as james madison said, the power to declare war, including the power to judge the causes of 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 my hope that we in congress will repeal the 2001 and the 2002 au

mf. until that time comes, i believe that today represents a strong step toward reclaiming the constitutional power that we each have and are trusted with to make decisions about going to war or declaring war. thatnot emphasize enough 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. deploysident shall not 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 legislature.

may i have 30 more seconds, mr. chairman? >> i will yield another additional -- another 30 seconds. >> the legislature is us, the congress. this is a monumental step toward reclaiming our constitutional authority. in closing, i want to thank representative mcgovern, lee and all my friends in both parties who have fought with me for the right of congress to declare war . for years we have been calling for a debate on the floor of the house with regard to the use of our military. i also want to thank chairman royce and ranking member angle 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 >> next week, the house plans to debate a lawsuit against president obama. it would be filed by the house if passed. republicans say it will force the president to follow the health care law as passed by congress. also, changes to the endangered species act, changing enforcement and reporting rules. kevin mccarthy outlined the schedule for the house. steny hoyer followed with a number of questions. ty 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 >> for more on the congressional agenda, we talked to a capitol hill reporter. >> congress has one week left

until the august recess, and without the house gop conference met friday morning to undertake a look at the funding requests, the emergency border funding request it after that meeting, here's what boehner pleaded out. democrats want a blank check so they can spend no means more. joining us is a political reporter for the washington post. out of that meeting, what did we hear from republicans in terms of their plan? >> we heard from the republicans this morning that they are likely to pursue a bill that much smaller. the president requested $3.7 billion. this bill would be less than $1 billion. this is something that would have specific controls on how the money could be spent and how it could be used. what we are seeing a lot of space between republicans and

democrats on this issue, republicans want to see the money used to speed up deportations of as many of these children. democrats have been adverse to anything that they described is inhumane, anything that ships these children back. we want more due process to figure out whether they should be figured out to sent out are not. >> what are some of the politics behind the much smaller number by republicans? >> the president requested money larger than what he was going to get, which was a political play to begin with. on top of that, boehner and the other leadership has to try to craft some type of bill where they can keep the republican votes in line, so there are me mbers in the house that will not support any kind of appropriation to the president. by limiting the amount of money they will give this the

president or appropriate to the president and adding controls to it, i think the speaker and the leadership think they might be able to keep their republicans in line, because some believe that additional appropriations are needed, but the issue is many republican lawmakers feel uneasy about giving that much money to the present that they distrust. >> you treated after pelosi's briefing that she said it would be a mistake to do immigration law and an appropriations bill. seems like no chance to deal a tweak to the 2008 law. >> a lot of this has dependent on the issue of the 2008 law, which says that children coming from central american countries are treated differently than those coming from mexico or canada. what republicans are arguing is

we should immediately ship these children to south america, and it with limit the question to the southern border. encrypt have called this inhumane. they said we should not package a change of law into an appropriations bill. two weeks ago, leader pelosi had made it seem like she would be open to a change in now, but that idea, the cold water was dumped on that day, and she said that would be a mistake to pack up that type of change into an appropriations bill. what i took that to mean was any little semblance of a chance of then passing something soon on this i thought kind of went out the window. democratic votes are not going to be there on a package that changes at all. it is unlikely we will see the senate agreed to anything the republicans in the house passed. >> and other issues, they are likely to vote on the

confirmation of the new v.a. secretary. how did the two bills stand? >> they are very likely to be passed very easily. there has never been a secretary that has not been confirmed unanimously. we all thought it was then moving on a little bit, but mr. we that yesterday mr. sanders came ou upset. it seemed there was a lot of discord there. the theme on the hill has been do not expect anything to get done. on issues, v.a., highway trust fund, so right now we see these versions of their bills working their way through committee, but there's so much distance on how exactly you address these issues that no one seems optimistic that we will see them, and we will certainly not see this done before the recess, and there are questions when you get back in september whether anything will

get them. >> let's go back to the house. on the lawsuit republicans the house speaker, wants to bring against obama. where does that stand? >> it could very likely get a vote next week. it has moved on out of committee. it could very well get a vote next week. the question will be how well the president -- how the republicans want to set it on the calendar. it is a question of whether they want to do it before the recess or after. we are not sure exactly when we will see the vote. boehner's caucus is in line on this. >> are they doing this because they have no vote on impeachment effort? >> there's no indication. noting to me that there have not

been serious calls from many serious politicians about this. most of the ideas and discussion of impeachment have come from former lawmakers or other conservative talking heads and not members of the gop congressional delegation. that is worth noting. i do not believe the speaker is interested in pursuing impeachment for the president of the united states, at least not right now. there's an argument in the debate about whether this lawsuit is a stand-in. republicans in the leadership would argue it is not and it is something that have elizabeth concern about the use of authority, and thought this was the right way to do it. one interesting to note it is both impeachment and the lawsuit are mobilizing tools for democrats. they've been raising money and had been polling battleground states that the lawsuit encourages voters that are likely to vote and turnout. democrats are very happy to talk about these because they think it will help them in to 2014.

>> thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> a conversation with dan pfeiffer. then the president meets with central american leaders. after that, a house hearing on campaign finance. >> 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974. the house judiciary committee as it considers impeachment. >> we have questions about what the framers had in mind. that hadhe activities been found out by the committee any senate, the watergate

committee, were indeed beautiful. .- impeachable and can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and authorized of them. >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span three. senior adviser dan pfeiffer says he would not discount the possibility of republicans pursuing the impeachment of the president, if he takes executive action on immigration reform. he also discussed unaccompanied 2016ren and the 2014 and elections.

>> ok. here we go. i'm dave cook from the "christian science monitor." i guess today is dan pfeiffer, assistant to the president and senior adviser. he was here almost exactly one year ago. he's a wilmington, delaware, native and by age 24 he was already operating on the national stage as a spokesman for al gore's presidential campaign. he also worked for senators johnson, tom daschle, and evan bye before joining barack obama's presidential campaign -- he was later communications director for president obama. cod later communications director for president obama. so much for biography. now onto the exciting matters of process. we are on the record here. please, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what the guest actually says.

there is no embargo when the session ends. you help you kurds that we willss selfie urge, send photos as soon as the breakfast ends. question,ike to ask a we send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal. will happily call on one and all during the time we have available. let me offer our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments. and we will move to questions. thanks again for doing this, dan. >> thanks for having me. the onlyhis is tweeting free zone and all of washington. let me start with a few opening remarks. began .14, the president declared it the year of action. forgoal here was -- to look ways to work with congress. it had become pretty clear by the end of 2013 that congress was pretty broken because the

republican majority was in the thrall of the right wing. thee were going to advance progressive agenda it was -- it would be through executive action. pollution, toon ,upport minimum wage increase things in the area around skills and education. leading up to at the end of the summer and executive action on dealing with a broken immigration system. because one, this is how you govern during a time of divided congress. tocan't expect republicans step across the line. congress has become so gridlocked. whene dealing at a time there is tremendous frustration

with a lack of action in washington. we want to make sure that the american people know that the president will act. we expected that we would get a reaction from republicans. there, as we went out you hear cries of imperial presidency, etc. we did not presume they would sue the president, but in some ways that is a validation of the idea that the executive actions we have taken are far from the small ball that accused it of being, but instead have forced the republicans to take in nearly unprecedented step of suing the president. that is going to come to fruition in the next week as a house will vote next week to authorize that lawsuit. aat is not going to cause loss of wind in our sails. said, at the end of the summer, as the president promised because of congress is lack of action in immigration

reform, he will do what he can within his power. i suspect i will generate a reactionrly aggressive from the republicans, perhaps one that exceeds any other executive action. that pathoceed with this summer, pushing on executive actions, because we think we're making a very real difference in setting up the contrast with the least productive republican congress in history. with that, let me take your questions. let me ask you first about republicans and compassion. the top republicans are staking out positions to appeal to a more compassionate approach. rand paul is making a speech today on improving education and

reforming the criminal justice system. yesterday, house budget chair ryan talked about steps to reduce poverty. a couple of those echoed proposals the president made to increase tax credits for the working poor and to lower the eligibility age. what do you make of the ryan proposal and the more general shift in republican approach. will it have any effect in your view? >> is good the republicans are engaging in a conversation about the working poor and trying to republicans adamantly refused to talk about that in the last election. there are potential areas for compromise in both ryan's proposal in which he proposes measures supported by

the president. paul ryan has proposed endorsing some of the criminal justice reforms the president has talked about. >> my boss just called, i have been laid off. >> in his conversation will be very useful for you. the challenge here is, the ryan proposals are still in the context of a budget that chooses balance a budget on the backs of the poor and those who need assistance. we need a fundamental shift in republican thinking. we can look for compromise if they choose to join the conversation on a different level. i don't think rhetoric is going to get -- i think you can say this basket of

issues and at the same time support national cuts to medicaid and food stamps and turning medicare into vouchers. that will supersede your rhetoric. there's a fundamental recognition in the republican party, at least among some, that these top-down economic support for those at the very top of corporations is a hallmark of the republicans and the romney particular, is a loser. >> there was criticism to the president's response to the shooting down of the malaysian airliner terror time magazine is running a cover this week entitled in russia, crime without punishment. is not particular positive, talking about the president being detached, but there were even critics within with three senate

committee chairs sending him a letter asking him to impose broad sanctions and seeking swift action. my question is, how would you assess the president's record so far dealing with the threats posed by routine yet -- by president putin? >> i think the first part of -- we live in a very polarized, pollard -- partisan time. everything a president does will be criticized by the other side. actual minutes from the around the malaysian andiner when john mccain lindsey graham are out criticizing the president for it. -- there are people who criticize a present -- the president for getting up in the morning. if there is a different approach, i suspect that charles krauthammer and others will be

ing us for that. i think it is important to recognize that there is this mythology, certainly among the right, where you have republicans reading president putin's talking points as if this were some sort of brilliant strategy. it is certainly clear that everything that russia has done is not understrength. the ukraine has been in orbit for a long time, choosing to side with the west over russia and thenmaking -- russia responding in a way that damaged their economy, isolated them further in the world. you see growing pressure on because of the economic hit they have taken because of sanctions. i think it is important to recognize that way we approach this is that sanctions work best

when the world is united. we are working in concert with the europeans. not workinges means at the speed of the new cycle that cable news response. you can have good press coverage but not have the substantive impact. that is a challenge of foreign affairs in this partisan, hyperactive political mediation. these are competent issues that take complicated nuanced issues that take time. those strategies don't always dovetail with the demand for immediate response. the second part of your question, the question we ask ourselves in any of the situations where there is a world event in the president is out on the road, is does -- is a

substantive reason he needs to come back? -- if such a reason exists, he will come back. many of you pack your bags and go on a trip that is been canceled for reasons -- most notably around the government shutdown and possible default that is happily couple of times. we asked the question, that was clearly not the case last week. i think it is important that the american people expect the president to be able to do more than one thing at once. if we -- if canceling a trip and flying back here and sitting in the white house during the exact same thing we would've been doing from the road, maybe tactically smart in getting good press coverage, but strategically stupid because the next time you don't come back, "why did youll be not come back that time? " in terms of public approval

stop canwhat kind of you put to them at all? see a drop in public approval as reflection of the presidents performance or by extension your own? -- i put muchk less stock in public polling than i do in private polling that i see. that was born out in the 2012 election for the difference there. --hink that if you look at the long arc of it, the president's approval rating has traveled in a fairly narrow band of about 4-5 points. there've been a couple of peaks right after the first election, right after the second election, after the bin laden rate, but generally we have been in the same spot. i think our approval rating is in the average of polls. there is one point -- it is one

point off what was in 2010. we have been higher and a little bit lower. there is no question that everyone in washington, the president included, took a hit of thehe combination debate over syria, the and thent shutdown, the healthcare.gov problems. we had worked our way back to up, about a point in my through the first half of this year and what we have had -- the challenge we have had over the itt several months is that is a continuous cascade of events around the world. become problematic in terms of public opinion is that they serve as a blocker to message. ,f you turn on the news american people are incredibly focused on the economy. they turn on the news and what iraq, more ukraine,

ukraine, and a whole host of other things. that is not a criticism of coverage. those are all legitimate issues, but it makes it very hard to get our message out. i think we have based some project -- some progress on taking a step back. as we get into the fall and there is a sharper contrast between the presidents approval -- that would be helpful. i think it is worth noting that over the course of the last many years, there has been every institution has suffered in public polling. it has a lot to do with people's overall mentality. frustration with washington, the congressional republicans would kill for our numbers. that gives you a sense of where we are. >> anita?

to margaret.go i'm sorry, my fault, out of order. >> i want to get back to the year of action where you all put out this six-month or midway review of this year. i went through and looked at some of those. i wrote a story about it last .eek, about some of them for example my brothers keeper had been on the twice. some were granted you had artie been offering two groups. were private sector things that businesses are not even doing, even though you all supported. get as i just wanted to response to the opposite, which is that some of them are small. can you respond to that? the second part of the question is, i try to get a response from the white house and i didn't. it was declined. know that person was,

but. . . .. what is the point of not responding to that when the media is pushing? >> imitate the first part. , if you look are at the array of executive actions over the course of this year, there are a lot that are very large and some that are smaller. you have some home runs and some triples and doubles and singles over the course of the year. if they were small ball, the republicans would not be suing is over them. i think there is no question that around the minimum wage, around equal pay, around lgbt nondiscrimination which the president signed last week, certainly what we're done around connect ed and technology in schools and the greenhouse gas

regulation, these are all pieces of very big business. in each of those areas, the president has done more than the last several congresses combined. if you're looking for progress on the sort of things that american people are interested in, the only place that is happening right now is in the white house because of a dash of republican obstruction. i don't know why some and didn't respond to you, that is not our strategies. y. we're dealing with an array of things it anyone time. that may have fallen through the cracks. about theto talk child immigration problem and the solutions you're looking at. us on interesting story today about a potential plan for all i wanted toch is -- talk about both in connection with a series action.

what is the kind of executive action you can use to push immigration policy? are you guys looking at just doing stuff and saying go ahead and sue us anyway? does honduras seem like a different case? broadly, children have always been broken off as a different piece of immigration. , theream act, the military trend now across central america is forcing them to take a different posture. i was wondering how that would come out. >> on the first part of your question, there are some things the -- in the ope" the new york times.

is rejectingm legal claims. that will be what guides how we handle this. in terms of executive action, i think what is interesting about what is happened at the border is this got tremendous attention, as it should. that has raised awareness in the research i've seen, tremendous awareness of immigration is an issue and increase the urgency that our people feel and fixing it. i think that gives us broad permission to take what executive action we can to help fix a broken immigration system, because they're frustrated that congress will not act. taking executive action along the lines of what the president was talking about in the rose garden a few weeks ago would allow us to redirect resources to the border to deal with it very that is particularly

important because a house republicans have decided that they're going to head home for the month of august without the president supplemental request, which is exhibit 1000 in the case of the broken republican congress. what we do in case on all ofs, the test these things is are we on solid legal footing. the president insists that that analysis is done before we take any executive action. now, i don't think that is going to stop the republicans from necessarily suing us, so we do what we think we should, not what we think drives the republicans. >> should we expect more executive actions on immigration specifically and just to clarify on the honduras, the story was right, it's not locked down, but they broadly described what he is considering, right? >> i'm not going to get into details of things that may or may not be floating around out

there. if there are, others will make announcements on that. >> so yes? [laughter] >> so what i just said. obviously the president has said he wants to take executive action, what he can do within his authority as soon as possible. he is waiting for, he tasked the attorney general and the security of homeland security to come back at the end of the summer. that will be a very important step substantively. a pretty important step as you look at the arc of the presidency and what happens when he takes that action. >> susan. >> dan, you have this very rare perspective because you have been there from day one at the white house.

you and valerie, anyone else in the senior rankings? >> we are the only ones left. >> i wonder if you can talk about how the second term is different from the first term in terms of both how the president can operate in washington and how he can operate around the world, is the second term different than the first term? >> i think, yes, it is different. part of the difference is just the president has been here longer. we have all been here longer. that gives us additional perspective. there are things that would have caused us to set our hair on fire in the first term that we now know are fleeting things. we can separate the noise and we talked about this earlier, when secretary gates' book came out in the first term, there would have been 1,000 meetings and we would have spent all night having all of these tgs. now you recognize that these books flush through the system pretty quickly. i don't thipeople do too much sweating over that. the one thing i can say for myself personally in this is that probably every day from the midterms in 2010 until electi on night in 2012, there was some part of the day where i thought

about the possibility of losing and not having that -- i woke up the morning after feeling lighter and not having that thought in your head is different. the other thing i would say about this is you, in all of these cases, you do what you think is substantively right. the re-election serves as a strategic felter as you think about things. you think every decision, particularly in this environment, even if this is a completely right thing, you got to be away that karl rove or the koch brothers can buy ads distorting what you just did. then you think about the long game. i spend more time in the second term thinking about how is barack obama going to feel about this decision 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now when he hanging out in the presidential library. there is a little more thing

about the long-term aspects of each individual decision and the short-term politics are incredibly important, the substance is incredibly important, you build a longer perspective. >> sarah. >> going back to the executive action, many of the executive actions is -- >> can you be a little louder, the aged among us. >> sorry. so many of the executive actions the president will keep democratic authorities, lbgt action, immigration, equal pay, i was wondering how much of the politics of 2014 influenced the decisions he brought us? >> i'm not going to say that politics plays no role in the decision-making process. as you weigh equities in any

individual decision, i think this is not unique to this white house or any white house or any politician around the world, politics are inequity. a lot of times, a lot of times to my chagrin that the other equities will beat out politics and you'll do things that may have consequences in the elections, but it's the right thing to do, so you have to do it. we have to think about it. i wouldn't tell you we don't. at the end of the day, he is not going to do something he disagrees with substantively because it's good politics. we took a lot of heat in the first term because they were bad politics at the time, bailing out the auto industry, helping president bush pass the tarp before we were even sworn in office. anyone with half a political sense would know that would be really bad for us.

you can make an argument, taking on health care, one of the most divisive issues wasn't good politics. we weigh those issues and sometimes we decide the politics, the bad politics is worth doing because it's the right thing to do. >> let me do a time check here. we're halfway through. we're coming to lauren, reed, paul, susan, sam, alex, david, alexis, francine, lynn, and todd. >> the basic message here is give shorter answers? >> no, if you play your cards right, you don't get to face a question -- >> when it's hot. >> when does sam come up? >> lauren. [laughter] >> i wanted to ask, in terms of the executive action on immigration that we might have at the end of the summer, do you expect the president will be weighing the children who are coming across the border now or do you expect it will be wider action that affects families or others?

>> i don't want to -- we haven't gotten the report back from the attorney general and second johnson, so i don't want to get too far ahead of it. we have two separate issues, separate but related issues. one is we have a specific challenge at one portion of the border in the rio grande valley and we have to deal with that and that requires sending additional resources, both redirecting resources and asking for new resources from congress, so we're dealing with that. secondly, we have to deal with -- you know we were talking about executive action around immigration long before we had the specific challenge to the border. obviously what is happening at the border is part of the backdrop for the decision for the thinking behind this decision will make, i think it will probably increase the angry reaction from republicans. you already have senator cruz

threats saying that he will not allow there to be a vote on the immigration bill unless we agree to deport all of the dreamers who have received deferred action under the president's executive action in 2012. i think that speaks to both the tremendous cross currents in the republican party on immigration reform where you have people like john mccain and lindsey graham, others in the republican house who have been very open about immigration reform and a nativist tendency that has been very damaging to the republican party politically. we talk about the lawsuit and then you have sarah palin out there talking about impeachment. i saw a poll today that had a huge portion of the republican party base saying they support impeaching the president. a lot of people in this town laugh that off. i think it is, i would not discount that possibility.

i think that speaker boehner by going down the path of this lawsuit has opened the door to republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future. i think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point. >> they really came down and i think we heard a little bit about what you guys plan to do with the college issue with the nonprofits. i'm curious how the administration plans to act if you do executively to fill the coverage gap for the female employees of for profit corporations who were immediately affected, i think there were a few thousand and up

to millions could be. what do you plan to do about that? >> i think the first best solution here is congressional action. we supported the legislation in the senate that was voted down in the last couple of weeks here. we are going to keep pushing for that. i don't want to preview anything here yet, but we're looking at what our options are. like i said, congressional action is first best if unlikely in this environment but we'll keep pushing for that because that's the best way to do this. >> do you have any sort of time frame as when you might announce? >> we're working as quickly as possible. i don't have a date as to when the announcement. people are analyzing the situation and see what there is to do. >> reed. >> dan, how long do you expect to stay in the white house and have you told the president when you expect to leave? >> no, only because i don't know the answer to that question. i'm there as long as certainly -- as long as he wants me to

stay. i say this. i'm there as long as he wants me to stay with one caveat which is i think my practice has been at the end -- as susan pointed out, i have been there for a very long time, which you can all judge whether that's a question of endurance or stubbornness. at the end of every year to take a look and see whether i still have the fire in me, whether i still feel the -- i think during any given day, if you can go spend a day in the white house and not feel the excitement and thrill and opportunity of that job and the place where you are and the history and opportunity to do so much good for people, then that's the time to leave. i don't suspect that that is

coming any time soon, but i think i'll always look and see how i feel about it. i have no plans to go, but someone asked me at one of these events whether i would definitely be there on the day power is handed over to the next president. i think that would also be a particularly presumptuous statement today. we'll see. we haven't made a decision or told the president, unless you have heard something different? >> no, i haven't. [laughter] >> if i can ask a follow-up on the impeachment thing. do you think that would be good for the president to be impeached by the republicans? >> no, i don't think so. impeachment is a very serious thing that has been bandied about by the recent republican vice presidential nominee in a very unserious way. no one has even made, has any allegation of anything that would be in six universes from what is generally considered in

that space. no, i think that we take it very seriously. i don't think it would be a good thing. i am, you know, but i think it would be foolish to discount the possibility that the republicans would consider going down that path at some time in the future. >> \[inaudible] if this has been the spanish and the i.r.a., you wouldn't have supported it and tolerated it. shouldn't you have gotten angry about this earlier, would that have made a difference? >> the president has addressed this, the secretary kerry has addressed this? -- we have made clear about the casualties on each side. secretary kerry is helping them come to a cease-fire. he is going to keep working very hard on that. he is still in egypt right now

working on that. we'll see what we can do there. i think that more than anything else is the most important step right now. >> other allies may be treating the circumstance and how israel has been allowed to carry on killing so many kids? >> i think as we said, israel has a right to defend itself. i'll let you judge if there is a different standard. >> let me ask this first, as i was watching the images on wednesday of the dutch morning ceremonies and the hearses and the caskets come streaming down the street, i remember the white house put out a statement that it would stand shoulder to shoulder with the dutch people in light of the malaysian crash and takedown.

i wonder if there was an opportunity or discussion between the dutch leaders and the white house about whether the president could go to that memorial service. it seems like that would be a literal standing shoulder to shoulder with them, and also project a message to europe about where we stand in terms of russia right now. i'm wondering, first of all, i want to see if there is a discussion on that and wondering how much the political capital the president would lobby europe for more sanctions, sanctions with russia. >> i'm not aware of any discussion like that. the president spoke to the prime minister a number of times. it wasn't a discussion we had in the white house. second, you know, i don't know if it's a question of political capital. i think the president has pushed europe very hard.

he spoke about this in an interview he did yesterday about how hopefully the malaysian -- that the tragedy that has helped with malaysian airlines would serve as a wake-up call for some of the european nations to step up here. he will continue pushing them because it's the right thing to do. like i said earlier, the best way for sanctions to work is when everyone is united on this. i don't think he views this as an expenditure of political capital, more the right thing to do to get to a good public policy solution. >> sam. >> senator bernie sanders the other day talking about the relationships with the republicans, he made the point

that or he made a criticism, i should say, that the president took too long to essentially recognize that congressional republicans were not good negotiating partners. it led me to recall after the 2012 elections, they did predict that it would be broken. is the senator right in his criticism and if not, why not? >> well, i think first to the question, no one, certainly not the president when he said that believed that all partisan divisions would go away and we would live in a world of kumbaya. we would pass large pieces of bipartisan legislation. the question was would we be able to make some progress. in some cases, the fever did break on revenue. we were able to get republicans for the first time in decades to agree to raise taxes on the wealthy and protect taxes on the

middle class. we would all like there to be less, to have the republican party that was less extreme and it was the hope that the election would have that effect. it did not. it even may have had the opposite effect. that remains a challenge. i think that as someone who was there for all of the discussions in the 2011 and 2012 after the republicans took over is the president is willing to listen to the other side and see if they can come to an agreement. he certainly spent a lot of time with speaker boehner and others to try to get that done. that was the right thing to do. he never had any misconceptions about the challenges of the republicans passing anything, the weakness of speaker boehner's position when he had a tea party that would refuse, they thought that defaulting on the national debt for the first time would be a good idea with a deputy who may not have been the most loyal deputy in mr. cantor.

so we understand that. we also had a situation that had to be dealt with. there was no path to, at the time to dealing with the debt limit than having to work with republicans. so we had to do that. now i think over the course of time, there is no doubt that the more you deal with them, the more you know and the more you refine your approach. i think in the showdowns we have had to have with them over the years, the president has a pretty good record. he stared them down on the payroll tax cut, the shutdown, the fiscal cliff and has achieved pretty broad public policy gains without having to give up very much, which is a pretty impressive thing in the course of divided government in a very partisan time. >> alex. >> as you know, the president's agenda, the democrat agenda has stalled in the senate.

the republicans are still very angry about the filibuster reform. that has poisoned the well with the gridlock. the president is getting nominees through. was it worth it and how hard did the administration encourage that move? >> i think it would -- it's not exactly like republicans in the senate, the democrats passed a whole heck of a lot of legislation before the change in the rules. i don't think there -- i think that's a little bit of excuse making on their part. i think that the ability to get our nominees through, especially our judicial nominees, has been tremendous benefit. we basically, none controversial

nominees being held up for 200 days for no reason prior to this and i think -- we have been able to make tremendous progress in reshaping the judiciary especially in the last year or so since that. changes have been made getting four judges appointed to the d.c. court of appeals. they said we would never get one for the rest of our presidency, that's huge progress. we were very supportive of senator reid's effort to do it. >> given how dysfunctional it has become, do you think the president would like to see further rules reform no bills can get past any of the -- >> the problem is not the rules. the problem is that you have a republican minority who decided six years ago that they were going to block everything the president wanted to do. that is where they filibuster everything. that is a fundamental problem there. i don't think it's a wise thing for one branch to suggest a bunch of changes on how the other branch does that. we have been in close contact with senator reid throughout, over all of the years, but as he has contemplated the changes in the past. if a desire comes up again, i'm

sure we will be talking to him about it. >> mr. lauter. >> you mentioned earlier about the problem of foreign crisis and blocking the message. i wonder whether that, whether that tends to be pushing towards going bigger on immigration later as one of the equities that this is an issue that the public is focused on where the president can come through and say i'm doing something and then he'll get more attention if it is big rather than small . >> the president's goal is to do this in a way that is most impactful consistent with his authority. that will be how the filter by which he makes his decision on this. like i said, we're still waiting for the attorney general and

secretary johnson are still undertaking the process here. i think that this executive action will be very significant in not just its public policy, but in terms of the politics of immigration reform going forward. now you have, you have a world where you have senator cruz demanding that we deport all of the dreamers, you can imagine what the reaction to this will be and the represent party has a choice after that, which is are they going to double -- are they going to go back and try to pass comprehensive immigration reform which the president will rip up whatever executive action he does the day they pass that or are they going to set themselves up for the next