough medical care providers in the v.a. it seems pretty basic that one of the things we ought to be able to agree on is the fact that we need more health care providers in our system. you can leave aside the issue of construction or leave aside the issue of technology or any of those kinds of things, the

fact is when a person, a patient comes into the v.a. system, he needs a health care provider to be able to see him or her and we do not have enough health care providers. that fact is inescapeable. today's motion essentially seeks to take care of that one issue and that one issue is that we need more health care providers. it makes no difference to me, to the american people, to anyone that i know whether we adopt the senate position or the house position. the idea that we're arguing about that, about whether the senate does this or the house does that is frankly ludicrous. we should all come together on that one point. we should all understand that we need more health care providers. our veterans deserve it. our veterans need it. they're asking for that. the american people are demanding it and congress needs to be able to respond. and how should they respond? they should respond through this motion to instruct the conferees so we can agree on a very limited provision of the bill, a limited provision that

says regardless of all of the disagreements, regardless of all of these side fights we will agree on this one area and that one area would be we need more health care providers. ptsd isn't the only thing where we're short of physicians. we're short of cardiologists. we're short of a lot of things, and if the v.a. has the opportunity and the permission to go forward and look for additional health care providers, now, then we'll be up and running much earlier than if we wait and wait and wait. the challenge with congress, manana seems to be the busiest day of the week here. we wait until tomorrow and tomorrow and maybe next week there will be an agreement or maybe the week after that there will be an agreement. we need an agreement today, and in is our opportunity to do that. mr. speaker, thank you for the opportunity. mr. rahall, i appreciate the opportunity. thank you so much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: mr. speaker, i think it's important to know that politics have not been

part of this discussion in the conference committee and any assertion to that standpoint are not true. in terms of the manana comment, i will say this, we have worked diligently on the conference committee on both sides of the aisle to try to get to a solution with the senate. we will continue to do that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield at this moment three minutes to the gentleman from california, a doctor, dr. ami bera. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bera: i thank congressman rahall for yielding and for your leadership on this issue to make sure that our veterans get the health care that they deserve. i rise today to speak in support of the rahall motion to instruct our conferees. i look at this issue, not as a member of congress, but as a doctor who's worked in the v.a. system. now, these are men and women who stepped up to answer the call to duty to protect our freedoms, american freedoms and

we need to give them that same duty when they return. that's why we need to have enough doctors, nurses and health care professionals in the v.a. system. it's been reported many of these men and women needing necessary care often have to wait 30 days, 60 days. that's unconscionable. this is not a democratic or republican issue. this is an issue of getting our men and women, our veterans the necessary health care that they need. and as a doctor, you have to have a work force. you have to have necessary health care professionals that can address these needs in a timely manner. this is a very simple section of the senate bill that congressman rahall is suggesting we move forward. section 203. it would directly address the work force shortage and the doctor shortage in the v.a. by

targeting funding to hire additional health care providers and prioritizing these additional providers for the facilities that need them most. it's common sense. it's the right thing to do to serve our men and women, to serve our veterans. accepting these provisions is just one of many steps that we must do to ensure that they get the care that's necessary. yeah, there's other things we can do but this is something we can do immediately and we shouldn't delay it another week, another year. let's take care of our veterans. there's other legislation out there. we have a bipartisan bill, the doctors helping heroes act. it's democrat and republican. it's common sense. once we get section 203 passed, let's do more to train those necessary doctors. we can do it. and we've got the will and i really commend my colleague, congressman rahall, for taking the lead here. let's do what's necessary to

serve our men and women, our veterans and let's move section 203 forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from west virginia. . mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm honored to yield at this time a distinguished member of the military conv.a., the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i thank my colleague for yielding and leadership in offering this motion to instruct conferees. our nation has a sacred obligation to provide for those who served and sacrificed for this country, just as the military leaves no soldier behind on the battlefield, we must leave no veteran behind when they return home. yet, mr. speaker, as too many veterans and their families can attest, our collective efforts often fall short.

the recent revelations of deceptive and dishonest scheduling practices at the phoenix v.a. and elsewhere throughout the country have underscored a much more ominous reality, serious structural, systemic problems at the v.a. that must be addressed immediately. clearly we have work to do. as a member of the appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding military construction projects and the department of veterans affairs, i and my colleagues have fought for years to ensure that the department has the resources it needs to provide for our nation's veterans. while money alone is not a guarantor of timely access to quality care, a department tasked with as monumental an undertaking as providing for millions of veterans, generations of veterans from world war ii to the current conflict in afghanistan, must be ably prepared and equipped from the inside-out, from top to bottom, with the resources it needs to get the job done. natural resources must translate

into human resources, as any large organization can tell you, it's the people who comprise the organization that ultimately make the difference. that's why i rise in strong support of this motion to instruct, mr. speaker. my district in north carolina is home to tens of thousands of veterans who rely on the v.a. medical centers in durham and fayetteville. or one of the many smaller facilities throughout the region for care. i know firsthand the importance of an organization like the department of veterans affairs tasked with providing comprehensive medical care for so many veterans. and for having sufficient staff on hand to do that. too many v.a. facilities around the country don't have sufficient staff. they face glaring shortfalls of key medical personnel, particularly primary care and mental health professionals. now, mr. speaker, what about the bad actors within v.a. management? they received much attention since the current scandal broke. for certain there is -- there is

no question that bad actors within the department must face the consequences of their action. those who broke the rules have to be reprimanded or in egregious cases terminated. this body passed a bill to provide the secretary authority to do that. too off overlooked are the tens of thousands of men and women, many of themselves veterans, at the department of veterans affairs who work tirelessly every day, often long hours, to ensure that our veterans receive the care they have earned and that they deserve. so i urge my colleagues in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle, lay off the shots that, quote, v.a. bureaucrats. setaside partisan differences. work together to solve this crisis. we must address these shortcomings by enacted comprehensive v.a. reform legislation that's worthy of the men and women who have sacrificed so much. so that's why it's critically important, mr. speaker, to ensure that the secretary of veterans affairs has the

authority and the resources required to hire an employ sufficient numbers of medical professionals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. price: i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman made a profound comment and that is money alone is not a guarantee of quality care for veterans. and that's the issue, one of the issues at stake here in the negotiations. the senate has decided to use this crisis to grab more money for the v.a. when we are not sure the v.a. can handle the money it has appropriated today which is substantial. we want to make sure we fix the v.a. right and do it right the first time. that's the crux of the issue. this is the thing -- that's the objective that really gives our veterans the quality care that they deserve. and that's what the conference committee is committed to do. many i retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, miss lois capps, and commend her for

her leadership on this issue as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i thank my colleague from west virginia for yielding me the time and offering this motion to encourage conferees to swiftly settle their differences on this bill. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of congressman rahall's motion to instruct conferees so that our veterans are assured the care that they have earned. far too long we have heard stories of men and women facing unacceptable weight times at the v.a. and we have heard even more disturbing accounts of misconduct in the very organization our veterans should be most able to trust. in response to this scandal, both chambers of congress have passed bipartisan bills to hold the v.a. and its leadership accountable. i was encouraged to see this body act quickly to address a very real problem and pleased to support bipartisan legislation to help solve this crisis. but we cannot allow this momentum to fade or allow this

agreement to stand in the way of our veterans getting the care they have earned and so clearly deserve. this motion to instruct simply urges the conferees to move past this agreement that are stalling this critical bill. it would ensure that the v.a. can use resources it already has to hire additional health professionals to meet the needs of our veterans, doing this will enable the v.a. to cut down on excessive and unacceptable weight times. as a nurse i -- wait times. as a nurse i know the importance of having adequate staffing levels. we need to encourage the v.a. to bring these experts into the v.a. to treat our vets in need. most importantly the motion supports actions to give v.a. the resources it needs to improve care in responsiveness at every level. while finding appropriate areas to cut back. we owe it to our veterans to work tirelessly to finish this bill before we leave washington. veterans have already waited long enough. let's not allow this critical

bill to stall any longer. it's time to finish the job. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: time check, please, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 1/2 minutes of time remaining. mr. rahall: and the majority side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 25 minutes. mr. rahall: and i am reserving my right to close debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. rahall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: mr. speaker, i am once again urge all members to oppose the motion to instruct. the conference committee is working diligently on both sides of the aisle to try to reach an agreement with the senate. we want to do it in a responsible manner that puts the interest of our nation's veterans at the forefront of the negotiations, but also is respectful of the resources required from our taxpayers to

meet those -- meet that objective. again i urge our members to oppose the motion to instruct. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, america's veterans deserve the very best care our nation can muster. the gentleman from north carolina has said it well, many americans have said it well, every one of our soldiers knows it's their motto to leave no soldier behind. therefore, we as americans should have as our creed and our basic principle guiding us to leave no veteran behind. that prescription begins with the very best core of physicians that we can assemble. time alone will not heal the wounds of war that our veterans have suffered. they are are our true american heroes. we have time and time again mustered the budgetary resources

to deploy and support our troops in iraq and afghanistan and lands beyond. and we salute those of our armed forces serving as we speak to defend this great nation of ours. america's sons and daughters, those who are -- who have volunteered to defend our causes did not hesitate for an instant to go. they want, they serve, they suffered, and they sacrifice their good health. they gave their all. and we are proud in west virginia as a strong patriotic state to serve up there at the top of the 50 states on a per capita basis of our number of young men and women that answer the call of duty for all wars. now the bill for war has come due. where's all this body's patriotic fervor? gone. it appears to be buried beneath a mound of budgetary spread sheets and hand wringing about

deficits, about the need to trim back, about the need to cut back on deficits. i say this house ought to take a different course. one in which we can stand united with those who fought with meritorious service on behalf of the a -- of a grateful nation. let us pay the medical bills of america's sons and daughters. let us do so with dispatch. let us hire the doctors that america's sons and daughters deserve. mr. speaker, we have heard a great deal about this issue over the last several months. we know it's not a new issue. we heard that it goes back beyond to several different administrations. but that should not hinder us from stepping up to the plate and doing what's necessary today . not after we have come back from our so-called vacation in august, but we should address it today before we go home.

i yield back the balance of my time, and i urge that this motion to instruct conferees be accepted by this body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct. the question is on the motion to instruct. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. rahall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address

the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. sir, the national council on alcoholism and drug dependence has awarded its prestigious bronze key award to an outstanding community servant and leader in my district in the eighth congressional district of pennsylvania, judge ash horn, for his council of southeast incorporated where he was a member for 27 years and president of the board for 16 years. during this time he led the council through periods of growth and expansion of its services. including cheering the counsel's building committee as it purchased three buildings to accommodate council programming. for many years he's been recognized as a champion of early intervention and recovery support services to those involved in the criminal justice system. currently he shares a bucks county overdose prevention task

force. so we join in honoring judge nashhorn for his years of outstanding leadership, add vow cancy, and compassionate service to our community. and for setting an example for others to follow. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. griffith of virginia for today. ms. jackson lee of texas on thursday, july 10. and ms. jackson lee of texas on thursday, july 24. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. speaker, thank

you for giving me the time and being down here with me today. i hate that you can't see my charts today. they are not particularly colorful or exciting, but they are important in that they are going to tell the story of something that we have gotten done together. i don't want you to think i'm just making something up down here on the floor of the house, mr. speaker. i know you're probably thinking about the 326 bills that we passed here in the house that are still sitting over there in the senate gathering dust having received no action whatsoever. you might be thinking about the work going on in the rules committee where we are suing the president for failure to implement the law as he crafted it, drafted it, and signed it. you might be thinking about the border crisis that's happening right now that's been marked by so much inaction. i don't mean to say that they are not -- there are not lots of things that need to be worked on in this body. there are. but i wanted to take just a few minutes out this afternoon, mr. speaker, to talk about one of the rare successes that we have had. it's a success that's a long

time coming. i represent prettrow atlanta, mr. speaker. kind of the -- metro atlanta, mr. speaker. kind of the northeastern suburbs there. right down i-75, and down i-16 you get to the great and historic city of savannah and folks think about savannah for different things, whether it's owingle thorpe and his arrival, whether it's dying the river green on saint patrick's day, birth of the girl scouts in savannah, lots of things to bring it to mind, but folks don't often think about the economic driver that the port of savannah is for the entire southeasternous-u united states. so often we talk about constituent interests on the floor, mr. speaker. what's good for this one district in alabama or this one district in new york, what i want to talk about is the impact of the port of savannah on the economy of the entire southeastern united states. . you might know, mr. speaker,

from your part of the world, it's the fourth largest container terminal in the nation and the single largest -- the largest single terminal operation in all of north america. the single terminal, one long dock there in savannah, it handles three million container equivalence absolutely every cycle. volume is up 7% this year alone. when we talk about the number of folks it impacts, mr. speaker, we're talking about 21,000 companies from across the united states of america bring their commerce in and out of the port of savannah. and here's what's so important about our ports, mr. speaker. i don't know if anyone internalizes their value. savannah is a great example. 48% of the container traffic in that port are imports coming into america. goods and services that

american consumers want to buy but 52% of the traffic coming in and out of that port are exports. 48% are things that we're buying from folks overseas, but 52% are goods that were manufactured with american hands, putting paychecks into americans' pockets, shipping those goods right back out overseas. 48% imports, 52% exports. now, why am i talking about that? we got an exciting opportunity going on in this hemisphere, mr. speaker. you may have heard the term ships. panamax you may not see these pictures but i'll go through them briefly. the new panama canal will accommodate ships that carry not twice the number of containers that ships carry

today, not three times the containers but almost 3 1/2 times more containers than ships carry now. what does that mean? that means if you're the fourth largest container port in the country, as savannah is, if you're the fastest growing container port in the country, as savannah is, you better get to work making sure that your equipment, your port, your docks, your channel can accommodate the newer, larger ships. today, the draft on ships coming through the panama canal, mr. speaker, are just under 40 feet. panamac rafts of these ships will be 50 feet, 10 feet more, 25% more. it requires major changes in our renovations of ports. guess what, when the state of georgia recognizes we have an economic engine running our

economy, we can't just get together as the state of georgia and decide we're going to do some dredging and make sure our port is ready for hese newer, modern, larger ships. why not? it has a lot to do with this building and the one down at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and couple in southwest washington at the e.p.a. and our friends at the corps of engineers, there's law after federal law that says to the state of georgia, no, you cannot expand your port without our permission. now, that would be a source of great difference of agreement in this body about whether we ought to have the kind of federal regulatory burden we do in order to make these decisions. in fact, that's the law of the land today and so we must deal with it. we're talking about deeper channels, we're talking about wider docking areas, we're moving not twice as many, not

three times as many but 3 1/2 times containers tomorrow as we were moving yesterday and we have been battling as georgians, as folks in the southeastern united states, as people trying to grow the economy, we have been battling the federal red tape machine not for a week, not for a month, not for a year but almost a decade. i say almost a decade. it's really been more than a decade, mr. speaker. but it's being going on for more than a decade in earnest and we've finally gotten to the finish line. we've finally gotten to the place where the paperwork has been signed, the checks are being written, we're going to be able to do the kind of dredging and modernization that's necessary to continue the economic engine here in the country. what we're going to do is deepen our port from 42 feet to 47. now, i mentioned to you the draft of these new ships is 50 feet. we couldn't get permission to dredge deep enough to actually handle the 50-foot depth there.

we can't handle that draft. these boats are going to have to unload some of their cargo down in charleston, down in jacksonville, they'll have to go into savannah light. couldn't make it happen that we could organize our port to actually handle the fully aded ships, the new panamacs model. we'll do it to 47 at a cost of about $700 million. now, it's real money. it's real money that's coming in a cost share agreement. the state of georgia is picking up more than $200 million of that. the federal government's also picking up a share, recognizing the importance, economic development across the region. cost shares are important, mr. speaker. i've been talking to some of our colleagues. you may have had the same kind of conversation. there is not a number of folks that will take free money.

if there is a grant proposal that will give you something, folks will raise their hand and say, yes, give it to me. you ask people to put some skin in the game, it creates a different dynamic who's onboard and who wants to opt out. georgia is onboard to the tune of $200 million because it's important. and when things are important we ought to be able to come together and get these things done. again, this port of savannah, this corps of engineers project, this bit of the wrda bill, authorized in the wrda bill, the water resources development act, a rare episode of folks coming together and getting things done. when we talk about what this means, mr. speaker, we're talking about 11,000 jobs nationwide. 11,000 jobs nationwide. i say nationwide, mr. speaker, only about 2,400 of those jobs

will be local jobs there around the port, but we can't get wrapped up in what's good for me, what's good for my community to the exclusion of what's good for us. we're all in this together. is savannah going to have a disproportionate investment in this port? of course there is. they will be burdened. their streets will be more crowded. their housing prices will be affected. everything is affected, but this is not a local concern, this is a national concern. mr. speaker, the world is changing. the world is a dynamic place. again, it doesn't take much to ee that what was the amazing engineering marvel that was the panama canal has been set aside now as being too old, to antiquated, too small to handle modern needs. we're now talking about this

panamac canal that will bring ships the size which you and i have never seen, mr. speaker, to american ports in record time, saving fuel, making a difference to the energy economy, making a difference to price for american consumers. i'm a conservative republican from the deep south, mr. speaker. i have a vision of what this country ought to look like and it's a vision of a country where every man or woman can follow his or her hopes and dreams wherever those hopes and dreams may take them. it's a vision where the government doesn't put their foot on the throats of those young americans who want to pursue those dreams. but it doesn't mean that there's no role for a government at all. when it comes to big infrastructure projects, the interstate highway system, for example, that transportation bill that just passed this house two short weeks ago, when it comes to our ports, when it

comes to those big issues of infrastructure that matter to us all that aren't just about jobs in our local area but about jobs across this country, we have to come together to make a difference in those -- in those ways. for those of us in georgia, for those of us in the southeast, this brought democrats and republicans together. mr. speaker, this brought state legislators together with the executive branch. this brought folks together from alabama and south carolina and florida and more. we can do those big things that matter. they're not easy. sometimes they take a year or two or three, but in my three years of service in this institution, mr. speaker, i've never seen anything get done that was worth doing that didn't involve someone working awfully hard to make it happen and more time than not it wasn't one person working awfully hard. it was two of us or three of us or 10 of us or 100 of us who

got together to make these things happen. i am thankful for my colleagues for making sure that the port of is a van cy is not only a success for the city of savannah, not just for georgia but for the united states of america. it's an example of the kinds of partnerships that we can create and the kinds of differences we can make in the pocketbooks of families back home. there are going to be families who receive paychecks who would not receive those paychecks otherwise because of our cooperation of success. there will be consumers saving money at the cash register each and every day because we were able to come together and build this much-needed infrastructure project. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. norton: thank you very much, mr. speaker. it is mandatory that i come to the floor this afternoon cause the two most serious anti-democratic, anti-home rule amendments are pending in this house. i am very hopeful that they will not be sustained when the full congress gets a look at them, but they certainly have passed this house. an amendment from representative thomas massie of kentucky that attempts to wipe out, eliminate all the gun laws of the nation's capital, the nation's capital, a prime terrorist target, the nation's

apital where cabinet members lunch in our public places, go to our theaters, walk in our streets. the nation's capital where there are 650,000 residents. the nation's capital, one of the big cities of america, and it is those big cities where gun violence is most likely to occur. that's the amendment from representative massie, and then there's another amendment from representative andy harris, an amendment that flies in the face of what is occurring across the country, of course, would ates long it appear district of columbia decriminalize their marijuana laws. so, too, has the district of columbia, but this member is seeking to meddle in the affairs of the district of columbia, the local affairs and

local matter and to somehow legislature from passing a local law just like the laws of those 18 states. now, i hasten to add that the senate, the comparable subcommittee in the senate has considered this matter, and the senate has passed what we call a clean bill, a clean bill for the district of columbia. a kind ourse, there's of anomaly here. why am i talking about the district of columbia at all? well, that's an anomaly that , lows the district's budget every cent that's raised in the

district of columbia to come here to be approved by members that are unaccountable for having raised a cent of that budget. yes, the senate had to consider the district's budget. by the way, that budget is balanced. -- a large ge ount of money in excess of its annual budget. . a rainy day fund that would be the envy of most members of this house. and it has come to the house which has hardly been able to pass bills much less to balance its budget. so the house -- senate says we recognize you can handle your own affairs, for goodness sakes, like any other american jurisdiction, and so they have quickly passed -- or approved

the district's local budget. and it's also given -- the senate has also given the district both autonomy over its own budget so it wouldn't have to come here in the first place, and what we call legislative autonomy. in addition to having to bring its local budget here, the residents of the district of columbia when it passes its ocal laws has those local laws rest here for a certain period of time to see if there's any member that wants to jump up and ask to overturn them. usually the process of overturning a local law in the district of columbia does not come through regular order through the house and senate. although there's such a process that is allowed. it usually comes in the way that representative massey and representative harris have interfered with the district.

they simply try to use an amendment to an appropriation bill in order to overturn a district law. . nd of short cut method of course if one looks at why the district budget is over here, the american people would be, i think, pleased to know that no one, not one member, looks at the budget. they recognize they are incompetent to do so not because they are inherently incompetent, but because nobody would want to look at somebody else's budget that hadn't had an opportunity to go through what they go through. and that is of course, all of the hearings and the rest of it. so they don't care about the budget. they have the budget here in order to use it as a vehicle to overturn local laws. and that is what has happened with the amendment and with the

marijuana decriminalization amendment. i would want to speak about responses both from residents and about what these members have done. the gun amendment, of course, by all intents, most serious. what this member, representative thomas massie, from kentucky, has tried to do affects the lives and the public safety of the residents of this city. this is something you don't fool with. the reason that the framers left such local matters, public safety, to local people is because of what is at stake. nobody in washington, that is to say official washington, can tell anybody -- can tell anyone in someone's hometown anything that they should want to hear about their own local public safety. as it turns out, the district of columbia is very proud of its

low crime rate, it's low gun violence rate. like other big cities earlier on within the last 15 or 20 years, it was like other big cities. it had high gun violence rates. so those have been brought down. but you can imagine in a big city keeping the city safe from gun violence is a very big deal. particularly when that city turns out not to be just any city. when it turns out to be the capital of the united states. massey representative has done would make the district of columbia the most permissive gun jurisdiction in the united states. what is almost laughable if it weren't so tragic is that were

his amendment to become law, the district of columbia would have a more permissive set of gun laws than representative massey's own district -- representative massie's own district in kentucky. this gentleman lives in a county of 17,000 people. he's a cattle farmer. there's a different culture that i respect in his county. and, yes, in his state. all of the people of the district of columbia are demanding is the same kind of respect. reciprocal respect. that's what you don't get when a member decides not to attend to the business of his own state, but knowing nothing about your mumbley ying not one

word to you, who represents the district, the only member who represents this district, or to any local official when you then decide in the most tyrannical that use authority essentially, even this congress never intended you to have. because 40 years ago the congress passed the home rule act. it recognized when the country s, frankly, being criticized for not using the same standard with its own capital that it demands of the rest of the world .

it's own capital didn't even have a local government, a home rule government, it was ruled by three commissioners. the people of the district couldn't elect their government. it had no member of congress. what kind of democracy is that in your nation's capital? congress said, that's not democratcy. so, members can cite all they want to about the constitution, which indeed said that the -- because it's the nation's capital there's jurisdiction in the congress, but nothing in the constitution said, that congress had to keep that jurisdiction and could never give the district democracy, and so it did. the home rule act of 1973.

with that act from this congress, this congress said, we shall no longer be the tyrannical lawmakers or people unaccountable to us, making laws for people who can't vote for us or against us. we give that up because it is inconsistent with our values of democracy. and we say it to the world. we are giving it up now. and so they did. any member who tries to say we have the authority like any tyrant in the world that says, look, because i can do it i'm going to do it. yes, you can do it. if you want to betray your own principles. i note for the record that these members profess to be tea party republicans.

their major standard in this congress is that power, even power that the federal government legitimately has, to l be devolved, sent back local jurisdictions and to states. how can you call yourself a small government, local government, states rights, republican, and then be instrumental in putting the big foot of the federal government on a local jurisdiction as it turns out, your own nation's capital, and just to make this more absurdly anti-democratic, in a congress where that member up or down on

the harris amendment or on the thomas amendment. it if, my friends, that is not tyranny, then the word has no meaning. unaccountable and stand in the way of making the only member who represents the district where you are interfering making her unaccountable, too. is this america? no, it is the tea party republican congress. the gun amendment that has been -- oduced by representative representy massey, is such -- representative massey -- massie,

is such a bald attempt -- i'll quote from his own statements shortly, to make political points at the expense of states' rights, the rights of my own constituents. and most seriously at the expense of their public safety. what is representative thomas in ie trying to do here washington? instead of finding things to do kentucky. ple of this is what he's trying to do in the nation's capital, to allow carrying in the streets a gun open or concealed of any kind. ssault weapon, any kind. allowing assault weapons, including .50 caliber sniper

rifles being possessed. allowing magazines holding an unlimited number of bullets from being possessed. do you know how many cavalier cadse of -- cavalcades of cars go through the streets of the nation's capital every single day carrying dignigaries and every level of government from across the world? they stop the traffic because the safety of these officials is so important. to the nation and to the world. so we are not only talking about our own cabinet officials, we are talking about 20 million city. who visit this prime ministers, heads of states . let me go on about what kind of

gun atmosphere they -- mr. massie wants here in the nation's capital. private sale of guns without any background check. any tom, dick, or harry rogue or criminal could get a gun and bring it into the nation's capital. the purchase of guns with no waiting period. the purchase of unlimited number of guns in one day. that's what he wants here in one of the big cities, the nation's capital. wreak hat he's done is unintended confusion. he certainly has gotten a response from the city, the mayor of the city, police chief, was out of town but her assistant chief, came to this house and held a press outrage of bout the

interfering with the chief and most important duty of the mayor nd the police chief. keeping the streets of the district safe. but this amendment isn't quite . ing what mr. massie intended in fact, both of these amendments, the harris marijuana decriminalization amendment and the massey amendment -- massie amendment show why amendments to appropriations really aren't the way to proceed. it is true that you could try to introduce a bill to accomplish the same thing, but amendments to appropriations contain a few words, and they end up doing things you never expected. this was a 69-word appropriation rider that tries to overturn

four complicated laws. you just can't do it. -- it with an amendment and get done what you're trying to do. . this is what we have found and we are looking at the implications of the massie amendment. it appears that thomas massie has made some of our laws less restrictive and some more restrictive. then, there's another that retation that says the city may be left with only laws that have been declared unconstitutional. nd of course those are

unenforceable. and then looking at the nguage, another reading says that the amendment has not only blocked the four complicated n laws intended but has also blocked enforcement of laws that these laws amended and these laws amended laws that had been found unconstitutional. that's just how complicated this is. w, what i think i have shown is that it's technically impossible to do what thomas . ssie tried to do in 69 words never the mind if all you're

bent on is undemocratically poking, inserting yourself into a district not your own, you're bound to make mistakes. in order to do what thomas massie wanted to do, he would have had to write a law as complicated as the district of lumbia's own carefully written gun laws are. and remember, their laws had to be redeveloped because the supreme court decision that said that their original laws were not constitutional. so they went back and did some more laws. strict came up with gun laws and there have been challenges to those gun laws. and the federal courts have upheld the district's gun registration requirement.

the federal courts have upheld the district's assault weapons ban, and the federal courts have upheld the district's ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. why in the world would anyone have gone to court against those in the first place? i'm not sure. but anybody who reads the supreme court decision saying you can carry any gun wherever you want to ought to read it again. all the supreme court said was that you are allowed to have and own a gun in your own home, period. that's all the supreme court has said. not to carry those guns into he streets of big cities where gun tragedies occur on a frequent basis.

i make no challenge to where my colleagues stand on guns. i believe in a country full of diversity of all kinds, and if you look at the great united with from east to west, its extraordinary diverse geography, you can understand why there would be vast on rences among residents issues like guns. why in the world would we not want to respect those differences? this is the united states of america. it means in those states we

have the freedom to entertain differences and to carry them out there. that is all the residents of the district of columbia are demanding. ed wherever you stands on guns is no business of mine. and i will never try to convince you in your own state how to behave with those guns. all the people that i represent are asking is that we be .ccorded the same respect representative massie came on with the initially

. rsion of his gun amendment the speaker, sitting there before him found his amendment . be out of order it was inartfully written. nomplely, if your own party, -- normally, if your own party, the majority controls the floor , if your own speaker says that your amendment is out of order, that's the end of it. to understand the kind of member we're dealing with in this house, his own speaker had ruled his amendment out of order, the sensible thing to do is what he was finally forced to do, go back, go to the staff who knows how to write these amendments and say write me an

amendment that won't be out of order. instead he stood his ground and , overrule ted a vote his own speaker, that his amendment was out of order. that's so embarrassing. his colleagues on the other side that people gathered around him trying to convince him he really didn't want to do that. there was another way to behave. go back and rewrite your amendment. what was a matter of stubbornness was becoming embarrassing because a vote to overrule the speaker demands an immediate vote of the house. it was now 7:00 or 8:00 at night. members had been told there would be no more votes, so they

were scattered throughout the region in maryland and virginia and the far reaches of the district of columbia. ha. had indeed they been called back, the most angry member would not have been me. it would have been his own colleagues. finally unable to convince him to accept the ruling of the chair and the people of kentucky ought to know what kind of member they've sent here and perhaps do something about it, instead of accepting the technical problem and going back forthright and dealing with it, he demanded a vote anyway. and the vote could only be called a humiliation of the member because the votes were by voice and both sides voted against the member's amendment, including his own side over there, and the only one to vote for his amendment was him.

so what he did finally is what he had to do. he went back and he rewrote his amendment and of course he's come back and it passed but with the unintended and confused consequences i just indicated. this is a member, i say to the people of kentucky, who introduced all of six bills, just by way of comparison only because you can't be judged by the number of bills you introduce, but he's introduced six. i introduced 64. the difference is i spent my time saying, what do my members need? i bet you the people of his district in kentucky need more han an amendment, likely not to prevail at the end of the

congress that overturns all the gun laws in the nation's capital. indeed, i want to know what that does for one single massie's f thomas district. when asked why would you do this, the press says, why would you do this, he said, because i want to try to -- and here i'm quoting -- restore gun rights nywhere i can. and he thinks he can despite the home rule act where congress gave up the authority to pass laws or to overturn in the district of columbia. ell, he had an opportunity twice since this bill to try to

he re gun rights anyway could. was arrested here in the house just a few days ago for bringing a gun into the capitol complex. i might say this person's been arrested. i can't believe since he's a staffer he intended to bring it here, but the law is the law whether you're a staffer or a visitor. why hasn't thomas massie introduced a bill where nobody could say he lacks jurisdiction

, a bill to allow guns to be brought into the house of representatives? i challenge him, if he means what he says, that he wants to at least try to restore gun rights anywhere i can, then he must begin where he lives right here on the house floor so that no staff member will be embarrassed again. here at least those who would be affected are accountable to him as the members -- as the residents i represent are not. looks like if you would judge by these incidences all within a week's time, there are people who believe that representative massie meant what he said because just a

yet again ago a man from south carolina brought a reuger l.c.-9 -- lc-9, man from mississippi -- sorry. he's from south carolina. into the house. he, too, was arrested. because it's a federal law. 5104 which agraph makes it an offense to carry a gun in the capitol complex with a penalty up to five years of imprisonment. you want to do something for the people of kentucky who may visit here or the people of

america, here's a law that thomas massie has full jurisdiction to overturn. so i challenge him, if thomas to e is looking for a way restore gun rights anywhere i can, i challenge you to at east introduce such a bill here if for no other reason than consistency sake. don't think that what mr. massie has done has not been noted in kentucky. i'm quoting from a kentucky tv station. first term -- and maybe this is partly inexperience because we

don't see more experienced members, even who may agree coming forward so recklessly. it says thomas massie says it's his business to try to overturn washington, d.c.'s gun laws. now, this is a straight out news report. massie's congressional district stretches from eastern jefferson county, oldham, shelby and spencey counties, all the way to the west virginia border. it his ibritarian has way, it will stretch to the district of columbia's gun laws. that's how it was reported in kentucky. there's an irony here that's not lost in his home state. or the "courier journal" in