massachusetts. >> thank you, and we wish you a long and healthy life during which no republican president serves. [laughter] thank you for yielding. this is all in the context of the hatch act investigation. i think we went off the line on that basis. under your theory that we would be able to subpoena the chief of staff, that is not where we want to go on this. the standard set forth by the courts in the meiers case, it is about bringing in an authority and first exhausting -- of getting the information you're seeking or just oversight in some other way. if the standard for a limited legitimate investigation that you have to have an impasse and have an investigation where you cannot get the answers any other work, is something we require a lot more on that basis, and there has been no showing of the white house not cooperating.

>> all time having expired, i move that the committee on oversight and government reform approve the resolution, rejecting the claim that david simas is immune from being compelled to testify before this congress on matters relating to his official duties. the question is on approving the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. any say no? >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye.

aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. >> i would like to associate myself with the words of ranking member, and i vote no. >> no. >> absolutely not.

>> no. no. no. no. >> all members voted? the clerk -- >> on that vote, 19 ayes, 14 nos. >> the resolution, rejecting the claim that david simas is immune to being compelled to testify before congress on matters relating to his official duties is approved, and we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, the house debate on future u.s. military troops in iraq. after that, members of house leadership discuss next week's agenda. then a house committee hearing on campaign finance. month on book tv's "indepth" former republican from texas and president candidate ron paul, written more than a dozen books and history, with his latest, the school revolution. join the conversation as he calls, e-mails and tweets, live for three hours, sunday august 3 at noon eastern, next month for author, historian and activist mary francees berry.

selling author michael cord guest in december. and arthur brooks. on book tv. television for serious readers. >> the house passed a resolution that would bar president obama from sending forces to iraq in a sustained combat role without congressional approval. approved 370-40. the measure now goes to the senate. iraq, 800 u.s. forces in more than half are providing security for the embassy and personnel. american service members are also involved in improving u.s. intelligence, providing security cooperation, and conducting assessments of iraqi kind capabilities. debate on theor measure, it's about 45 minutes. mr. royce: madam speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. i very much appreciate the way in which mr. mcgovern, mr.

engel, the bipartisan leadership of the house, and the staff of the committee have worked through this issue to bring us here this morning. i thank all -- i thank all of the members. i also thank all of the members of this body -- think all the members of this body can support this motion. earlier this week the foreign affairs committee heard testimony from senior officials from the department of state and defense on the situation in iraq. madam speaker, the situation in this critical immediatele eastern country is precarious -- middle eastern country is precarious. it has turned its sites on baghdad and may be preparing to launch attacks against the united states. never has a terrorist organization cell controlled such a large resource rich safe haven as isis does today. never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that isis does today,

which includes thousands of western passport holders. what started as a crisis in syria has become a reasonablal disaster with serious global implications. including credible threats of international terrorism, humanitarian disaster, and upward pressure on energy prices in a fragile global economy. the top state department official told our committee that isis represents a growing threat to u.s. interest in the region, local population, and the homeland. calling it a vital national security challenge. this is a common assessment outside of government as well. as part of the response to this threat, the obama administration has deployed additional military assets and up to 475 troops to secure our embassy, our personnel. a few hundred u.s. military advisors are evaluating how we might best train, advise, and support the iraqis to take on

isis. as the department of defense testified this week, these small teams are armed for self-defense, but do not have an offensive mission. it was noted these teams are not unlike the missions being carried out by u.s. forces around the world, u.s. forces currently maintain these types of troops in more than 70 droins in africa, the americas -- 70 countries in africa, and americas. if they did decide to take more action in iraq, members on both side of the aisle would be -- sides of the aisle would be deeply split. some believe we should be more active in this region believing our absence has turned into a vacuum. where i think all members can agree is that if the president of the united states ordered u.s. armed forces into sustained combat in iraq, then he should be coming to congress to seek an

explicit statutory authorization and backing, the backing of this body. that is the text before us today. quote, the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution. at the same time, this text preserves the flexibility the president may need to respond to the rapidly evolving national security to protect our embassy, to conduct search and rescue, or target an al qaeda-type terrorist who poses an eminent threat to the united states among other things. nothing in this text impacts the war powers resolution, which, of course, requires the president to withdraw u.s. forces from hostilities within 60 to 90 days

after introduction absent an authorization from congress. the gentleman from massachusetts brings a critical issue to the house floor. the use of force by u.s. armed forces, and the appropriate role for the congress in that decision. any military officer will tell you that the support of the people is critical to the success of the sustained combat operation. as the representative body, that responsibility falls to us. it's an obligation that i know all of my colleagues take seriously, and it is why i expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to

the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res. 105. it reaffirms our belief that u.s. troops should not be deployed in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific congressional authorization. i yield my southwest five minutes. since last december, the terrorist group, isis, has marched across iraq with lethal efishency. cities have fallen to their control. thousands of iraqis soldiers have been killed. the military equipment they left behind, some supplied by the united states, is now in the hands of these fanatics. after easing the -- erasing the border between iraq and syria, isis has advanced toward our ally, jordan. and the leaders of isis have declared an islamic cali fat, promising to rule with a brand of barbarism, such as mandatory female genital mutilation.

madam speaker, the threat posed by isis is real. iraq is teetering on the brink. we can't allow that country to become a safe haven for terrorists that could be used to launch another 9/11. while the hamas terrorists are pushing forth in gaza, the isis terrorists are pushing forth in iraq. at the same time, however, we need to make clear to the american people and the iraqi government that the u.s. combat mission in iraq is over. after losing more than 4,000 american lives and spending more than $1 trillion, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into another sectarian quagmire. the crisis in iraq cannot be solved through military means alone. the solution will be rooted in real political changes in iraq, more inclusive polcy, and greater effort to avoid sectarian conflict. president obama removed the last american combat troops from iraq on december 18, 2011 under an agreement reached by the bush administration. and he has no intention of sending them back, a position

with which i firmly agree. as the president said last month, and i quote, american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq, but we will help iraqis if they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the iraqi people, the region, and american interests as well. unquote. in the last several weeks the president has expanded intelligence and surveillance efforts. he sent a contingent of troops to protect our diplomatic personnel at the u.s. embassy in baghdad, and he's deployed small military assessment teams to get information about the threat that isis poses to iraq, to the region, and to american interests. identify support these measures. they represent the sort of security cooperation with the iraqi government that we should be offering to support our own national security interests. but they don't require the sustained presence of american combat troops in iraq. at the end of the day we all know it's past time for the iraqi government to confront some serious challenges. these will require an iraqi solution when based on respect

for each other and the rule of law. i'd like to thank representative mcgovern, representative jones, and representative lee for their tenacity and leadership in sparking this important debate. they have worked with us in the foreign affairs committee, constructively with me and chairman royce, both, along with the house leadership on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that the amendment we are considering today would enjoy broad bipartisan support. so i hope that the process which brought about today's bill will serve as an example of bipartisan cooperation for the house to follow in the days to come. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield the balance of my time and the rest of the time in doing this debate to mr. mcgovern, who will manage the rest of the measure. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walter jones, a member of the committee on armed services.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. jones: thank you very much, madam speaker, and mr. royce, thank you for the time. i am pleased that the house is debating h.con. resolution 105. i want to thank the republican leadership for working with mr. jim mcgovern, barbara lee, and myself, and our staffs to get this language so that we could debate it today. as james madison said, the power to declare war, including the power to judge the cause of the war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. unfortunately, we in congress have for too long abdicated our constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of military force. this began for me personally with my vote for the 2002 authorization for the use of military force against iraq, which is one of the biggest regrets during my tenure of congress in voting for that. with that vote, we gave up our

constitutional authority on one of the most important decisions a member of congress can make. the decision to send american men and women into war to possibly die. mr. speaker, it is -- madam speaker, it is my hope that one day we ask congress -- in congress will repeal the 2001 and the 2002 aumf. until that time comes, i believe that today represents a strong step toward reclaiming the constitutional power that we each have and are entrusted with to make decisions about going to war or declaring war. . i cannot emphasize enough that no decision is more important for a member of congress than a vote to send young men and women to fight and to die for our country. the main text of this resolution is simple. the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed

forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization. madam speaker, this is what madison meant when he said the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislation. may i have 30 more seconds, mr. chairman? mr. royce: i'll yield the entleman another 30 seconds. mr. jones: this is a monumental step toward reclaiming our constitutional authority. in closing, i want to thank representative mcgovern, lee and members in both parties who have fought with me to come to congress to declare war. we have been calling on debate with regard to the use of our military. i also want to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel and their staffs for this

opportunity today. may god continue to bless our troops, their families and may god continue to bless america. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of house concurrent resolution 105, as amended. this important bipartisan bill asserts the important constitutional role of congress in matters of war and peace, and it is my sincere hope that every single member of this institution will vote in favor. it is important for our colleagues to know that this resolution is the result of open discussion and dialogue between both sides of the aisle. it is an example of what can happen when members come together and decide they want to accomplish something meaningful, and i want to thank speaker boehner and the majority leadership, leader pelosi and minority whip hoyer, foreign affairs committee chairman royce and ranking member engel, and i want to

thank my good friends who have helped lead this effort, my colleagues, congressman walter jones and congresswoman barbara lee for working together on this language of this resolution. i want to send a special thanks to all the staff who spent many hours listening to the views and concerns that span the political spectrum of this house about america's engagement in iraq. in particular, i want to thank jen stewart, emily murray, wendy parker, dan silverberg, doug andersen, jason steinbaum, anice, doug campbell, myra redznik, ray, cindy and keith. i am very grateful for how hard each of them worked to achieve a consensus. madam speaker, this resolution is quite straightforward. it requires an authorization from congress should the president determine that the united states should escalate its military presence in iraq. it does not change the

president's existing authorities to protect and ensure the security of u.s. diplomatic facilities and personnel, and it does not alter the requirements of the war powers resolution. this resolution makes one clear statement. if the president decides we should further involve our military in iraq, he needs to work with congress to authorize it. i don't know how congress would respond and vote for such a request. and for the record i want to state in the strongest possible way that i think it would be a grave mistake for the united states to re-engage militarily in iraq. and i want to make clear that the intent of this resolution is not to criticize president obama. i believe him when he says that he has no intention of significantly expanding our military presence in iraq. and so far each of the three recent deployments to iraq that he has announced, the president rightfully and formally informed congress scuent with the war powers resolution.

-- consistent with the war powers resolution. nor does it criticize the republican leadership. rather, the intent of this resolution is to begin to re-establish congress' rightful role under article 1, section 8 of the constitution when it comes to matters of war and peace. i believe there is broad bipartisan and growing concern that over the past several decades congress has ceded far too much of its power to the executive branch. it has happened under democratic and republican presidents. it has happened under democratic and republican control of the house and senate. it is not really a partisan issue. it is an institutional one. we simply haven't done our job. my concern all along is that congress has not lived up to its constitutional responsibilities to debate and authorize the introduction of u.s. forces whether they are engaged in roles related to combat. so while this resolution clearly puts the president on notice, it also reinforces the institutional role of congress

in matters of war and peace. madam speaker, the time to debate our re-engagement in iraq should come to that before we're caught in the heat of the moment, not when the first body bags come home, not when the first bombs start to fall, not when the worst-case scenario is playing out on our tv screens. the time to debate iraq is when we can weigh the pros and cons of action, the pros and cons of supporting the violent and sectarian violence of the maliki government or whatever overnment cobble ready together. resolution is receives are the careful debate that it deserves. we owe at least that much to our men and women in uniforms and families and we owe that much to our democratic institution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: well, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from kentucky, mr. thomas massie. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. massey: thank you, mr. chairman. -- . massie: thank you, mr. chairman. article 1, section 8, gives are the sole power to go to war to congress, not the president. the situation in iraq is deteriorating as we speak. isis is tare rising the people of iraq -- terrorizing the people of iraq and destroying the ancient culture of mosul. some have called on america to intervene once again. if we do so and send our brave men and women into harm's way overseas, we must honor the constitution. congress must authorize any such military action. it would be illegal for the president to do so alone. any future military action in iraq would conconstitute a new war with new enemies, isis, and require a new congressional

authorization. the president cannot use the 2002 authorization for the use of force in iraq to justify any new action. it is important for those who are quick to rush into another war to remember that wars often have unintended consequences. iraq is a prime example. in a recent article in "the telegraph," historian dr. tim stanley pointed out that prior to the 2003 iraq war there were 1.5 million christians in iraq. today there are only 400,000. as dr. stanley writes, quote, the lesson is either leave other countries alone or if you must intervene do so with consistency and resilience. the consequences of going in, messing things up and then quiting with a weary shrug are terrible for those left behind, under -- unquote. if we go to war we must have congress to declare and fight to win. anything else is illegal, unconstitutional and likely to lead to unintended horrific

consequences. that is why i support h.con.res 105, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, it's my privilege to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from california, one of the leaders on this resolution, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. first of all, let me thank congressman mcgovern for yielding but also for your tireless leadership on this very important issue. i am proud to join congressman walter jones and congressman mcgovern in introducing this bipartisan resolution and for their consistent support and work as great americans to address these serious issues of war and peace. this resolution simply prohibits the president to deploy armed services our to engage in combat operations in iraq without specific debate and authorization from congress. this resolution also seeks to

reclaim a fundamental congressional responsibility, the constitutionality protected right for congress to debate and to determine when this country enters into war. i also am personally concerned about mission creep. we hear many of the same voices who champion the unnecessary war in iraq, once again beating the drum for a renewed war in iraq today. last month, president obama announced that 300 personnel would be sent to iraq, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support supported by attack helicopters and drones. a few days later, he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. their promises to send many additional hell fire earth to surface missiles. now i, too, believe that president obama does not intend to send ground troops to iraq, but we need to make sure --

make sure, find you, that congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility on this grave issue. after more than a decade at war in iraq and afghanistan, thousands of united states lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for congress to reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than ever. and let me remind you, it was the absence of full debate that led congress to passing the overly broad 2001 authorization for the use of military force in the wake of 9/11. this law was used to justify everything, from the war in afghanistan, warrantless, domestic and international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in guantanamo and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not at war with. i couldn't vote for that resolution because, you know, i have always believed that such consequences are grave for the united states' national

security interests unless we fully debate these issues and of course in the war, we didn't debate that resolution any more than one hour. and i continued to attempt to repeal and address the problematic actions justified under this law ever since. now, on july 16, congressman mcgovern, jones, rigell, myself and others, over 100 members of congress from both parties, we wrote a letter and we signed that letter to president obama to come to congress to debate and for an authorization before any military escalation in iraq. exactly what this resolution would do. madam speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to insert that record into the letter, please -- into the record -- excuse me. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: and also, let me remind you during last month, we debated the defense appropriations bill.

over 150 bipartisan members supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from conducting combat operations in iraq. but this resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the president to come to congress should he decide to engage in an escalated combat role in iraq. the pretty is, though, there's no military solution in iraq. this is a sectarian war with long-standing roots that were flamed when we invaded iraq in 2003. any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides. the change iraq needs must come from iraqis rejecting violence, in favor of a peaceful democracy and respects for the rights of all citizens. madam speaker, the american people agree -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: thousands of american lives and billions of dollars, the american people are

rightfully war weary. before we put our brave service men and women in harm's way again, congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on whether or not we should get further involved in iraq militarily. and of course after we pass this resolution, i urge the republican leadership to bring up our bill, h.r. 3852, to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. i want to thank once again congressman mcgovern for staying the course. he was one of the first members calling for an end to the war in iraq and to bring our brave troops home. he's provided tremendous leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. this is just another one of those efforts. so i want to thank you, again, congressman mcgovern, congressman jones. i want to thank all of the members who are supporting this, including our leadership. congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on the

books in perpetuity. we don't do this for the farm bill. we don't do this for the transportation bill. sooner or later, we need to repeal the initial authorizes. thank you, again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: well, thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. adam kinzinger, a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you. and i want to say thank you to the chairman for yielding me this time. thank you to both sides for your hard work. it's rare that we get compromises in washington, and i appreciate the work you've put in, but i cannot in good conscience support this. . i'm a veteran of irblinge. i saw many people that -- of iraq. i saw many people that fought hard to bring the iraqi people freedom. and i saw a war that was won in 2011. what we are watching happening in iraq right now is the worst

case scenario in the middle east. there is a march of jihadism and extremism that makes al qaeda look like puppy dogs that's happening in iraq. a president that's indecisive on what to do. we have genital mutilations ordered in mosul just the other day by isis. and we are here in washington, d.c., debating what we need to do to hamstring the president who is already indecisive enough about this. you know, when american military, american marines and army get themselves into sustained combat, they often call on strong air support to help them win the fight. that's why as well as the strong marines and army we have, that's why we are so good at what we do. we are asking the iraqi military to take back their country and take land, but yet not providing them substantial airpower that's needed to destroy this very evil cancer that's growing in the middle east. that's what we ought to be here discussing today. is how to stop this cancer of

jihadism in isis that's growing in the middle east, how to stop that from growing, and ultimately prevent it from coming here to the united states of america and potentially to our allies. so while i again strongly respect and fully understand what my chairman is doing here and appreciate his hard work, i think instead of giving the president an ability to blame congress for his indecisiveness, i think it's time that we stand up and say we have to defend our interests and defend people that want to defend themselves. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for his comments and his service to our country. but the gentleman should draft an authorization for war and ask for his leadership to bring it up. that's what the constitution tells us to do. with this resolution -- what this resolution is about today is not whether -- this is not a vote on getting out of iraq or staying in iraq or expanding our

role in iraq. this is a vote on whether or not our -- we are going to live up to our constitutional responsibility. this should not be controversial, no matter what one's views are on military re-engagement in iraq. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, who has been a leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding. i rise today in support of h.con.res. 105, having already taken action on this issue that has every american gravely concerned, i opposed our involvement in iraq in 2002, i opposed it last month, and i oppose it today. while i intent -- intend to support the resolution at hand, i believe we should have required the president to recall any troops not in iraq for security. this was the original purpose of the resolution. notwithstanding, it is very significant that this house of

representatives will probably pass overwhelmingly this resolution that takes a very firm stand that congress should be authorizing any further military action in iraq. we owe it to the people of this nation. let's be clear, the president invoked the war powers act under the guise of protecting our embassy. there are now nearly 1,000 u.s. troops in harm's way. apache helicopters to name a few. we are taking sides in a sectarian civil war let's not forget that's what we are doing. congress must reject a new war in iraq, and i urge my colleagues to demand further action to take further action to withdraw our troops now before our men and women in uniform are again asked to pay too high a price for our inaction. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i will

continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, an article was written in defense 1. i want to quote part of it. he says, the hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the corrupt, incompetent government we installed in iraq. if 10 years, millions of hours of work, and hundreds of billions of dollars cannot build a regime that can survive, it is difficult to imagine any fix that can. those seeking to blame the obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a cynical game. there is not a quick fix to this problem. the hard truth is that like the collapse of the government in south vietnam a generation ago, there is little we can do to prop up this government. as military expert tweeted, i quote, unless the u.s. has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into prime minister maliki, air strikes in iraq

would be pointless, end quote. i ask unanimous consent to insert the article. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. mcgovern: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three meant. mr. holt: thank you, madam speaker. i commend the authors of this resolution, representatives mcgovern, jones, and lee, for their leadership on this issue of war and peace. the topic of limiting our future military involvement in iraq deserves more than one hour. it deserves an entire legislative day to discuss this resolution and the larger question, the issue of the war making powers of congress. the history of our involvement in iraq and exactly how we came to this point is of paramount importance. in understanding why it's vital that the house pass this resolution. but since time is limited, let me come to the point.

no more american soldiers should kill or be killed in iraq to redeem our past mistakes. the united states has spent years and billions of dollars trying to rebuild iraq's armed forces to no end. sending 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 advisors to iraq would be a pointless exercise when the iraqi army continues to melt away in the face of rebels. unless the iraqi government can inspire confidence in kurds, sunni, shiia, that it is a fair legitimate government concerned with the welfare of all iraqis, no amount of money or american advisors will save it. we have already lost more than 4,000 americans in one war in iraq. let's not invoke the insidious, hellacious argument that our previous heavy investment

justifies further heavy investment. had america not waged an unnecessary war in iraq starting in 2003, there would be no need for us to debate this resolution now. like so many misguided military interventions in our history, america's misguided war with iraq unleashed forces that we cannot now control. we should not compound that error by squandering more lives and money in iraq. i hope we can have beyond this moment now a fuller debate of the war making powers of congress. i hope as representative lee said a few moments ago that we can have a debate on the repeal of the authorization of the use of military force. much s the excuse for ilitary, paramilitary, and

domestic intrusive activities in this contry. but for now -- in this country. but for now we should, i think, recognize the good acts of representatives mcgovern, jones, and lee in bringing this resolution to the floor. i think it will help further the debate greatly. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i'm going to reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 33 national organizations in support of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, regarding the term "sustained

combat role," this resolution specifically states that nothing in this language superseeds the war powers resolution. the war powers resolution lays out very clear time frames beyond which we should consider troops to be deployed for a sustained period. combat role implies the many roles our troops may be engaged in while supporting combat operations in iraq. i think, however, this resolution is based on the president and the congress acting in good faith and working together to authorize any deeper involvement in the ongoing conflict in iraq. madam speaker, i think that there are -- at this point we have no further speakers on this time so let me close. i want to again acknowledge that this is an important resolution and this is an important moment for this institution. we have bipartisan collaboration

on this language. we have bipartisan agreement that we ought not to give up our constitutional responsibilities when it comes to declaring war or getting into wars. and again i want to thank speaker boehner. i want to thank leader pelosi. i want to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel and everybody who is involved in working together in understanding that no matter what your view is on what we should be doing in iraq, that we all agree that we have a responsibility here. that we matter in this debate. i think it's also important to realize that we are coming together to acknowledge that it is important to debate this issue before we get into the heat of battle. i hope it never comes to that, but for too long i think this institution has not done what it is supposed to do when it comes to war.

both under democratic presidents and under republican presidents. as i said in the beginning this is not a critique of president obama. i believe the president when he says he does not want to see anymore combat troops deployed in iraq. i believe him when he says he does not re-engage militarily in yet another war. but i also know from history that there is such a thing called the slippery slope, and there are events that happen that sometimes overtake people's original positions, and then we find ourselves in a situation that we did not expect to be in. what we are saying here is that if, in fact, the president for whatever reason decides to escalate our military involvement, congress needs to debate it and congress needs to authorize it. it is that simple. this resolution is not as strong as some of us would want it to

be, and it's not as weak as some would want it to be. this represents a compromise. i also think it's important to point out that every once in a while this place works. i think this is one of the moments where we can point to that the congress is working. and we are working on an issue that i think is of incredible importance. i just close by saying like so many of my colleagues here, i have been to countless funerals of soldiers who have been killed, not only in iraq but in afghanistan. i have talked to parents, i have talked to brothers and sisters, i have talked to grandparents during very difficult times when they have lost a loved one. it is important that we recognize that going to war, deploying our troops in hostilities, is a big deal. we ought to be very clear that

this is important. that we ought not go down that road lightly. and i am grateful that this solution makes it clear that we are going to debate these issues, and that we are going to authorize these issues, and we are going to respect the constitution. so with that, madam speaker, i want to thank mr. royce, i want to thank everybody who has been involved in this. this is an important statement. and i am very hopeful that we will get a strong bipartisan support. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, let me begin by saying i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts' spirit of cooperation. mr. mcgovern and i have worked on a number of issues from victims rights to trying to stop the exploitation of child

i iers in africa, and so appreciate that spirit on his part. as i noted in my opening testimony, my opening statement here, the threat of isis is real, and i do think we should reflect on that as we debate this issue. never has a terrorist organization itself controlled so much territory, especially such a large resource-rich safe haven as isis has in this caliphate as they perceive it, as they control in this caliphate now. never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that isis does today. . and this includes thousands of western passports and thousands of individuals who are passport

holders from the west. one militant engaged in this battle recently returned to europe and attacked a museum in brussels. so more of that is coming as a result of isis. and let's not take this debate to mean that we should not be doing anything to offset that organization. i think the president has failed u.s. national security interests by not, for example, authorizing or accepting the quest made by the government in iraq and by our personnel in our embassy for drone strikes on these terrorist isis camps. remember, this is a situation where the drone can actually see the isis combatants, with the black flag of al qaeda waving. as they move across the desert

or as they are had encamped, this was an -- are encamped, this was an opportunity to hit them when they were vulnerable, before they began or as they march to march across the desert, as they began to take those cities with their columns, their armed columns. i do think, as the u.n. reported yesterday, that there are going to be consequences to these fatwas that come down from isis. the one yesterday specifically, according to the u.n., isis is requiring female mutilation in the new caliphate it is establishing. at least in the mosul area and around that area. that's about four million females that would be subject this if they are as doctrineaire as they have been on other issues.

so we will be wrestling with what to do about isis, what we can do. , and is resolution says i think the overwhelming majority of us in congress agrees with this, is that if the president of the united states ordered u.s. armed forces into sustained combat in iraq, then he should be coming to congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and the backing of this body and that is the text before us today. it says again, the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution. that is the position of the members of congress, as the

representative body, frankly, and as any military officer, by the way, will tell you, support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. as the representative body, that responsibility falls to us . it's an obligation that i know all of my colleagues take seriously and, again, it is why i expect overwhelming passage >> next week the house plans to debate a lawsuit against president obama. houseld be filed by the if passed. republicans say it will force the president to follow the health care law as passed by congress. also next week, changes to the endangered species act. andbill changes enforcement reporting rules. house republican leader kevin

mccarthy outlines next week's schedule. hoyer followed with questions. this is about 30 minutes. monda 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 we talked with a capitol hill reporter about the week ahead. >> the house met. after that meeting, here is what john boehner tweeted -- >> 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 is 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 many of these children. democrats has 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 members 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 president that they distrust. >> you tweeted 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 eliminate the question to the southern border. democrats 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 the law. 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 do 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 yesterday mr. sanders came out 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 and the house speaker want 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. 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 allegation. 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 legitimate 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 that turnout. democrats are very happy to talk about these because they think it will help them in 2014. >> thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> next, a house committee hearing on campaign finance. and live at 7:00 a.m. your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> on "newmakers" john thune talks about the 2014 in 2016 elections. transportation, funding, the economy, and iraq. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00

p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in a 19-14 vote, the house oversight and government reform committee reject the white house 's claim. was subpoenaed by the committee to testify but did not show up. the same thing happened last week as well. houseetter to the white they said that he is immune to testify on matters related to his official duties and will not appear. this is about an hour now. -- an hour and a half.

>> the committee will come to order. we are here to continuing hearing that began on july 16, 2014, called the house office of clinical affairs and supporting candidates and campaign fund raising and inappropriate use of government office. the purpose of the hearings to gather facts about the white house office of political and strategic outreach. i would like to note for the record mr. david simas, director of the office of political strategy and outreach is in fact not here today. he was invited to speak to give the american people the chance office that has under several administrations misused the funds given to that office.

you failed to appear on the 16th, and he has failed to appear again. the white house has informed my staff for the first time this morning at 7:30 a.m. that mr. simas would not be present at today's hearing. we continue to work with the white house staff on proposed ways to resolve this, however, two days failure to appear is noted for the record and is not excused. mr. cummings, do you have any remarks? >> a brief statement. just one question. i just wanted to highlight the letter, the last correspondence

that we just put in the record for the members. want to draw your attention to it. it is very brief, delighted july 24 -- dated july 24. my staff has reached out to your us to discuss this in good faith, i am sure they will work with you. and be helpful to review and withdraw the subpoena as we work to reach appropriate combination -- accommodation. the inquiry is very brief. before we proceed any further, i just want to make sure to confirm what we have talked about already, that we understand that we are doing -- we resumed this morning even though we can you was not coming.

staff told special counsel mr. lerner not to come so we will not have testimony. you plan to move next to the business meeting to consider a resolution on mr. simas? >> based on his non-attendance, yes. questions to be clear, i'm statement that i would like to give to man it would be happy to wait until the business meeting is given, but i want to have that opportunity. >> that is correct. you like to give it, you may. >> i will wait. >> a brief response, as you know, we have an inherent obligation of oversight. the question before us today is a very straightforward question, are we doing oversight? is it our right and our obligation to do oversight? i believe it is.

there is a long president that when this committee asks for someone appropriately, and they are not made available, and we believe we need that person, and in the case of an office of only four people, the head is not calming, that we expect that person to come. the record will show we have negotiated attempted alternatives, including transcribed interviews and other nonpublic ways to get the same information. the subpoena is in my opinion appropriate to left, because if it implies, and would mean he would not come. it is the considered opinion of this committee chair that we have an absolute right and obligation to investigate not any wrongdoing, however this is an office that has a past, that passed under both republicans

and democrats is questioned, and there has been an odd situation of saying it was wrong but keeping it for three years. shutting it down and then reconstituting it much smaller. the question that came from the briefing which i was appreciative that the white house did you must -- give us is that this office controls only the president and the first lady and it does not control the members of the cabinet. as the earlier preceding made clear, we have an obligation to look at all government officials, whether covered by the hatch act or not, and find out whether or not they are doing political activity with government money and government time, unless explicitly exempted. it is the considered opinion at this time of the committee and the council that the four people

whose purpose it is to schedule the president and the first lady who are exempt from the hatch act, is a necessary office. because this office was closed at this president as wrong as necessary, and operated for three years without finding out if those four individuals are necessary. and how their use of our text. all is are being used -- taxpayer dollars is being used is in question. we will need to ask the second question. if this office controls only the president and first lady, and there are hundreds of potential cap than subcabinet financial officers who are then controlled to go to places where they need,

participate overtly and lyrical activities, or grow our scheduled to be in districts and states of senators and house members, at times what it might be beneficial to the campaign. fund raising, or less literally, supporting a candidate's reelection. who is scheduling them and how are they scheduling them? this was an oversight in the past controversial office consistent with our requirement to do oversight even without a predicate of wrongdoing. i do want to make sure that the committee understands of both sides of the aisle that we're going to ask the question as to the president and the first lady we believe we will get satisfactory answers. we must move on to the cabinet. under this president, not uniquely, we had two camera officers that committed hatch act violations. we have a control

responsibility, with an inherent predicate for making sure that the organizational systems for cabinet officers and the like is covered. i claim no predicate for the office of the president, i claim oversight, and i believe he would support me in this sensible. -- principle. we simply have a history under presidents of both parties this has been an area of concern in past violations. this has been communicated back and forth with the white house, they understand. this is not about letting scandal at any level, but in fact doing the oversight we are pledged to do and cannot be done by the executive ranks, can only be done by our branch.

i did get very serious that we will likely find that the committee believes that mr. simas has a responsibility to be here and find that once again we are going to insist that he response to the subpoena. >> first of all, mr. chairman, i thank you for what you just said, and for that you stand. with regard, so that the public can have it abundantly clear, i realize you're not saying there needs to be, but if i understand it, to your knowledge mr. simas has done nothing wrong?

>> we're accusing neither the president nor this quadrant person office of any wrongdoing. there is a past history that you and i are both aware of that caused an opinion that a digit be closed and a closing of the office. apparently when and offices closed, one might see in scandal, and then reopened, it is the most important oversight we can do in saying that in the past is to not work properly, how do we know what will work properly going forward? i think the american people have an obligation, and we must make sure that the money is being spent correctly. i alleged no wrongdoing, but it is more appropriate when he have a history of this to look at it than the average poor person office in the white house --

four person office in the white house. >> there a couple of cabinet members you mentioned. we would agree that those offenses -- hatch act offenses took place long before the opening of this office. that ise likely to waste before the closing of the previous office. as we talked about the white house reefing, they told us they are not controlling through this office the activities of members of cabinet which actually raises the concern that i think you and i are going to have to mutually work on, if not this office, then who do we look to to make sure that these inherent calls from a party office, currently the democratic party, who allows those?

who coordinates those? the gentleman yield of course. >> as i hear you, bringing in mr. simas in one respect is sort of trying to create a preventive, preventing something that could happen in the future based upon what happened under the previous administrations. >> not only that, but in a sense, and i hope we all look at this as we look at this office, if congress looks to the system and says we see nothing wrong with the system, and then the system is faithfully executed, and something bad happens, then it is not a scandal, it is a need for further reform. i will give a current example. we voted in 2008 for a law on immigration that now is at the center of some problems. we as a government are looking to fix something, but it isn't

just scandal that people are taking advantage of in 2008 law. it is something we looked at, voted for, and now we see. if we look into these various activities, and we see nothing wrong in the system that is the next lane to us, and what we are is happening, then in fact we add to the ease with which the administration and other administrations can feel this is an upper read way to operate.

it is one of the reasons we have been communicating with caroline larner, and one of the reasons we want her input because in the past she wrote a scathing report. the administrations of the previous two presidents were using an office that was inherently flawed. that's is why we're making sure before we look at it. >> when i read the letter that you wrote yesterday, there were see the -- two new issues that came up regard to the president going on trips, official trips, and then doing some campaigning. i had not seen those allegations before. the reason why i raise this -- >> if you could yield.

it is not an allegation, it is an observation. all presidents do both. this office is coordination -- office's coordination is a very simple question of it. >> what i'm concerned about is two things. it seems as if you buy just wonder when the questions and. this is a question that was presented yesterday. mr. eagleton's response was we will continue to work with you. i'm just wondering, whether is there a constant movement of the goalpost. the publicly to know our staff met with the white house for 75 minute, and answer just about every question. i know that things like it

happened, but some point, where does that end? and more significantly, your understanding concern of the white house, and not just this white house. there will be those of the republican party, and we may be up in heaven somewhere. >> what you're implying is that this is not heaven? [laughter] >> my concern, the white house is concerned, there are certain advisors they want to make sure that they have this freedom to talk -- >> i want to bring this to a close to bring up the next point. the gentleman's point is good and we want to come to an

understanding. oversight is ongoing. we are not looking to ask about on a trip, when did the president say. what is the indication? we know the impact of the advice. the organizational questions are how do you decide? what is the system? how do we know that dollars paid to federal employees are in fact, even though they are clearly supporting campaign efforts, that they are absolutely necessary, and the people's time and money, because we have a unique situation with the president that we do not want him going down to the democratic national committee

for briefings. we do not want the first lady out and about, or having to go back and forth to the residents. these are combinations unique in that we're using taxpayer dollars in support of campaigns, but only because of the unique security considerations. for that reason, the process is in fact important. but we are not using the goalpost -- moving the goalposts. i am absolutely positive that if we go through this process many of your members will have additional questions. we would want to make sure that all levels of questions related to the american taxpayer dollars and the necessity of them are answered. and recess. -- this committee stands in recess.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. the committee meets today to consider a resolution to reject the claim that david simas, director of the office of political strategy and outreach, and assistant to the president, and federal government employee is immune from being compelled to testify before congress on matters relating to his official duties. the clerk will designate the resolution. >> the resolution on committee oversight and reform. >> it will be considered as read

and open for amendment at any time. i will recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> good morning. i must say i opposed the executive branches citizens of absolute immunity. i disagree with them today. one key difference is that in this case the committee has identified no evidence that david simas was a senior adviser to the president of the united states or anyone else in his office engaged in any inappropriate activity or violated the hatch act.

as a result i from we oppose this resolution. i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter that we just received last night wrong caroline learner come -- from caroline learner. >> without objection so ordered. unanimous consent that all back-and-forth letters between the white house and either staffs of the house or senate be placed in the record. so ordered. >> thank you. the office is charged with investigating hatch act violations, and investigated white house office political affairs under the bush administration.

this letter, which was just entered into the record, which all the members should now have, explains that the special correspondence regarding the new office of local strategy and outreach which was established six months ago, based on that review, the special counsel concluded as follows. it appears to be operating in a manner consistent with hatch act restrictions. they do not seem to be acting in a manner that violates the hatch act. i have no reason to believe that opso's activities exceed those set forth by white house lawyers, oversight, and reform

committees. these conclusions are from the top official at the independent agency with the core mission of enforcing the federal hatch act. chairman issa originally invited the council to testify on the committee's hearing on july 16. two days before that hearing, the special counsel submitted a written statement indicating that she planned to testify at her office had identified no evidence of improprieties.

the chairman got that -- cuts that. short and recess until today, she was not able to testify. again, shooting will not -- she will not be testifying this morning. that is why today i'm making a public letter -- making public the letter received last night. raising the concerns of two cabinet secretaries. the actions described with both incurred -- occurred in 2012, before this new office was established in 2014. let me say this.

to all members of this house, we should all be concerned with its credibility, and with its authority. i opposed the assertion of absolute immunity, i agreed with the district court judge that concluded that the assertion was invalid. even though it is based on long standing practices of both the ministrations, i respectfully disagree with this white house's assertion of absolutely immune it -- absolute immunity as well. but this is the worst case try to assert our position. i'm deeply concerned that our committee actions here today could threaten to reverse those gains if we pursue this case with no foundation, no basis, and no predicate whatsoever.

so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to support this resolution based on these meager facts. instead let's try to see what the remaining questions are that members may have about this new office, even after all of the letters and the white house briefing, and documents that we have reviewed. there may be other questions. just as late as last night, the

white house and mr. eagleson are still reaching out, trying to work out accommodations, and left the door open so that those accommodations might be made. let's work together to get answers to those questions, without resorting to these kinds of unnecessary and counterproductive actions. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. i now recognize myself. the white house's decision not to make david simas available has denied the american people the opportunity here from the official in charge of ensuring the white house political activity complies with the hatch act, and in fact the american people's tax dollars are not used to campaign. there have been hatch act violations in several administrations, including two