anthony carnevale a chance to respond. guest: i do not the specifics of your situation. people with stem backgrounds do much better than people who do not have stemmed backgrounds. if we look at the current unemployment rate amongst undergraduates nationwide, even at all ages, it is well below five percent, which is not bad. post we have to end the show their. we will see you back here tomorrow morning. not to the house of the former presented its. july 29, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable blake farenthold to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. we'll now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. this past friday was a monumental day in the house of representatives as we final leija debate on the merits of send -- finally had a debate on the merits of sending combat troops in iraq. i want to thank the leadership and foreign affairs leadership for working with representatives mcgovern, lee and myself for bringing h.con. resolution 105 to the floor and i thank the 370 members who voted in favor of this

resolution. h.con. resolution 105 states very simply 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. mr. speaker, it is my hope that we will have other debates on the constitution and the role of congress in deploying our military, including a debate on repealing both the 2001 and 2002 aumf. there is no decision more important than a vote to commit a young man or woman to war, to potentially give their life for our country. that is one reason that i am opposed to president obama's decision to allow u.s. troops to remain in afghanistan. while he says that we are withdrawing our troops, the fact remains that 32,800

members of the american military remain in harm's way in afghanistan at this very moment. we have all read and heard the reports from the inspector general for afghan reconstruction which details rampant waste, fraud and abuse of american resources. we in congress continue to propose cuts to domestic programs that assist our veterans, children and senior citizens. yet, there are no cuts to the money that is being funneled overseas to prop up a corrupt afghan regime. one would think we would learn from history. no amount of blood or treasure will change afghanistan. it is what it is, like it or not, it is what it is. as i close i want to mention three members of the army who died on july 25 as a result of their service in afghanistan. i also want to thank abc news for faithfully honoring our

fallen service members. the three are staff sergeant benjamin prange, p.f.c. keith williams, p.f.c. darnell hamilton. why, you may ask, do i continue to speak against the war in afghanistan? because american service members are still dying. mr. speaker, i have a poster beside me on the floor today. that probably gives a better example of war than even i do with my words. it is a little girl holding the hands of her mom as the united states army is getting ready to start the caseon. the little girl is wondering why her father is in the casket draped by an american flag. these are the costs of war. we must be carefully and always

be carefully consider where we're going to send our young men and women overseas to fight and give their life. mr. speaker, with that i will close by asking god to please bless our troops, god to please bless the families and for god to continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. as early as this afternoon the senate debates transportation funding, and it's not just about the money to stop the summer slowdown that's impacting jobs and projects across america because we've not adequately funded our transportation needs. it's an opportunity to focus our response to the larger infrastructure crisis which is no longer just looming but is upon us. america is literally falling apart. the american society for civil

engineers has famously rated our transportation with a d-plus, with an overall dismal scorecard for other infrastructure categories. we can no longer afford to maintain our existing system in a state of good repair. 11% of our bridges are obsolete or functionally deficient. ongoing operations to say nothing of strategic new investments are increasingly difficult. this is sad because the federal government used to play an essential role for infrastructure throughout our history, from benjamin franklin's postal roads to abraham lincoln's transcontinental railroad to dwight eisenhower's interstate highway system. the ability to even imagine such accomplishments is increasingly a thing of the past. this means we're losing our competitive edge to be able to move goods efficiently. our families are losing mobility. our low level of investment is being dwarfed by competitors

overseas. europe, india, japan and especially china. hanghai has 14 subway lines. high-speed railway, two massive modern airports, 20 expressways and a high-speed train leaving shanghai every three minutes. china has spent 8.5% of its gross domestic product for 20 years while american investment has shrunk to 1.7%. recently for a system that's variously rated 12th or 27th, depending on what you're looking at. is it any wonder that china's economy has expanded 700% in 20 years while america struggles to grow at 2% a year? with such an overwhelming well-established need, it's criminal that congress is in the process of making a decision that will probably delay any meaningful opportunity to correct this situation in transportation funding for three years or

longer. yes, it's essential that a financial transfer take place to the highway trust fund to stop the summer's slowdown and give congress a chance to work, but hopefully only with enough money to work through this year. the senate may well appropriate enough money, as the house did a couple weeks ago, to slide into the next congress with new committees, new leadership perhaps in the senate. the situation will get no easier, no less complex and no less expensive if this congress abandons its responsibility. this is a continuation of an unfortunate pattern since 2003 where a series of ever shorter solutions and 21 temporary extensions have created near-permanent uncertainty for communities who rely on the federal partnership for the big picture, major repair and new construction of road, transit and bridges. the people who build, maintain and depend on our

transportation infrastructure are in the dark. where they stand now, where they'll be in six months, where they'll be two years from now is absolutely unacceptable. i'll fight for this congress to get on with its job now. if it means we have to work in october instead of campaigning, so be it. if it means we have to come back after the election and work into the holidays, we should do so. congress should not recess for vacation, for campaigning or adjourn for the year unless it's met its responsibilities for a long overdue six-year robust transportation bill, provided with enough sustainable dedicating funding to stop this chronic uncertainty. the senate will be debating limiting funding for this year or sliding into next. they will even debate senator lee's proposal to slash the federal partnership and turn it back to the states as an unfunded mandate, eliminating the gas tax and with it any

thoughtful overall federal transportation system. these are the choices that really need to be drug out in the light. they need to be talked about in the open, to find out what the public thinks and then we make a decision, let them know and move on. merica deserves no less. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from trafficking the well while another member is under recognition. at this point the chair will now recognize the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the recent decision in -- held that obamacare, quote, max tax credits available to individuals who purchase health insurance through exchanges established by the state, end quote. supporters of the law predictably decried judicial partisanship. they claim the reasoning of the

court was spurious because it led to an absurd result which was not in line with the intended policy of the law. also recently, videos surfaced of m.i.t. health economist jonathan gruber, a prominent architect of and supporter of obamacare clearly stating that states have an incentive to set up exchanges so that their citizens will have access to federal subsidies. so much for the charge that the court's reasoning led to an absurd result. mr. speaker, it's quite obvious that someone at some point in the legislative drafting of obamacare thought using federal subsidies as an incentive to get states to set up insurance exchanges was a good idea, and that was the view that was codified as law. but at a fundamental level, the issue here isn't the way the statue was written. it's the way the statue was

passed. the extremely partisan nature of obamacare's passage has made the administration unwilling or unable to seek fixes via the normal legislative process because doing so would necessitate working across the aisle and compromising. we all remember that obamacare was hastily passed after an election which cost the democrats their supermajority in the senate. they couldn't edit this law because the people of massachusetts denied them that privilege. but that didn't stop democrats from ramming this poorly drafted law through using some very questionable legislative tactics. now they're asking the courts to let them make edits to the plain language of law without consulting congress. as this case moves forward on appeal, judges should ask themselves this question. is it my role to shield the

democratic party from the consequences of a republic form of government? i don't recall ever reading that particular clause in my copy of the constitution. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as the house uses what little legislative time is left in the year to sue the president, i'm reminded of what benjamin israeli once said, how easier it is to be critical than correct. that's the reason why the american public thinks the lawsuit against the president of the united states is a political stunt because it is a political stunt. the majority argues that the president's executive action give them no choice but to sue the president.

that is the legislative branch's job to defend against the executive branch's supposed overreaches. but i'll tell you what the job of the legislature is. the job of the legislature is to pass legislation. for 112 congresses before this one, the fight over the separation of powers has endured with each congress before us using the powers allocated to it in our constitution to pass legislation to counter the actions of the president. it's not a unique idea. you don't like the job the president is doing, well, then, let's do our job. you don't like the president's policy, well, let's enact some policies of our own. rather than litigating, we should be legislating. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been so busy trying to prevent the president from doing his job they have forgotten to do their own.

for years their number one legislative priority was making president obama a one-term esident to discredit him, to delegitimize him. time and time again, from extending unemployment insurance to comprehensive immigration reform, climate change, to name a few, this congress has punted the ball. instead of finding the courage to tackle the tough issues the american people are begging us to take on, we have retreated. for many issues we even refused to allow a simple up or down vote on the floor. this congress makes truman's do-nothing congress seem down right busy. no wonder why our approval numbers are so low. it's ironic that a congress that refuses to get anything done has the audacity to accuse the president of getting too much

done. the president isn't taking our power away from us. we have abdicated it to him. since george washington, our presidents have used executive actions to get things done. the majority argues this president is the exception to the rule. president obama may be the exception but not in the way that they think. out of the last 10 presidents, president obama has signed the least number of executive orders on the average per year. so far the president has even signed half as many as president reagan did. yet despite this, let's remember what the president has been able to accomplish over the last six years. president obama brought our economy back from the brink of depression, lowering unemployment from 10% in 2009 to 6.1% today. we have had 52 straight months of private sector job growth with the last month being the fifth month in a row of adding

200,000 jobs or more to the economy. the president passed health care reform, achieving what every president since teddy roosevelt has tried and failed to do. now millions of americans who were previously barred from health insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions or simply could not afford it can access the care they desperately need. and the president has taken unprecedented action to protect our environment. he's proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in u.s. history, put a plan in place to cut carbon pollution from new and existing power plants, and significantly increased production of renewable energy. in six years president obama has accomplished more than many who have come before him. despite a do-nothing congress whose stated mission has been obstruction. mr. speaker, malcolm x used to say if you have no critics, you likely have no successes. the intent of the majority's

lawsuit may be to spotlight the president's critics, but i'm confident what it will actually do is prove his successes. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. helping families and mental health crisis act reforms our broken and harmful mental health system. here are some reasons why we need it. for some who are experiencing the most serious mental illnesses like bipolar disorderar schizophrenia, they don't think their hallucinations are real, they know they are real. their illness affects their brains in such a way they are certain beyond all doubt their delusions are real. it's not an attitude or denial, it's a very real brain condition. with that understanding we are left with a series of questions. do these individuals have right to treatment, do they have a right to live as victims on the street or right to get better? do they have a right to be disabled, unemployed, or recovering and back to work?

i believe these individuals and their families have the right to heal and lead healthy lives. but they are sometimes blinded by a symptom of a neurological condition of the frontal lobe which renders the individual incapable of understanding they are ill. every single day, millions of families struggle to help a loved one with serious mental illness who won't seek treatment. many knew that aaron, james, jared, adam, and elliott rogers needed help. their families tried by the individual's illnesses caused them to believe nothing was wrong and fought guns that help. these families watched their brother, son, parents spiral downward in a system that by design only responds after crisis not before or during. the loved one is more likely to end up in prison or living on the streets where they suffer violence and victimization, or cycle in and out of the emergency room or commit suicide. in a "new york times" resent

article about reichers island prison, they say over an 11 month period last year, 129 inmates suffered injuries so serious doctors at the jail's clinics were unable to treat them. 70% -- 77% of those inmates had been previously diagnosed with mental illness. they now have as many people with mental illness as all 24 psych hospitals in the state combined and think make up nearly 40% of the population up from 20%. ill inmates with illnesses commit 2/3 of infractions in the jail, and they commit an overwhelming majority of assault on jail staff members. yet by law they cannot be medicated involuntarily at the jail and hospitals often refuse to accept them unless they harm themselves or others. is that humane? shouldn't we have acted before they committed a crime to compel them to get help? according to the article, correctional facilities now hold 95% of all institutionalized

people with mental illness. that is wrong. yet with all we know about mental illness and the streements to help those experiencing it, there are still organizations federally funded with taxpayer dollars that believe individuals who are too sick to seek treatment will be better off left alone than an inpatient or outpatient treatment. it is insensitive, it is callous, it is misguided, it is unethical, it is immoral, and congress should not stand by as these organizations continue their abusive malpractice against the mentally ill. the misguided ones are more comfortable allowing the mentally ill to live under bridges and behind dumb strs than getting the emergency help they need in a psychiatric hospital or outpatient clinic. because they cling to their fears as if the medal science and understanding of the brain has not advanced over the last 60 years. we would never denied treatment to a stroke victim or someone with alzheimer's disease because

they are not able to ask for care. yet in cases of serious brain disorders like schizophrenia, if prevents us from acting even though we must because the law says we can't. we must change those misguided and harmful laws. the system is the most difficult for those who have the greatest difficulty. i ask my colleagues do not turn a blind eye to those that need our help. the mentally ill can and will get better if congress takes the right action. tomorrow representative eddie bernice johnson and i will hold a briefing at 3:00 p.m. on the right of the seriously mentally ill gets treatment. i hope my colleagues will attend. and understand we had to take mental illness out of the shadows by passing the helping families and mental health crisis act, h.r. 3717. because where there is no help there is no hope. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, for five minutes. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand here today to honor the military service and the life of ted ruben, a korean war veteran, who is cause survivors, and prisoner of war survivor. mr. ruben received a congressional medal of honor in 2005, and he will be the guest honor of at a ceremony at the city of garden grove at the post office in orange county, california, on august 8, 2014. ted was born june 18, 1929, in hungary. he spent 14 months in a concentration camp in austria which was liberated by the united states army. inspired by the work of the united states army who saved him, he enlisted and became a

member of the u.s. army's eighth cavalry regiment, first cavalry division, and that occurred on february 13, 1950. he was soon deployed to korea. despite facing religious discrimination from his sergeant, who sent him on the most dangerous missions in the south korea's pewson perimeter and who withheld his commendation, he fought valiantly. he enabled the complete withdrawal of his commads by solely defending a hill under assault from the north korean troops. he inflicted a straggering number of casualties on the attacking force during his personal 24-hour battle, and helped capture several hundred north korean soldiers. during a massive nighttime assault, he man add .30 caliber machine gun and slowed the case of the enemy's advance. on a later assignment, corporate ruben was severely wounded and he was captured.

he disregarded his own personal safety and immediately began to try to sneak out of camp at night in search of food for his comrades. risking certain torture or death if he was caught, he provided food to the starving soldiers and he provided desperately needed medical care for the wounded of the prisoner of war camp. he used improvised medical techniques to save his fellow shoulders and provided critical moral support. his brave self-less efforts were directly attributed to saving the lives of as many as 40 of his fellow prisoners. corporal ruben's gallant actions in close contact with the enemy and unyielding courage and davery while a prisoner of war are the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the united states army. corporal ruben states, i always wanted to be a citizen of the united states, and when i became a citizen, it was one of the happiest days of my life.

i think about the united states and i'm a lucky person to live here. when i came to america, it was the first time i was free. it was one of the reasons i joined the u.s. army because i wanted to show my appreciation. it's the best country in the world and i am a part of it now. i do not have to worry about the gestapo knocking on my door tonight. i have shalom, or peace. people die for it. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for five minutes. mr. wolf: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to read the following piece that was posted on nbc news.com yesterday. the headline was, has last christian left iraqi city of mosul after 2000 years? here's how it began. a man was alone when four islamist militants carrying ak-47's arrived at his front door and ordered him to leave the city. the 70-year-old christian had

failed to comply with the decree issued by the islamic state of iraq and syria. his hometown of mosul had boasted a christian community for almost 2,000 years, then the al qaeda-inspired fighters, who overran the city last month, gave christians an ultimatum. they could stay, they could pay a tax, or they could convert to islam, or they could be killed. he was one of the few christians remaining beyond last saturday's noon deadline. he may have been the last to leave alive. a fighter said, i have orders to kill you. he said just hours after the sunni extremists tried to force their way into his home at 11:00 a.m. on monday. all the people in my neighborhood were muslim. they came to help me, he said. about 20 people at the door in front of my house. they tried to convince isis not to kill me. the rebels compared him, but threw him out of the city where he spent his entire life. they also took his iraqi i.d. card before informing him that

elderly women would be given -- mr. speaker, this is but one example of what is unfolding in iraq before our eyes. the end of christianity as we now know it is taking place in iraq. this is the fifth time i have come to the floor over the last week to try to raise awareness of what is happening. to talk about the genocide. it is genocide that is taking place. yes, genocide. the systematic extermination of people of faith by extremists seizing power in the region. churches and monasteries have been seized. many of them have been burned down. last week was wildly reported that isis had blown up the tomb of the prophet jonah. christians threatened with their lives if they do not leave the region as they leave a land they have lived in for over 2,000 years. with the exception of israel, ababa contains more references to the cities of ancient iraq

than any other contry. the patriarch abraham lived there. isaac's bride, rebecca, came from northwest iraq. jacob spent 20 years in iraq, and the 12 tribes of israel were born in northwest iraq. e events of the book ofester took -- of esther took place in iraq. the language of jesus, the pope bea at this tude -- his grace, beneficiary yop, general bishop of the coptic orthodox church have spoken out. archbishop of can't bury, leader of the world's 80 million anglicans, has spoken out. russell moore, a key leader in the baptist convention has spoken out. despite these christian leaders speaking out about the systematic extermination of christians in iraq, the silence in this town and washington is

deafening. does washington even care? where is the obama administration? the president has failed. where is the congress? the congress has failed. time is running out, the christians and other religious majorities in iraq are being targeted for extinction, they need our help. literally during our time we will see the end of christianity in the place it began. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. speaker. as many of my colleagues know, i spent 30 years in a courtroom, one half of those as a judge, including two years on the north carolina supreme court. i have taken particular interest in house resolution 676. i spent considerable time researching the standing of the house to initiate litigation

against a president or department heads or federal agencies to seek, quote, appropriate relief for failure to act in a matter consistent with the duties of the executive branch, end of quote. never before, mr. speaker, in the history of the congress has there been institutional litigation between two co-equal branches of government, never. there have been prior cases involving individual members of congress who have alleged their vote had been nullified by presidential action, but none of them succeeded. this bill will clearly authorize institutional litigation between the legislative and executive branches. unprecedented, mr. speaker. the republicans have chosen to proceed with a one-chamber resolution. the affordable care act, i remind you, was a two-chamber enactment. the house, as an institution, as a subset of the congress, cannot, mr. speaker, cannot by itself enforce a legislative

enactment. it must be bicameral. this misguided and politically motivated resolution will establish a precedent that is unknown in our jurisprudence. it is an abuse of power on the part of house republicans. if this bill passes and this republican-controlled house initiates a lawsuit without senate authorization, it will threaten the separation of powers principle and the checks and balances that we have long cherished in our country. i ask my colleagues, do you want the judiciary to become the arbiter of disputes between the congress and the president? do you really want to cede to the courts the authority to resolve disputes between the branches? if you set this precedent, then in the future the house or the senate acting alone could simply allege a constitutional violation against a president and get its day in court. well, what happens if a president is unhappy with the house or with the senate?

could she just allege a constitutional violation and have the courts settle the dispute? if this precedent is established, will the house be able to sue the senate or the senate to sue the house? where does this end? i call on my republican friends to talk to objective legal scholars and read the literature. protect the integrity of our federal system and reject this resolution. finally, i ask the proponents of this legislation to tell me two things. tell me what relief you are asking the court to impose. i suppose your answer would be, well, we want the court to tell president obama that he lacked authority to extend the employee mandate. -- employer mandate. why are you upset about that? i thought you didn't like the employer mandate. well, tell me how do you plan to pay for this frivolous litigation. the speaker of the house will have unbridled discretion to

pay legal costs and expert costs. i did not know that the house of representatives has the authority to pass a bill that will require unbudgeted spending that will add to the deficit that you constantly bemoan. how much will this litigation cost the taxpayers? mr. speaker, this is a very sad day in this house. i know what you're doing. the american people know what you're doing. you're using this legislation in your constant effort to discredit president obama and set the stage for despicable impeachment proceeding should you hold the majority in the house and gain the majority in the senate. shame on house republicans. shame on you for this type of politics. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for

five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week the house will be advancing solutions to some significant issues that are facing this nation. among those i rise today to discuss one of those, a piece of legislation set for consideration of the house, the endangered species, transparency and reasonableness act, a package that will improve the endangered species act. in 1973, the endangered species act was first enacted to protect and recover key domestic species that are under threat of extinction. although the e.s.a. was written with the best of intentions, areas of the law hinder rather than enhance our ability to effectively manage ecosystems and conserve species as initially intended. today the law is failing, failing to achieve its primary

purpose of species recovery and has only a 2% recovery rate. in april the house natural resources committee advanced this package of bills through committee with the support of both sides of the aisle. as a member of the house endangered species act working group, which developed the findings and recommendations for these proposals, i encouraged my colleagues to support these reforms that promote greater transparency and accountability under the endangered species act. while ensuring the ecological and economic needs of our local communities are being met. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, six years ago president obama and a democratic congress took office. when they took office in january of 2009, the economy was in free fall.

we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. losing 800,000 jobs a month. but the congress went to work under the guidance of president obama, we passed the american recovery act. we saved the american automobile industry and within 14 months we were gaining 250,000 jobs a month. we turned around over 800 -- over a million jobs a months, from losing 800,000 to gaining 250,000 in 14 months. but the president knew that wasn't sufficient to continue the progress. he proposed the american jobs act. and he proposed a major investment in american infrastructure, but the newly elected republican congress, the obstructionist republican congress stopped the american jobs act, wouldn't pass the infrastructure bill, stopped every job initiative the president and democrats proposed and we have had a slow recovery from that recession. we're gaining about 200,000, month. jobs a

it is below the productive capacity, below what it should be because every proposal from the president has been stopped by the republican congress which didn't have time for it. but they had time for other things. we had plenty of time to take 50 votes on repealing the affordable care act at a cost of the taxpayers of about $79 million to repeat that vote 50 times. we had time for the republicans to shut down the government. that cost the economy about $24 billion. we had time when the administration knew that the defense of marriage act could not be defended in court, the house of representatives wasted $3.5 million trying to defend he indefensible in court and we had no extension of unemployment insurance, no pay equity for women because it cost too much money. but this house has passed $850

billion in unpaid-for tax loopholes for large corporations. unpaid for. now they want to waste more money. the speaker wants to waste more money on a meritless lawsuit against the president for not taking care that the law be faithfully executed. what did he do? in implementing the affordable care act, which the republicans have tried to repeal 50 times, he postponed implementation of one provision by a year. a provision the republicans opposed. so they now want to waste money to go into court and sue the president to say he had no power to postpone this for a year even though no one opposed president bush when he postponed for a year a provision of the medicare drug act when he was president. but it is well within the discretion of president in implementing a law to postpone parts of it in order to get it done right. that has been very clear.

it becomes another question. let's assume the republicans went into court and overturned the standing question that mr. butterfield talked about, which they will not, what's the remedy they seek? by the time it got to court that provision will have been implemented. so the republicans want to waste $5 million or $6 million of taxpayers money to go into court and say, judge, order the president to implement what has already been implemented. totally ridiculous. so what have we got? we got a congress with no highway bill, no minimum wage bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay equity for women bill, no action on campaign finance reform, no action to reduce the burdens on student loans, no action to make sure that women continue to have access to contraceptive services despite the supreme court's hobby lobby decisions, no actions on all the emergencies that face the american people but we're going to waste money on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere but simply will serve the

single function of diverting attention from all the real problems the house republicans want to continue to ignore. na is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money. more wasted money for political purposes for shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and service of waldwick new jersey police officer christopher goodell. officer goodell was killed in the line of duty when a truck hit his police cruiser. he was just 32 years old. although officer goodell's life was tragically cut short, he lived a life of purpose serving both his community and his

country as well. officer goodell was raised up in waldwick, graduated from high school in 2000. shortly after september 11, he enlisted in the u.s. marines. he served in the military for five years, even including a tour of duty over in iraq. then after his military service, officer goodell returned back, back to his , new wn of waldwick jersey and took a special interest, if you will, in discouraging teens from drinking and driving. he spoke about the dangers of drunk driving back at the waldwick high school and ran an annual d.w.i. prevention course and was on june 11 of this year that officer goodell was recognized in the state by the state chapters of mothers against drunk driving. doing this for all of his good service.

thinking about it, officer goodell truly had a bright future ahead of him. just last month he had proposed to his girlfriend, and they had plans to get married in 2016. but now he's survived by his fiancee, a loving family and an endless number of friends. officer goodell was truly a hometown hero. he lived a life of purpose, and he died serving and protecting the community where he grew up. so i come here today and i ask my colleagues here in the house of representatives to join me today in paying tribute to officer goodell and we recognize, as we do this, that words alone may be a little comfort to the family and the friends of christopher goodell. it is my hope that they may find some solace, knowing that our thoughts and our prayers will be with them.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. today i'd like to continue the journey through the vastness of the 23rd district of texas and pass through a texas town with infamy. reputation for coutulla, everybody get their guns ready, that's what they would say which was established in 1881. in spite of its infamous start, they are common to early texas towns and became an early indicator of the social change that was to come to america. taking on issues such as civil rights and women's education. life in catula inspired a very young teacher, a man by the

name of lyndon b. johnson who went on to serve as our country's 36th president, inspired him to lead the fight for change. president johnson taught mexican americans in the segregated public schools. early on he understood how education could pull a family, generations out of poverty and push them into the middle class. l.b.j., after his experience in catoula, once said this nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any american. . education is the key to open success found an early ally. the town itself is founded by a young entrepreneur bay the jame of know self kotula who was a polish immigrant and vet rant of union army. he was willing to take a risk of establishing a town after learning that the international

great northern rail road intended to expand. this willingness to risk is still what makes our country great today. the town grew from an early farming and ranching community into an energy boom town in the 1950's. and that still continues today as eagle forge shale continues to drive the local economy in south texas. today is in the past the folks cotuila. e tulia -- oday many of the descendents still live in the town. the town has seen tremendous change since its founding and infamous early reputation. in truth, we find a small reflection of america in cotuila. a willingness to overcome adversity, take risks, and find

success, and achieve. perhaps most importantly its history also points out that the fabric of american society doesn't always match our founding values. but in cotuila it set in place a desire to change that. i invite anyone who is visiting in south texas to stop by cotuila, to learn its history, and enjoy its hospitality. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from temperaturetown, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of the bill i introduced to prevent the expansion of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program that was unlawfully created by executive memo on august 15 of 2012. h.r. 5160 is the house companion to legislation introduced by

senator ted cruz of texas, and would freeze the dacca by defunding it. using otes amnesty, by prosecutorial discretion to allow illegal immigrant children and those who came here illegally as children a deportation deferral to remain in the country for up to two years. the deferral period is subject to renewal. dacca also permits illegal aliens to obtain work authorization despite the fact this they are not, are not in the country legally. this takes jobs away from hardworking american taxpayers and hurts our economy. according to i.c.e., remittances from el salvador, guatemala and honduras are estimated to cost the u.s. taxpayer, $10 billion a year. last month d.h.s. secretary johnson announced that dacca would be extended and that those who have been protected from deportation would have a chance

to renew their application. democrats say that docka is irrelevant because -- dacca is irrelevant because it only applies to illegal immigrants who have been here since 2007, but, let me tell you when dacca reform does matter. first, the administration will expand dacca. president obama has instructed d.h.s. secretary johnson and attorney general holder to come up with the list of executive actions to address immigration reform dacca is going to be on that list. second, dacca has given central american children false hope that they will be able to obtain amnesty as those before them have done. dacca began in 2012 and the numbers tell the story. in fiscal year 2013 there was a 305% increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children that came to the u.s. that figure is expected to

fiscal by 1,381% in year 2014. yes, you heard me right. 305% in 2013. 1,381% in 2014. those numbers are evidence of the correlation between dacca and the influx of unaccompanied alien children coming to the u.s. just recently, i learned that the administration secretly had placed 760 unaccompanied alien children into tennessee. this was done despite their assurances that i had received from the administration that alien children were not in tennessee. indeed, the administration appears extremely organized and eager when it comes to resettling the illegal immigrants in the country. wish they were as eager and organized about addressing the concerns of our veterans. some who have died while on the

v.a. waiting list. sadly, the president and the democrats have moved from the party of yes, we can. to the party of, because we can. dacca provides yet another example of how the president is using executive action to circumvent congress. who if it continues on the path we won't need legislators or the courts, the president will make the law, interpret the law, and then if he chooses, enforce the law. the obama doctrine of lawlessness is cracking the foundation of our democracy. it is shredding the constitution. and consolidating power within the executive branch. mr. speaker, i ask, if the president has the power to tell illegal immigrants that they can stay in the country, does he have the power to tell legal citizens to leave the country? if the president can delay part of a law, does he have the power to delay the entire law?

where does his authority begin and end? the president's immigration policies are causing every town to be a border town, every state to be a border state. and not only is it turning america into a country without borders, it is turning it into a country without laws. mr. speaker, president obama's inability to secure the southern border is also placing america's national security in a pre-9/11 posture. the department of homeland curity estimates that 90,166 unaccompanied children will arrive in the u.s. in 2014. if 90,000 unaccompanied children can sneak into our country, how difficult will it be for a terrorist cell to infiltrate america and plan an attack?

we need to be concerned about securing our borders. we must secure our border. we must end the cruelty of providing children with false hope. and we must stop the lawlessness of this president. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this morning to talk about the issue of impeachment. and in connection with that topic, i would use as my text the song some of us may remember by janet jackson, "what have you done for me lately." that's what we should ask the house republicans. what have you done for me lately? well, i'll tell you what congress has been doing. congress has been wasting your me and your tax dollars at a

time when congress should be working on the issues that matter most to the pockets and pocketbooks of america's instead, we have been, we have been spending the last three weeks wasting taxpayer time and money. during that three-week period, ladies and gentlemen, over $800 illion in tax cuts have been awarded to the rich people of this country. and guess what? the republicans have once again violated their own rule and failed to find an offset in the budget to pay for this gift to the wealthy. ladies and gentlemen, this means that republicans have just added

, just like that, almost $1 trillion, another $1 trillion to the nation's debt. wham have you done for me lately? this session of congress, the is 113th, which threatens to go -- the 113th, which threatens to go down in history as the least productive congress in the history of this great nation, this congress has produced a government shutdown which cost the american people 24 billion plus dollars. and we've spent in this house of representatives it $79 million plus shuffling papers and voting 50 times to repeal the affordable care act.

and how much is it going to cost the american taxpayers when the republicans embark upon this effort to impeach president obama? how much will it cost? well, they won't let you know that. i'll tell you, shutting down the government and repealing . amacare did not work so we just wasted money. we came up, the republicans came up empty handed. so what are they doing now? in fact, working people should ask their representatives during this upcoming five-week august recess which we have worked so hard to earn, you should ask your representative, what have you done for me lately?

congress has spent the last three weeks preparing to impeach president obama t you see, over the past three weeks the republicans in the house have been talking up and taking legislative action at the same time mounting a fox tv and hate radio p.r. campaign in support of their effort to file a lawsuit against the president of the united states. is this lawsuit simply an attempt to mollify and pacify those republicans who have turned up the volume on the drumbeat towards impeachment? or more cynically, is this lawsuit a precursor to the filing of articles of impeachment so that they can remove this twice elected president from office prior to

the end of his term? either way it does not look good for america if in november voters put republicans in control of both houses of the congress. just like the government shutdown, cooler heads will not prevail. ted cruz and the other tea party republicans who were so willing to drive america off the fiscal cliff will not hesitate to do what has never been done throughout the course of our history, and that is to pull off a coup. so the lawsuit against prom should be looked upon as -- president obama should be looked upon as being synonymous with impeachment. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: request permission to address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. duncan: mr. speaker,

president obama told the "san francisco chronicle" editorial board in 2008 that under his environmental policies, quote, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, unquote. to be even more specific, he said, quote, if somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. it's just it will bankrupt them. under my plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. unquote. now listen to this story from "the washington post" just last week. pueblo, colorado, sharon garcia is stumbling around her dining room in the dark trying to find post-it notes as she has for years, she wants to fix the notes marked with dollar signs to light switches throughout her house. the message to her five children. lights are expensive. why do you need to turn the lights off, she asked her son? because otherwise there's no money, he answers. and when there's no money, she asks? you can't see feed us or take

us-n where, he says. bingo go again. it's not just the light switches. ever since her power was shut ff in 2010, garcia has adopted depression-era obsessiveness. she doesn't use the often in the summer because it heats up the house. and she uses only one small air conditioner, even the aquir yum goes dark when someone is not in the room. yet no matter how much she rations and cuts, garcia cannot keep ahead of the fast rise in rates in pueblo where the residential rate per kilowatt hour has risen 26% since 2010, and on a per household basis is among the highest in the state. i'm still quoting from the post. her frugality is the direct result of coal-fired power plants shut down. but in pueblo it happened in a way that has left poor consumers gasping for relief. to a wealthy community, skyrocketing electricity rates

might not have much of an effect. when you have a decent-paying job, what's a few more dollars a month on your utility bill? pueblo is not that kind of place where the poverty rate of 18.1%, incomes far below the state average and 1/3 of the population on some sort of public assistance, those few dollars can make a big difference here, unquote. now i realize that almost all environmental radicals come from wealthy or very upper income families. perhaps they just do not realize how harmful all these environmental rules and regulations and red tape are to poor and lower income people. as charles lane, "the washington post" columnist said climate change, quote, is a reach man's issue. perhaps it doesn't matter to wealthy environmentalists that all this environmental overkill has sent millions of good jobs to other countries over the last 40 or 50 years. now we've ended up with the best educated waiters and

waitresses in the world as millions of college graduates are very -- or very intelligent nongraduates are working jobs below their education or below their level of skills, talents or abilities. perhaps it doesn't matter to rich or upper income environmentalists if utility bills or prices for everything go way up but it matters to millions of people like sharon garcia. perhaps it doesn't matter to wealthy environmentalists that their policies over the years have driven very small or medium-sized companies out of business. perhaps they're pleased that it help give jobs to bureaucrats and have helped extremely big businesses and foreign energy producers. this administration even had a secretary of energy until a few months ago who said we need to be paying the same price for gas as they do in europe. $8 or $9 a gallon. then, of course, all the wealthy environmentalists would have to fight a whole lot less traffic because they would be about the only ones who could afford to drive.

we have made tremendous progress over the past many years in cleaning our air and water. i have voted for many of these laws and voted many years ago for the toughest clean air law in the world. but as charles craft hiemer said, if we shut our whole country down it doesn't matter on carbon emissions because china and india are opening coal-fired plants at a rate of almost one per week. some environmental groups hate to admit how much progress we've made, how much cleaner our air and water are because it will reduce their contributions. they have to keep telling people how bad everything is so their contributors will keep sending them money. especially money and contributions from foreign energy producers. but we need to make people realize that only a prosperous country that allows free enterprise can generate the excess funds to do good things for the environment that everybody wants done. communists and socialist

countries have been some of the biggest polluters in the world because their economies have been barely able to feed, clothe and house their people and certainly they have been unable to spend the kinds of money that it costs to help the environment. we must not allow big government environmental regulators at both the federal and state levels to cause our country to move so far to the left that it destroys our economy. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. for five minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise this morning to denounce the unprecedented political attack house republicans are bringing to the floor of this house. this week this body will consider a measure to bring a lawsuit against the president of the united states for doing the job that the people of this country elected him to do. this highly partisan lawsuit is

a subterfuge. it's a subterfuge by house republicans aimed at achieving their political goals that they were not able to achieve at the ballot box. make no mistake about it. this is not a frivolous matter. nothing could be more serious than house republicans attempting to get the taxpayers of this country to finance their misuse and abuse of the legal system. the ultimate goal of this exercise is to try to discover some peg upon which they can hang an impeachment resolution. this is very simple. republicans could not defeat this president in back-to-back elections, and now they are looking for other means to their ends. this wasteful republican

awsuit is their prelude to impeachment. it's a vendetta. a direct attack on the heart of our democratic form of self-government launched by house republicans who got over a million less votes from the american people in the last national election than their democratic counterparts. nothing to be more serious. this lawsuit is a measure by house republicans to use taxpayer money to further their artisan attempts to besmerch and destroy a president they couldn't beat in the elections. it is unfair to the american people. it's undemocratic. it is un-american. mr. speaker, the american people need to know what is

going on here. rather than focusing on creating jobs, fixing our broken immigration system, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and other sensible measures that can help hardworking families struggling to make ends meet, house republicans are obsessed with political gamesmanship on a historic scale. nothing to be more serious. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, for five minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, with three legislative days left before congress leaves for a five-week vacation, democrats are working to advance the priorities of the american people, creating jobs, jump-starting the middle class and working to reform our

broken immigration system. the majority, however, seems only interested in advancing a lawsuit against the president of the united states. mr. speaker, this is wrong. very wrong. suing the president, for what, for doing his job? this is the first time in the history of our nation that one branch of government brings a lawsuit against another branch of government. what an incredible way to uphold the separation of power. and branches of government. mr. speaker, the american people sent us here to tackle big problems and do real work on their behalf. this lawsuit is only further proof that house republicans have lost touch with the american people. not only is this lawsuit a

waste of time, but it is a serious waste of taxpayers' money. just as house republicans spent 2.3 million defending this during the doma case and the $3 million they're spending on the select committee on benghazi, they are now poised to waste yet more money on a political stunt that is deeply unpopular with the american people. mr. speaker, we have critical work to do. i strongly urge my colleagues to do what is right. we should stay here in washington to deal with issues like immigration reform, veterans' health care and the economy. let's not waste precious time and money on political stunts

like suing the president. we owe it to the american people. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon

have they had full access and have they been denied access to any facilities? they just issued a report recently which they said that iran had complied with all of their obligations.

they had all of the access it had asked for under the jp away and could verify that the applications -- obligations have been met. when the jp away was being finalized, we were not i'm sure they will need additional resources and i would expect international community to come forward. quite frankly, any additional potatois a small impaired to the cost of iran having a nuclear weapon. >> speaking for myself, you could sign me up as an

enthusiastic funder of the most aggressive search. the distrust given iran pass 's past, supporting the worst sorts of regimes and cheating on the nuclear commitments of the past, i think we should be investing heavily in a proactive inspection regime. subject from to a when you testified before the financial services appropriations subcommittee in april. i asked you about the burdens facing your group. you have had a number of programs expanding from 17-40 today. there have been recent developments in terms of the and complexity of sanctions we are taking against russia. the largest and most complex of

these against iran. i want to commend you again, though work -- the work that you and your folks have done have made this possible. needed anyyou more resources and you said the president ajit was sufficient. -- president's budget was sufficient. the house added even more beyond that. do you currently really have the resources and staff you need? i am gravely concerned that we will have great difficulty keeping together the sanctions regime over the long haul, particularly if there is some temporary relief that after an agreement expands -- you've done a great job so far of keeping a group of unlikely allies at the table and enforcing these sanctions. don't you need more resources to do this? >> first, let me again express

my appreciation of folks back at treasury. outside of this hearing room, it is noted how much you appreciate and support our work. to convey that. in terms of the resources, we do have sufficient resources. because wepart are not in this alone. we work with the state department and elements of the intelligence community. the effort with respect to iran and russia, the sanctions is anm at large interagency effort. we have the lead in the design and of mentation and enforcement of these programs. we draw on the resources of many others around the administration to do this. we are stretched. ,ast time we spoke about this weak knowledge that people are

working flat out and they are. that is true i treasuries and elsewhere. we do things we have the resources we need to ensure that our sanctions programs are effectively implement it and will continue to do that. implemented and we will continue to that. that somehow the inspections failed to catch cheating by iran because we did not invest enough in it. i think there is a real chance that we will be reimposing tougher sanctions on iran and i want to make sure that we have the ability come skills and resources to do it. thank you for your testimony today. thank you for holding this hearing. i know you have difficult work to do. this entire thing is a disaster. it's not just an embarrassing

the nomadic failure. it's a dangerous national security failure. going into this negotiation, what the goals were. we wanted to prevent a nuclear armed iran. that was our hope. that's why we went into this. hopes that they would prove to the world that they have changed their behavior. that was our goal. their goal was different. i have said this in the past. i believe and you believe that they went into this goal with -- went into this negotiation with a simple goal. they wanted to achieve maximum amount of sanctions relief they could get without having to agree to any a reversal concessions. just to get a joint man of implicitlyhave agreed that they have a right to enrich at any level.

we will argue that we can always pull that back. we have walk away from multiple united nations security agreed that iran has a right to it rich. enrich and reprocess. plan of action come iran has enjoyed real relief here. indirect relief they have gotten. the increases in consumer confidence and the confidence of businesses and their economy. it stopped the momentum. there was real international momentum on sanctions. that momentum has now been stopped in its tracks. it's worse than that. it is now more difficult to reimpose sanctions in the future. to try to go back and say you have violated this and we will reimpose sanctions. doing that has become more difficult. we have left the missiles program untouched.

them explain what that missile program is about. they're developing a long-range rocket that will be able to reach the united states and other places in europe. that is what they're developing and that's what they're headed towards. there is no nation on earth that uses terrorism more than they do as an element of statecraft. let's back up and look at iran's point of view. they now have achieved and the knowledge -- and acknowledged right to enrich. they have made future sanctions even harder. they're not concerned about united states carrying out any military action against them. they view it as an responsibility at this stage. i know we will hear this talk beingthis whole thing contingent upon other things and bragging about the things that

can be in the future deal. it nuclear weapons program has recruited cold components. --richmond, weaponization --ichment, weaponization that has been outsourced which has already said they've already had difficulty getting in. let's say you do reach a deal with them. it will all be based on our ability to do two thanks. find the violation and punish the violation. the finding of that violation, we are dealing with a government that has consistently had ace= secret program. havehink you will inspectors all over the place and they can rope you for some time. isefully the world distracted by some other crisis somewhere else on the planet and they rope a dope is on the inspection element.

reimposing international sanctions -- let me tell you how hard it will be. the russians just shot down a commercial airplane. they just killed almost 300 innocent civilians and we have had to drag our allies and others keep in screaming -- kicking and screaming to increase sanctions just a little more. how hard you think it will be to impose engines on this thing if it falls apart? we will wake up one day after this administration is long gone and realize they have had a secret weaponization program all along. all they have to do is flip the switch now on the enrichment capability. if they can arm. -- what will we have? theirtry that has spread influence of terrorism so they can asymmetrically attack those. a sanctions regime that fell apart years ago and is almost

impossible to put back together with europeans and other countries now heavily invested in their economy. a country that will have a nuclear weapon. think of north korea but motivated by radical islamic beliefs with the capability to hit major u.s. cities. all of these rockets that are landing in israel from gaza, guess where they came from. iran. that's what these people do. we all wish this thing would work out. i think there are very few among us that think that it will. i'm sad that we will be wrong about it. i'm also said that anybody is categorizeda as a warmonger. war is the only option because war is a terrible thing. it's a horrible thing. the only thing worse than war is crazy people with a nuclear weapon they can reach the united states of america on a rocket.

that is the only thing worse than war. i hope i'm wrong. i don't believe i am. i hear mr. chairman that someday wake up and realize they have done a north korea on us. -- i fear, mr. chairman. would my dear friend from california allow me 30 seconds to make a statement? i have to go. >> absolutely. >> it's become obvious to me treatyis is really a that is being considered with iran. i believe it requires the advice and consent of the united states senate. i hope we can move forward with legislation that would require that. thank you for holding this

hearing. i don't have questions for the panel because my staff has told me that my questions were responded to. some of the language i just heard from senator rubio brings back the rhetoric of days past. we don't want the smoking gun to be a nuclear cloud. i think the whole issue that we face is so complicated. we have to strongly support these diplomatic efforts so that none of that does come true. the whole world is watching. tos is an opportunity prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. i have said many times that we have an obligation. our generation -- we are here now. to test this window of

opportunity. it the administration has been really honest about it. the president himself said a 50-50 chance. it may not work out. all the hyper rhetoric may be something we turn to and more. right now, we have an obligation to test this window. i think it's in our national interest t and in the interest of our allies in the region like israel. i think our language should reflect that although we are very skeptical, we are very supportive of this opportunity. israel plus security is threatened on some new friends -- israel's security is threatened on so many fronts. we know the rise of isis in syria is a horrible threat.

as the worldty moves in a bad direction to focus our attention on something good, i don't get should be lost. -- i don't think it should be we are working tirelessly on the competence of agreement. i know it's tough. it's incredibly difficult and complex, which is why we have another extension. record, ine on the the midst of these negotiation's, i'm not going to force the administration into a corner by dictating a predetermined outcome. we have lots of time to do that. i think trying to attach -- that ought to be a clean bill. thise burdened by

incredibly sensitive,, campbell matter.plicated i have said any final agreement must be airtight. it must be verifiable. cannot accept anything less because we can't trust iran. if iran walks away from negotiating, it would be a sad day for them, too. we will all come together and support a robust u.s. and international response that includes the immediate restoration of any suspended bitingns and additional sanctions on iran. i would go further to make it clear to let everyone hear my voice that all options have to be on the table should iran extend -- intends to continue with illicit nuclear programs. the next four months are critical.

i hope and pray that they will result in a comprehensive final agreement that is acceptable to the united states and our allies. and that brings a peaceful end to this nuclear program. this is a historic chance. we could let it pass us by or we could all work together, being very clear that it's worth a chance. see how easy it is to go to war. heard in at least 6-10 cases they say, "go to war, america." we need to resolve these issues. war is a last resort, not a t.rst resort th i do not want to gloss over how hard it is. view on the50-50

thing. could go one way or the other. if we could have it: the right -- if we could have it go in the right way, i think it's very important to keep ss informed. some of the complaints we hear are legitimate. we know it's hard. know you are working 24/7. in the kind of government we have, we are all in this together. it used to be foreign policy it isn't that way. that means it's even more important that you let us know every twist and turn. at the end of the day, i don't think there is any of us that would turn away from a solid, verifiable agreement. at the end of the day, there are

many of us that would walk and use all the tools at our disposal if there is no agreement. how important it is for you to keep us informed. that is my statement and i thank you. >> i appreciate this hearing. appreciate the testimony. i'm among those who believed that we ought to test every opportunity. this is an opportunity. it's incumbent on us to test it and i applaud the administration for doing so. i just want to clarify a couple of numbers that came out. you mentioned the amount of sanctions relief that they have taken advantage of. i have a $3 billion figure. is that what is expected? or what they have realized so far? i know the initial estimates billion.t $8

can you tell us how much they have taken advantage of and how much will be taken advantage of over the next couple of months? it's our top end estimate of what iran may enjoy in terms of sanctions relief in the next four months. it's comprised of the $2.8 billion in its unrestricted assets that they will be getting access to. and then some figures for extra petrochemical sales and auto exports. which we estimate will be worth about $500 million altogether. of low end of that estimate $3.3 billion -- how they are able to take advantage of this

is an estimate. we will see how it turns out. oa, our original estimate was that iran would --oy 6-7,000,000,000 dollars $6 billion-7 million. they enjoy a little over $5 billion worth of relief. relief on the petrochemical suspension. very little in terms of the autos. to takeficult for them advantage of it because of the interlocking nature of the sanctions that are out there. >> that's right. the one key fact is that iran remains cut off from the international financial system. even though it is now not sanctionable to engage in auto sales, it's difficult to find financial institutions to do that work.

submit it is largely because it's iran versus the west instead of iran versus just the u.s.. important to keep our allies on board here. you have a concern -- do you have a concern that if we were not extend and not continue with these negotiations that our allies may cut their own deal or move on without it? >> listening to some of your colleagues, i wrote down, "without diplomacy, we won't be able to keep the sanctions together. oh which is exactly your point. we should not have proceeded with an exemption if we did not think there was some significant progress in the possibility of a conference of agreement. we should've called it a day. having seen some progress and

heading in the right direction and sing the possibility that we might get to it conference of get to a -- might conference of agreement, without it was critical to take diplomacy to the very last that we mightse get a conference of agreement because that does keep the international community united in the enforcement of sanctions. if our partners -- even those who are not so much our partners -- saw that we were going to cut diplomacy short, those sanctions enforcement would have phrased much more quickly. we don't have any guarantees here. i don't know that we will get to agreement at the end of these four months. i do agree with your point that without going the extra mile, given that there was a significant progress in talks, we would have had a much harder time getting the sanctions together. concerned when these

sanctions fray, if they pray, it won't be as effective. unilateral sanctions very rarely work. he have to have the community together. that's what's important to explore the diplomacy avenue as much as we can. is there a concern among the iranians that we get to the end of this and the ability of the u.s. to deliver on sanctions relief is in question given what members of congress have said and will the administration come back to congress for statutory relief of the sanctions? what will be the mechanism in your pew at that point if an agreement -- in your view at that point if an agreement is reached? >> i can assure every member of the united states senate and of

the house of representatives that congress is a constant topic of conversation by the iranians. they are well aware of onlyess's authorities, not terms of oversight, but in terms of legislation. we have been very clear that come initially, there will only be suspension of our sanctions regime. sanctions for which we must return to congress for statutory relief will only certain benchmarks verified by the iaea are reached . durable to be a agreement. >> i hope the iranians to understand that if an agreement is reached that is verifiable

that we will follow through with sanctions relief. i hope they also understand that if we don't reach an agreement, the existing sanctions will be enforced and additional sanctions will be added. i think both sides of that equation need to be understood. in the course of this joint plan of action, we have committed to certain suspensions to sanctions. one of the things we have done andeinforce the point fulfill our commitments on the relief site is to take very seriously what we have committed to so the iranians andg to these negotiations understand there is potential light at the end of this tunnel. we have been working very hard on both sides of the coin. >> thank you. and master sherman, there has

been a lot of discussion among experts about the potential for a proliferation cascade in the middle east. if iran were to obtaining nuclear weapons. ins critical that we succeed preventing iran from developing a nuclear weapon. even if iran retains a domestic uranium enrichment capability, i'm concerned this could raise fears in the region and prompt other states to reconsider their contingency plans in nuclear posture. it has been reported that saudi arabia and jordan are interested in pursuing nuclear cooperation with the net stays. how will we be able to convince these partners to not enrich uranium since we just concluded a nuclear cooperation ?greement with vietnam

that ouris no question consultation with partners and allies in the region is quite critical to ensure that we do not have a proliferation cascade in any way, shape or form. part of that will be if indeed there is a conference of agreement with iran. they do have a very small, limited domestic program. that it be very small and limited and be subject to intrusive monitoring mechanisms not incentivesre for other countries to want to proceed down that road. the united states does not recognize that any country has a right to enrichment third we don't believe that it's a right and we will continue to vigorously enforce that perspective. iranwant to comment on the government leadership claims

that the country will need an industrial scale and rich and capability to generate nuclear power. the interim deal stated that in a final agreement, iran's enrichment program would be consistent with practical needs. this is a country with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. iran flares off waste as the equivalent of 13 nuclear reactors worth of natural gas each year, which they could use to produce electricity. in mind, aso keep we negotiate what iran's practical needs for nuclear power are. it's a duplicitous game they are playing. we should just be deeply skeptical that there is any legitimate civilian purpose in this enrichment program.

i want to continue to make that point. the nuclear cooperation agreement we have with united arab emirates includes a commitment by the net united arab emirates to not enrich uranium. it allows for the agreement to renegotiated. if jordan or saudi arabia demand the right to enrich and response to iran, they can make the demand as well. possible that a final agreement with iran that allows --ichmond to continue enrichment to continue will cause a proliferation cascade in the region? >> we are very well aware of the potential risks of any agreement that allows any country to enrich because we don't believe that any country has a right.

that fuel is available on the open market for power generation. if we reach a conference of agreement and there is and her trip program -- an enrichment program in iran, and must be very small and attached to a practical need. not the industrial sized capacity. -- weas talked about sia should continue that agreement. we agree with your concern. we believe this should be a very limited, small, touched a practical need under intrusive monitoring that would be a disincentive for any country to want a similar program. >> this vietnam agreement does allow vietnam to enrich. it does create a precedent that -- that is a small step

from something profound. are you concerned that turkey or egypt would pursue their own enrichment capabilities? >> we certainly hope that nobody goes down this road. we are trying to create incentives to do otherwise and dense incentives -- disincentives to proceed in this manner. there are more economical ways to get fuel for power generation. we want to make sure that we have in place tremendous iran.ance for the enrichment program in iran is a transfer of material into other countries that could

be used against american interests. we are very close now to reaching that cascading point. we have held off for decades, since president kennedy warned us. the one panelrt, of experts that monitors iran sanctions reminds us that right iran maintains networks and uses front companies to obtain materials on the global market for its nuclear and missile programs under the guise of legitimate commerce. are complex operations. they violate un security council resolution 1737 passed in 2006 which bans the provision of items to iran that could be used in its nuclear and missile programs.

further sanctions relief and expands international trade as part of a nuclear deal, what challenges with that post to our efforts to disrupt this facilitation and procurement network? that u.n. report is exactly right. iran does continue to try to illicitly acquire material through these procurement networks. identify ando disrupt those networks where we find them and have taken action in the last several months to disrupt several of these networks. going forward, if there is an agreement, one of the issues we will confront and that we are focused on is how to ensure that during the course of this long-term agreement if there is one to be had that we are able to continue to ensure that the security council resolutions and

our own sanctions on proliferation activity are respected as the agreement rolls out. >> if the parch in military base -- you agree that gaining access to this facility is an increasingly urgent priority? we are concerned about all the things iran does to avoid their obligations under the npt. ieaea is a critical element of that. >> will a final agreement can make surewe there is no other clandestine activity? >> the final agreement will -- iaea be iea

satisfied. that is where they are today. you for having this hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. one of the natural questions one would ask is what are the gaps between where we are and where we want to close? come in an open setting, that's not a good thing to have. i know senator flake mentioned he believes this is a historic opportunity. i do, too. everyone up here really does want to see a diplomatic solution. everyone appreciates the work that all of you are doing. -- jphe jp away came out

jpoa came out, you saw strong responses from all those involved. we went through agreements with other countries and here we are pushing our friends to not enrich. yet, we open these negotiations, acknowledging enrichment. there are a lot of concerns. i do want to close by saying this. in spite of the fact that we want you to be successful, you said there is no deadline. i know you have to fudge a little bit because you don't know what's going to happen. in essence, it was said that there is not a deadline. this thetent is to end

24th of november. >> i know you talked about double-digit minimum length gra. unless it's really long, we've done nothing. the goal posts are moving a little bit. even relative to what you guys are saying you will do in congress. -- theouncement acknowledgment -- we had a conversation about the violations with the imf treaty that we've known about for some -- i read about it last night in the new york times. -- its not exactly the coincides to win the jpoa discussions began. they end on november 24 which is likely beyond the ending of any

session that may occur after the election. would just say that it appears to me that what you are saying is that you are going to do whatever you wish to do. you are not going to consult congress. you don't believe that is your responsibility. you will have a conversation with us, but we won't have the ability, even though we put -- whatnctions in place you have said today is that congress is relative relevant to raising concerns, not relevant to whether this is going to be approved by congress or have sanctions waived. that is something that all of us -- serve in this body

congress is playing no role other than raising questions. way that we is some will figure out to deal with that. it's a major lapse in our responsibilities. i thank you for your continued concern. the goalposts are moving. i take the prerogative of the united states congress and incredibly seriously, as does president obama and secretary kerry. merely a believe it is conversation. we believe it is a consultation. we believe you have oversight authorities and legislative authorities. we have worked very closely to provide you with real-time information, often in classified sessions. we will continue to do so. that in our interest congress knows what we're doing

every step of this negotiation and it's very critical that the united states of america be one. to achieve a conference of agreement and carry out that conference of agreement durably over sustained the that gives us all of assurance that every pathway to any clear weapon is closed off and that their program is entirely peaceful. i quite agree with your opening statement that we all share the same goal. >> senator paul has returned and i want to accommodate them. it thatignificant is the iranians have now converted their 20% stockpile to 5%? >> what they have done is taken there up to 20% and either diluted it were oxidized it. ofy will take 25 kilograms what they have of the oxidized

and turn it into metal plates. the likelihood of it being reconverted back to enriched uranium is extremely low. all of that is very important. will oxidizethey all of their up to 2% stockpile which is over three metric tons. although it does not have significant separate work units come in a breakout scenario, it would be significant. we are glad those things are being done. we are of course concerned about their up to 5% stockpile. jpoa.s capped under the we will want to deal with that stockpile and every other kind of stockpile they have as part of any conference of agreement. >> you call it a significant

evidence of compliance. and they have oxidized or diluted their entire up to 20% stockpile. what is the administration's position on instituting more sanctions? part of the bill is that there would be no right of any enrichment. whether or not this would be .ersuasive believe it would push them away from negotiating. push our p5bably post 1 colleagues way from the negotiating table. have great respect for the chairman and senator

and the intentions are all absolutely right on, to keep the pressure on iran and cut off all the pathways to nuclear weapons, the administration believes quite strongly that this moment in negotiation, additional legislative action would intentionally do you real the negotiation. clear thatte congress will pass legislation at any moment that it is deemed necessary to do so. >> can you quantify how much to 5 -- doesom 20 it add five months? is it quantifiable? >> in terms of specific breakout times, that would be briefed in

a classified setting. >> and has to be -- >> every element we can deal with helps on breakout. until we get a conference of agreement, we will not have a durable agreement that will give us the kind of assurance we are looking for. >> it's another significant step. >> it is because the ability to turn it back into enrichment material is that much more difficult. >> thank you both. let me conclude with a summary of thoughts. service.preciate your nobody here questions that. it's only because of the importance of the issue that everybody feels the way they do. -- thereke a comment is a difference -- notification is different than consultation. notification is when you are

telling us that we're are doing x, y or z. consultation is when we are saying that we are doing x, y or z and how to incorporate so if and whens you get to a final agreement, people will have a sense of confidence on that? i urge you to think about not just telling us what you are doing, but consulting in a way in which there is input taking place that when it is agreed upon can be incorporated. on the sanctions come i heard your response. sanctions, i heard your response. of course the iranians know that we will pass sanctions. every sanction that i have authored with other colleagues has required a minimum of six months notification to the international community. the process of sending it into enforcement and enforcing them takes longer.

unfortunately, that amount of time is greater than the amount of time for breakout at the iranians determined they want to breakout. that is the fundamental conflict i have about saying we can wait, but the consequences of the impact of the sanctions will be less so. there would be no greater thanksgiving day than for you all to be successful. for our country and the reigning people of -- and the iranian people. the concerns here are very legitimate. up, i looknel coming the formerimony of deputy director. one of the things he said, as the investors led to the -- iran continues to challenge the agencies right and obligation to

verify the correctness and completeness of iran's declarations and the practices of reporting its findings. just june thes fourth 2014. wow, they are challenging everything they're doing and we are in the midst of negotiations thinking that on some of the key questions we discussed, we are going to get there in four months. you're not meeting until september. i appreciate what treasury has been doing. you are doing,at part of the challenge that we that, yes, iran's economy is bad. it's better than it was.

positiveart of the sentiment created by virtue of the joint plan of action and its extension. which is helping to create some modest growth. gdp is expected to grow at 2%. that is modest, been a huge improvement over iran's economic 2012 fiscalin the year. inflation is beginning to go down. dippede of inflation chaplain, reverend jeff parrish, first baptist church of indian rocks, largo, florida. the chaplain: ok. let's pray.