good question and the question my family and i have talked a lot about. i guess really want this job because i think i can make a difference. whethermy entire career it was starting at west point, being in the 82nd airborne division, being at the procter & gamble company has prepared me for this task. as i said in my prepared remarks, i think there is no higher calling and this is an opportunity for me to make a difference in the lives of veterans who i care so deeply about. if not me, who? >> and that was some of the confirmation hearing for robert mcdonald to had the v.a. department . you can watch the entire hearing on sunday at 10:35 a.m. eastern time on c-span or any time online at www.c-span.org. >> 40 years ago, the watergate

scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. revisitshistory tv 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. the charge of abuse of power. >> you have questions about what the framework had in mind. questions about whether the activities that had been found out about the committee and the were indeed impeachable and thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them? >> watergate, 40 years later, sunday night at 8 a.m. eastern -- 8 p.m. eastern. on c-span 3. leftngress has one week until the august recess and with that, the house gop conference met friday morning to undertake a look at the funding requests for the emergency order funding

request. this is what john boehner tweeted out. >> the president requested 3.7 billion dollars and is built would be less than $1 billion. very bare-bones legislation coming from the house. there are specific control and how that can be used. we've seen a lot of space between republicans and democrats. theblicans want to see money used to speed up the deportations of some of the children coming what democrats have been very resistant to anything they described as

inhumane, something that would ship these children back. they want to ensure more due process, wanting the shouldn't have more time to figure out whether or not they should be sent back or not. there are still a lot of space. >> what is some of the politics? >> first of all, the president requested an amount of money much larger than he was ever going to get from this congress which is a political play to begin with. over ask and see what you get. on top of that, john boehner and the other gop leadership have to craft some type of bill that would keep the republican votes in mind. there are many members of the gop house caucus that were not going to support any type of appropriations bill for the president. they didn't want to give him this type of money. by limiting the amount of money, and adding specific controls to it, the speaker and the leadership think they might be able to keep some of the republicans in line.

across the board, most lawmakers believe some additional money and emergency appropriations are needed. the issue here is that many republican lawmakers feel uneasy about potentially giving that much money to the president that they distrust. >> democrats commenting on what should be included. you tweeted after nancy pelosi's briefing that she set it will be a mistake for up to do immigration law in an appropriations bill. it seems like no chance the deal or tweak the 2008 law. what did she mean? >> a lot of back-and-forth here on the hill has centered upon this issue of the 2008 immigration law which states that children or migrants coming from central and south american countries are treated differently than children coming from mexico or canada. republicans have held up this law and a potential fix to this law. they are arguing we can immediately ship these children back and it would help us out and limit this push.

democrats have been extremely resistant. they call it inhumane, they say you should not package a change to this law into an appropriations bill which is what leader pelosi said today. ago, leader pelosi made it seem like she would be open to a change in that law but that idea was dropped. she said it would be a mistake to package that type of change into an appropriations bill. i took that to mean that any little semblance of a chance of passing something soon on this -- it went out the window. democratic votes are not going to be there for a package that includes changing that law. it is very unlikely we will see the democratic senate agree to anything the republican-controlled house passes. arenother issue there likely to vote -- the confirmation of robert mcdonald. the two they stand on separate v.a. health-care bills on the house and senate? >> they are very likely to

confirm mcdonald very easily. i don't think there has been ever been a secretary that was not confirmed unanimously. we thought it was moving along a little bit but yesterday there were some fireworks when sanders came out and was very upset with the republican members of his committee saying they called this come -- this press conference. it seemed there was a lot of discord. the theme on the hill has been do not expect anything to get done on immigration, the v.a., the highway trust fund. right now, we see these two versions of the bill working through the way of committees. there are so much distance on how to address these issues that no one seems optimistic that we are going to see this done before the recess. there are questions when they come back in september that something will be done. >> no action next week on the highway trust built. t they, on the lawsui

house speaker wants to bring on president obama. where does that stand? >> it has moved out of committee. it could very well get a vote next week. the big question is how the republicans want to do in terms of the calendar. the gop house is going to vote this through. the question is if they want to do it before the recess or after. some signals that maybe they will vote on it next week but we are not sure when exactly we will see a vote and a passage of operation for this law. >> are they doing this because they do not have the votes for any sort of impeachment effort? >> that doesn't seem to be any sense there is. that they have the votes or even the speaker or the leadership would be interested in that. have not been syria's calls from miniseries politicians about that. most of the discussions of impeachment have come from former lawmakers or other

conservative talking heads and not members of the gop congressional delegation. the speaker ise interested in pursuing impeachment, at least not right now. there was an argument and debate on whether or not this lawsuit is a stand-in. republicans argue it is not an something they have legitimate concerns about this was the right way to do it. -- thectually impeachment and a lawsuit or good mobilizing tools for democrats who are been raising good money off of it. they believe they have gotten battleground states and this lawsuit encourages voters to turn out. democrats are very happy to talk about impeachment and a lawsuit because they think it helps them in 2014. ry, you can read more about him on washington npost.com .

returns monday for his last week of work before the august recess. the chamber comes in at noon eastern time and 2:00 for legislative work. ande leaders kevin mccarthy steny hoyer came to the floor to discuss the legislative agenda for the week. here is a look. on monday the, house will meet on noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. untilwill be postponed 6:30 p.m.. 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 bal >> those comments from yesterday on the house floor there would the house returns monday at noon for morning speeches, 2:00 for legislative work. follow the house live here on c-span. during the weekly address, president obama called for changes in corporate tax law. congressman steve daines from montana gives the republican address. he talks about the american energy sector and its potential to create jobs. >> hi, everybody. now addedsses have nearly 10 million new jobs over the past 52 months.

the unemployment rate is at its lowest since september 2 thousand eight, the fastest one-year drop in nearly 30 years. 401(k)s are growing, fewer homes are underwater, and for the first time in more than a decade, is missed leaders have declared that the world's number one place to invest is not china -- it's the united states of america. our lead is growing. no of this is an accident. it is thanks to the resilience and resolve of the american people that our country has recovered faster and come farther than almost any other advanced nation on earth. there is another trend that threatens to undermine the progress you have helped to make. even as corporate profits are as high as ever, a small but growing group of big corporations are fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes. they are keeping most of their business inside the united states, but they are basically renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they are based someplace else to avoid paying their fair share.

i want to be clear. there are only a few big far.rations so the vast majority of american businesses pay their taxes in the united states. but when some companies cherry pick their taxes, it damages the country's finances, it adds to the deficit, it makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep america strong, and it sticks you with the tab for what they stashed offshore. our taxw, a loophole in laws makes this totally legal. i think that is totally wrong. you don't get to pick which rules you play by or which tax rate you pay. neither should these companies. the best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate rate, closes loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody. stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. that is why in my budget earlier

this year, a proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. democrats in congress have advanced proposals that would do the same thing. a couple of republicans have indicated they want to address this, too, and i hope more join us. rather than doubled down on the top done economics that lets a fortunate few play by their own rules, let's embrace economic patriots in -- patriotism that says we rise and fall together. let's reward the work of ordinary americans who play by the rules. together, we can build up our middle class and hand down something better to our kids and restore the american dream for all who work for it and study for it and strive for it. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> hello, i'm steve daines, and i probably represent the state of montana. as a fifth generation montana and, a sportsman, a husband, and father of four, it is an honor to serve the people of montana in the house of representatives.

montanap in bozeman, where my parents worked from the ground up to start a home construction business. like my great great grandmother, myorwegian wood oh -- widow, parents worked tirelessly to achieve the american dream. learned thei importance of hard work, accountability, personal responsibility, values that shaped who i am today. these principles make up the fabric that formed our nation and stand in stark contrast to what we see in washington today. trust in are losing those they have sent to represent them in washington. washington has become a town that promotes all of the wrong behavior and all the wrong people at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. no accident that washington, d.c. has emerged from the recession better than

any other region in the country. andtion is rewarded, political tricks tromp finding solutions. personal gain comes first, and we the people, last. degree ind with a chemical engineering, and then i spent 28 years in business, balancing budgets and helping to create hundreds of good paying montana jobs. americans, i know that washington's way of doing things doesn't work in the real world. while thousands of american families are living paycheck to paycheck, president obama and harry reid have run up the nation's credit card and a bird and our nation with debt that is going to last for generations. countless small businesses are being forced to reduce their workforce or even close their doors, president obama and harry reid continued to impose job killing regulations on the industries that hold the most hope for our economic future.

let me be clear. thateckless policies president obama and harry reid have championed have to rectally harm the security and future those they claim to fight for. president obama is waging a war on the middle class, and harry reid's senate is fully complicit and eager to carry out the president's job killing agenda. in montana, we have seen firsthand the potential that our energy sector holds for lower utility costs for hard-working middle-class families. it will revitalize the economy on our indian reservations, supporting thousands of good paying union jobs. president obama has spearheaded a war on american energy that not only stands in the way of the potential. it works to reverse it. the crow indian reservation is home to some of the word -- the richest call reserves and admitted -- in montana, but the

obama administration's war on call is standing in the way of to develops ability their resources. i was recently meeting with crowe chairman darren oak coyote, and i asked him what his top three priorities were. he told me, jobs, jobs, and jobs. said, acontinued and war on coal as a war on the crow people of montana. we have an unprecedented opportunity to grow our economy and create it paying jobs through the responsible development of our nation's natural resources, but rather than working towards solutions that promote responsible energy production, renew our economy, and bring accountability to washington, the president and the senate have maintained their roadblock to badly needed projects and reform. the house has passed more than

300 bills that the senate has refused to even take up for a vote. the american people have had enough. we need action, not more press conferences and and theoretic -- rhetoric. not moreesults, excuses, barriers, and delays. we need more jobs and less government. we need a senate that will join the house and putting middle-class jobs, affordable energy, and america's future first. i know working together we can change the senate. together, we can get our country back on track, and we can ensure that the voice of the people is heard in washington once again. can ensureealth, we that future generations have the opportunity to achieve the same american dream that our parents and grandparents worked for. i firmly believe that america's best days are yet to come, and i

won't stop working until we get there. thank you, and may god bless america. "newsmakers," gil crow accounts k on the problem of immigrant children on the u.s. southern border he will look at what will happen at the agency's ability to function at the border if the congress cannot agree on a budget before the august recess. here is a look. >> we have some real concerns about that. certainly, we've expended at customs and border protection alone quite a bit of money. they come in at a temporary cost. we have to pay for all of that. we have been paying contract services for transportation, for food, etc. for the rest of the department of homeland security, immigration and customs enforcement, they have certainly had costs, as has the department of justice and health and human

services. we very much need the money to continue operating the way we are. >> you can see more of at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch as in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> this week on "the community tours," we talk with two members of congress about several telecommunications issues