should decline. thank you, mr. chairman. >> again, that resolution that would allow the republicans to take up a lawsuit against the president is coming up today, we expect about 12:30 eastern or so as the house comes in momentarily for legislative work. just a reminder, too, once that debate gets under way we'll allow you to comment at facebook.com/c spap. we'll look for our comments on twitter as well. the house today will also take up a measure authorizing the revamping of the veterans health care system. the house-senate agreement that will come up as a suspension bill. meaning it needs 2/3 of those present and voting to pass. live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be

in order. prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, reverend alfonso jackson, second baptist church of richmond heights, miami, florida. the chaplain: let us pray. has thou not known, has thou not heard, the everlasting gourde, the creator of the earth, there's no searching of his understanding, he gives power to the faint and to them that have no might, he increases their strength. even the youth shall faint and be weary. the young men shall fall but they that wait upon the lord shall renew their strength. they shall mount up with wings as eagles. they shall run and not be weary. they shall walk and not faint. dear heavenry gaur, i thank thee for this day, i thank you for the privelemming to stand in this hallow place and invoke

thy presence. i pray that you will bless these men and women who serve in the house of representatives. please grant them with a double portion of wisdom and understanding as they seek your will in the affairs of this great nation. i pray they accomplish what moses instructed the leaders to do in duet ronmy 1:16, hear the 1:16, hear teronomy the distress. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge today will be led by the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. ms. bonamici: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: without objection the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia is recognized for one minute. mr. garcia: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize today guest chaplain reverend alfonso jackson sr. of the second baptist church of richmond heights in my district. i hope you will all join me in thanking him for honoring us with today's opening prayer. for over 30 years, reverend jackson has dedicated himself to serving god, his family and our community in richmond heights. a community created for african-american world war ii veterans so that they could use the g.i. bill. founded 50 years ago, by reverend ferguson, the second baptist church of richmond heights has grown to more than 4,000 members and continues to flourish under his leadership. reverend jackson also helps strengthen his community and outside church by serving as

moderator to the seaboard baptist missionary association of florida and second vice president to the florida baptist state convention and the richmond heights community alliance. we can all look to his words today for guidance as we work to resolve our country's most pressing issues and i invite you to join me in honoring him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? the chair will entertain up to 15 further one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. i rise today to honor nancy riebold, who chose to run toward danger. she and her husband serve as missionaries in a hospital at liberia. they turned down the opportunity to evacuate when ebola struck liberia. instead nancy volunteered to help sanitize the medical

personnel and their equipment as they worked in the ebola isolation ward. this week, nancy learned that she, too, has contracted ebola. like the people she volunteered to help, she's now in isolation, although stable, she is badly -- battling and ill thaps kills 60 noveget victims. nancy and david could have chosen the easy route. instead they chose a higher calling of sack official love and service. -- of sacrificial love and service. please join me in praying for nancy's complete recovery and oin me in giving thankers in riebolds, samaritan's purse and others for helping ebola victims and others in need in liberia. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection thembing gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: the economy is rebound bug many of our

constituents are still feeling the effects of the recession. many are -- millions are still unemployeed after losing jobs that never came back in the recovery. the recently passed work forest innovation and opportunity act is a step that will help prepare americans for in demand jobs, based on the needs of local businesses, resulting in a more skilled work forest and greater business productivity. but our failure to fully embrace and address this challenge is unacceptable. so today, i rise to highlight the importance of investing in the true engine of our economy, the american worker of we have a great opportunity to build the middle class with a jump start agenda that focuses on american workers. this agenda incentivizes u.s. job creation, increases infrastructure investments and raises the minimum wage. all of which will help workers find quality, stable employment. we still have a lot of work to do to rebuild our economy, but investing in american work sers the right path forward. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. r. poe: tony gelledens was a dutch boy when on may 10, 1940, the nazis invaded and occupied the netherlands. persecution of the jews began immediately by the occupiers. they were required to wear yellow stars of david on their clothing. jews were shot, beaten, and sent to concentration camps. tony and a few of his boy scout friends joined the dutch resistance. tony began a four-year career of being the robin hood in the netherlands he would steal supplies and food if the nazis and give them to local jews and citizens. much to the risk of his own safety he hid out jews and helped rescue american and allied pilots that had been shot down over the netherlands. he would help the pilots

through the dutch underground and get them safely to england. tony was arrested, beaten, imprisoned numerous times by the nazis, only to escape. he was on trial by the nazis when the canadians liberated his hometown. numerous jews and allied pilots live because of tony gelledens. he moved to america in 1967, married anna, had five kids and became a u.s. citizen in 2000 and wore the american flag lapel pin every day of his life. he was an architect and political and community activist my very good and personal friend tony geldens died yesterday at the age of 90678 he will be missed deeply. he was quite an individual. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, with just two

days left until congress leaves for five week's recess, i rise today to urge my colleagues to take the time, the little time we have left to address the issues that are most important to american people. mr. payne: as we speak, republicans in congress are wasting taxpayer money and time on a lawsuit against the president. over what? because they disagree with his political ideology? from the very beginning, the republicans have been determined to delegitimize this president. from the very day he was elected. even at the cost of their skits -- constituents receiving uninsure -- unemployment insurance extensions. and other things. what is it, mr. speaker, about this president, that will have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle resort to anything to deal de-legitimize

him. he is the president of the united states. elected by the majority of the people in this nation. and i say he should be respected as every other president in this great nation has been. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. payne: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, every worker in america pays a portion of their hard-earned wage into the social security disability insurance program for promised benefit he is or she becomes too disabled to work. while providing a vital safety net, the disability program is plagued by major fraud. mr. johnson: this fraud reveals -- reveals significant weaknesses in the program that put at risk not only our billions of taxpayer dollars put also the benefits on which millions of disabled americans

rely. at a time when the program revenues will cover only 81% of benefits in 2016, not one dime should be lost to fraud, waste, or abuse. that's why, as chairman of social security subcommittee, i'm introducing the stop disability fraud act which makes fair, commonsense changes to combat fraud and better protect taxpayers and beneficiaries. americans want, need, and deserve no less. i urge my colleagues to support this effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, thanks to the g.o.p. majority, our immigration system is still broken, offshore tax loopholes are still open, corporations can still pay workers poverty wages. when you have no recovered, when you have destroy what had little faith americans have

left for this institution, what do you do? you sue the president for doing his job. when the problem is you refuse to do your own. mr. speaker, the g.o.p. is guilty of recklessly abandoning 3.5 million job seekers who need unemployment insurance to feed their families. mr. deutch: guilty of putting gun interests ahead of public safety and guilty of neglecting the priors -- priorities of the american people. in south florida, my constituents sometimes turn to yiddish to find the perfect word. they have a message, stop this -- and do your job. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> article 1 of the constitution vests the power to make laws in the united states congress. the president is given the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws passed by congress.

president obama has failed to understand this vital distinction. the president is not able to unilaterally bend the law to his own goals and desires. mr. lamborn: take, for example, the latest news reports that he plans to expand amnesty and extend work permits and visas for millions of illegal aliens all by using executived offers. these are not lawful actions. these are the power hungry actions of a president who refuses to work with congress. by suing president obama for failing to faithfully execute the laws of the land, we are saying stop. the people's representatives will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness of this president. we will do whatever it takes to hold him and future occupants of the oval office accountable. we must make it clear that the u.s. congress is a co-equal branch of government and one that represents we the people. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

members are reminded to refrain from improper references to the president. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: in my new york community, there's no shortage of pride for the buffalo bills. tax payers are investing millions into the stadium and they are engaged in discussions to make a new stadium. there are talks to move them from buffalo, and turn the tv rules screen black. is bill takes away the right to black out games that are not sold out. the buffalo bills must be win that will stand with this community for yen rations to come. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. >> article 1 of our constitution says congress makes the law. article 2 says the president enforces them. according to article 3, the judicial branch resolves conflicts between congress and the executive. that's the system the founders gave us. that's why the house of representatives is taking the president to court to stop his unlawful actions. according to legal experts, legislators sued the executive branch 41 time, 68% of the times they were brought by dems, including the rules committee ranking member who joined a 2006 democratic lawsuit against president bush. mr. harris: now you'd think the democrats could have better spent that time working to avoid the great recession of 2008. president obama unilaterally delayed the legislative mandate in the affordable care act without consulting congress. this is one of many areas he

has abused exec dive authority. the latest abuse leading up to the current border crisis. no president of either party should ever abuse their power. that's why this lawsuit is so necessary. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the gentleman from organizeon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. two weeks ago democrats overwhelmingly supported a sustainable solution to the current shortfall in the highway trust fund. but when the entire house didn't adopt it, the democrats provided the votes to move the issue on to the senate. confident that more time and discussion we could do better, especially working with the vast army of stakeholders who build, maintain, and use our nation's transportation system. our cooperation and confidence yesterday was rewarded as the senate overwhelmingly passed what was essentially the democratic motion of two weeks

ago. with the artful and strong leadership of chairman widen -- wyden, chairwoman boxer, ranking member hatch, senator carper, corker, murphy they carried the argument and they carried the day. he result was 79 votes for a sustainable solution. mr. speaker, the stakeholders are united. they are out now across the country arguing that we allow the house to vote on the senate proposal. let's commit to working together to solve this transportation problem. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize holt and sue williams for the service of the people of the great state of tennessee. mr. roe: they founded the daily bread community kitchen in november of 1994 in response to what they saw as a growing need for feeding the poor.

upon opening, the daily bread managed to feed around 50 people a day. today the nonprofit feeds over 350 people per day every day except sundays. and just renovated their building providing them with an even greater opportunity to serve foreneighbors. a staff of 150 volunteers, the daily bread continues to provide for those most in need. at age 89, holt and his wife by his side have no immediate plans to retire and continue to work hard for the people of east tennessee. east tennessee is a better place to live and our community is stronger because of the dedication of people like holt and sue. god bless you for your service and friendship. i wish you-all the best with the newly renovated building. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the republican house is about to go out for five weeks, but first they have

to sue the president and hope we don't pay attention to the unfinished business of this country. i only have one minute let me read it fast. let myllys for you some of the bills not addressed. propping up the highway trust fund, funding of the federal government, re-authorizing oaks im. providing additional resources to fight wildfires in the west, raising the minimum wage, extending emergency unemployment insurance, re-authorizing terrorism risk insurance, comprehensive tax reform, modernizing the voting rights act amendment, and ensuring equal pay in the workplace. i have run out of time but our constituents have run out of patients with this majority. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to majority leader eric cantor and a country i know is so dear to his heart.

yes, leader cantor has been focused on making life better for the american people and his recent contributions in the area of work force training and pediatric research will have a lasting impact on generations to come. he's also been a mentor and friend to many new members of the house. he and his wife led several freshmen trips to israel for many years. mrs. brooks: i was fortunate my husband and i were able to participate on one of those trips last summer. seeing this innovative nation and ally up close is a life changing experience. in israel i found a people that craves peace for all of its citizens of all faiths, even when faced with enemies who want nothing more than to erase israel from the map. i want to say loud and clear that members of this body are committed to israel. we stand together with israel and its obligation to defend its people from attacks from the terrorist group hamas. we are so grateful we have had a member of our leadership team so committed to a strong and thriving israel. leader cantor's efforts in congress have lived up to the title he holds.

he's a true leader. this is a tribute to that strong leadership. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you, the recent revelations of corruption and scandal at the v.a. have cast a dark cloud over a department that should be held to the highest possible standard. we cannot forget the cost of war does not stop when the last bullets are fired. we have an obligation to make sure that every last veteran gets the care and benefits that he or she earned on the battlefield. the compromise that's before us today is an important step forward. provides emergency funding for access to timely care and invests in the v.a.'s long-term capacity to address veterans' needs, but still there is more to be done. i regularly meet with young veterans in san diego who are having trouble adapting to civilian life. these are some of the brightest, hardworking men and women in the united states, and yet they

often find it hard to prove that the skills they developed in the military have prepared them for work or school. to help them we need a broader look at the challenges veterans face entering the work force, getting an education, and managing their finances as they transition out of the service. i certainly look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our veterans have the tools they need to succeed and it's the least we can do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize our military chaplains. as a member of the house armed services committee and congressional prayer caucus, i'm blessed to often witness firsthand the importance of a strong chaplain corps. two chaplains i encountered recently are prime examples. navy commander roy hoffman, and navy captain michael gore. commander hoffman serves as the

senior chaplain aboard the u.s. ronald reagan, an aircraft varier with 4,000 sailors, most of whom work long exhausting hours only to return to cramped beds for rest. chaplain n: as senior at the naval academy, captain gore is a valuable resource for the thousands of mid shipman facing rigorous academics and training as they prepare to be leaders in our military. serving in our all volunteer force can be challenging and the presence of chaplains like commander hoffman and captain michael gore is critical for maintaining strong morale across our military. please join me in showing support and gratitude toward all of our military chaplains. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, too

many middle class families are still struggling to make ends meet. income inequality continues to grow and unemployment remains unacceptably high, particularly in my home state of rhode island. our constituents deserve solution that is will promote job creation and increase economic opportunities for everyone. one of the most important things we can do for our country is to ensure our workers have 21st century skills for a 21st century economy. in particular i have been proud to work amccroskey the aisle to in technical education, securing a $52 million increase for funding for career training programs this year alone. however skills train something only one piece of the puzzle. we must incentivize companies to bring jobs back home, increase the minimum wage so that full-time workers aren't living in poverty. and invest in infrastructure to improve safety, boost commerce, and create jobs. mr. speaker, economic opportunity should not be subject to politics. it's time to act on these commonsense policies and provide all americans with the means to

make it in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to bring attention to an ongoing employment challenge facing our nation's veterans. when i go back home to oklahoma, i speak with a lot of local veterans who can't find jobs. it's unfortunate because these men and women are some of the hardest working individuals you'll ever find. i know because i have hired veterans in my private sector business and i currently have two congressional team members who are veterans. so i can tell you, they are motivated and ready to work. but we must remember that serving our nation is no easy task and these men and women are facing transitional challenges. on top of that, our wounded warriors battle a whole host of adversities. but with the right training, i have seen our veterans to

amazing things. in my district, companies like baker hughs, one of the world's largest oil service companies, are training and hiring veterans and seeing tremendous results. so i stand here today to encourage both the private and public sector to come together to give our nation heroes a fighting chance for their incredible service to this great nation. mr. mullin: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i rise today to denounce the baseless, misguided, and partisan lawsuit that our republican colleagues have brought to the floor for a vote today. this lawsuit is just a continuance of the outright disrespect and disdain that the house republicans have given president barack obama since he was elected. while millions of americans are waiting for congress to renew emergency unemployment insurance and raise the minimum wage, we are here debating a senseless

lawsuit. i am disappointed by the shameful partisan politics that's being played. in contrast i'm proud of the fact of the work we are doing as house democrats trying to put the american people first with our make it in america agenda and working to jump-start the middle class. with a long laundry list of things we need to get done, it's time to promote the people's business, not our political party's business. enough is enough. with only two days left before our five-week recess, we need to be doing the business of the american people not the business of our political parties. i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the for what purpose does the -- the gentlelady yield back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to commend the dedicated work undertaken by samaritans first an

international christian aid group based in boone, north carolina. specifically i want to bring it to your attention, dr. david brantley, who has been heading up samaritans first work with ebola patients in liberia. tragically dr. brantley along with fellow american missionary nancy writeball has contracted the ebola virus. both are currently fighting for their lives in an isolation ward in an african hospital. mr. speaker, today i ask my colleagues and all who hear this to join me in prayer for dr. brantley, mrs. rightball and the more than 1,000 other patients who have contracted ebola in this outbreak, which has already claimed over 600 lives. the disease continues to spread, and doctor brantley, true to his -- the selfless spirit of his missionary calling, has asked his case not be treated differently than any other.

let us keep all those affected in our prayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: tomorrow the republican speaker john boehner will adjourn the house and congress will leave town for five full weeks. i rise to urge speaker banetory cancel this recess and keep us in session so we can address the urgent issues facing the american people. democrats have a clear list of priorities that will jump-start the middle class, who want to renew emergency unemployment benefits, raise the minimum wage, fix our broken immigration system, re-authorize the ex-im bank, invest and repairing america's infrastructure, and make sure women earn equal pay for equal work. we have the opportunity to lift hardworking americans out of poverty, create jobs, and crow grow the economy by passing these bills that will help the middle class. it's a complete dirs licks of duty for speaker boehner to adjourn the house and leave town without addressing these issues.

even worse, instead of getting these things done for the american people, the republicans will take up a bill to sue the president for moving too slowly to enact a bill they oppose and they tried to stop over 50 times. you can't make this stuff up. the american people deserve better and the american people cannot afford five weeks of inaction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address he -- the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: the unaccompanied -- the influx of unaccompanied migrant children is alarming. what's more alarming is the lack of leadership coming from the white house. we know that a law passed in 2008, the william wilber force act, has complicated the response. it guarantees minors from central america an a court date and temporary assistance for

relocation assistance. unfortunately a lot of people evade these proceedings. most minors are not sent home and stay here for years. granting amnesty to millions would reinforce the perception that if you come to the united states illegally, you'll be rewarded. unfortunately, billions of new -- billions in new spending won't reverse the perceptions of the lenient enforcement environment of the united states. what we need is for the white house to enforce the laws, secure the borders and put aside political games and to start working with congress in a bipartisan manner. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection thembings gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, while america waits for house republicans in washington to bring immigration reform to a vote, we cannot forget about the invisible

varblities of our broken immigration process. mr. veezey: the victims of -- . veasey: the victims of fraud. there's a growing number of nonlawyers out there posing as legal consultants, known as notarios, they are not licensed to give legal advice. notarios are scam artists who prey on immigrant communities this week, i introduce h.r. 5228, the notario victims rerelief act to allow victims of notario fraud to reopen their cases and immigrate lawfully. this is just the first step. i urge my colleagues to join me as a co-sponsor of h.r. 5228 and help the victims of our broken immigration system. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to recognize and thank a nstituent from the town of bigler, pennsylvania. jay crosey a lead lineman at adams electric cooperative, volunteered for the rural electric cooperative foundation in haiti for the electrify case project. mr. perry: he spent two weeks in haiti to help haitians receive affordable, cafe -- safe, reliable electricity. some there now have tv's a few have water treatment plants, doctors can provide better care to patients and residents have opened their own small businesses. national rural electric cooperative association international currentry is -- currently is providing support to usaid in haiti bring safe, reliable, affordable

electricity to areas in northern haiti. on behalf of the fourth congressional district of pennsylvania, i commend jay and the national rural electric cooperative international foundation for their tireless efforts in haiti and around the world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> my home state of kentucky has been a national model for how the affordable care act can succeed. through connect, our state exchange, 114,000 kentuckians have gotten health insurance, nearly 313,000 of them for the first time mr. yarmuth: these maps show how it's reduced the rate of the uninsured in 20 counties. the orange and red show the counties with preaffordable care acts with uninsured rates from 14% to 42%. some of the most impoverished areas had the highest

uninsurance rate. the bottom shows the -- shows kentucky now. only one county still has a rate of 14% or more. in rural areas, the uninsured rate plummeted from 20% to 5%. it reduced the total number of uninsured kentuckians by nearly half. behind every number, behind every red county turned blue or green are the stories of a person or family getting the health care they need. that's success by any standard but most importantly, kentucky standards. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend the remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. westmoreland: some of our military has been sent emails telling them not to eat or drink in front of the muslim brothers that are with them

during ramadan. i've never heard the military he out and say, don't eat nned food -- levened food in front of jewish brother during passover, or -- and i've never heard them say be careful what you eat in front of your christian brothers during lent. some rr told they could not use the word christmas. a v.a. hospital refused to accept holiday cards from boys and girls because they mentioned christmas or god bless you. a nativity on a lake in south carolina was removed. you might understand why ron cruz, executive director of the chaplains is surprised by the pentagon's recent behavior. last good biblical word for

this, hypocrisy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> i sit on the natural resources committee here in the house and through our investigations into our treasured national parks, my colleagues and vi discovered a number of tragic choices and changes that are in store for all of us and our children. mr. speaker, because of a change in climate, glacier national park's glaciers will melt and be no more. mr. speaker, because of a change in climate, joshua tree national park's joshua trees will disappear from the park named after them. mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, because of a changing climate, rocky mountain national park's forests are dying because mild winters cannot keep pine beetles, which are are devastating the park's trees. colleagues, climate change is

upon us now. we are paying for its effects today. regardless of the numb of seat this is body takes to deny what's happening before our eyes. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, counties and states around this country compete every day for jobs. and how they do it is not complicated. they adjust their tax and their regulatory burdens to attract businesses, and those that do the best job attract the most jobs. the problem is that they're competing for a declining pool of jobs in america, because washington is not competitive. we need to adopt that competitive attitude right here. in times of war we forget partisanship and pull together. in truth, we are in an economic war. countries around the world have teams of people that work every day to beat us economically.

the house has passed 39 jobs bills in this congress which are gathering dust in the senate. surely harry reid and the president can find one among these 39 bills they can work with to make our country more competitive and put our people back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute -- the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, thank you president johnson and happy birthday to medicaid and medicare. i'm excited about the lives that have been saved and i'm looking forward to the full expansion in all 50 states of medicaid in 2015, its 50th birthday. ladies and gentlemen, i will tell you that when president johnson signed this into law, medicare, 50% of our seniors had health insurance and 35 -- less than 50% of our seniors had health insurance and 35%

lived in poverty. now over 52.4 million americans are given health care benefits through medicare, medicaid, regardless of their condition and then for some, also, when their income is very low. 43 ppt 6 million americans age 65 and above have medicare and medicaid, 8. million disabled. our seniors are able to be in long-term living because of medicaid. we will, by the time the baby boomers reach 65, it's expected that 80 million people will be covered by medicare. what is the common sense or lack thereof that states have not accepted the eexpanded medicaid under the affordable care act. medicare and medicaid together save lives. i'm interested in saving lives. let's stand up for the affordable care act, medicare, and medicaid to save the lives of americans, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise deeply dispint i want -- deeply disappointed in congress this week. the real issues congress needs to address for the american. but instead of addressing the long-term issues of comprehensive immigration reform, comprehensive tax reform, or debt and deficit, getting our economy going, we're considering suing the president of the united states, beating the drum of impeachment. mr. schrader: where were my republican colleagues when president bush was issuing his egregious executive orders. the hypocrisy here is appalling. we need provide long-term funding for the highway trust fund. the export-import bank, federal education programs to prepare our people and our children for the next generation of the work force. we need to pass a long-term solution for our doctors. we need to provide funding to address the wildfires that are ravaging the western united states, including my home state of oregon. we need to get the unregulated am of money out of politics.

we need to get back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex-er -- expired. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1799, an act to re-authorize subtitle a of the victims of child abuse act of 1990. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules irk call up house resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the les resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 131, house resolution 694, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution house resolution 676, providing 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. the amendment recommended by

the committee on rules now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. the resolution as amended shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution as amended to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question exempt one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on rules. section 2. upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 935 to amend the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act to clarify congressional intent regarding the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waved. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waive the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and two, one motion to recommit. section 3. on any legislative day during the period from august 1, 2014, through september 5, 2014, a, the journal of the proceed ogs of the previous day shall be considered as approved and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 4. the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 5. each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution shall not constitute

a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the war powers resolution 50 u.s.c., 1546. section 6. each day during the period oy addressed by the section 3 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of rule 13. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, for mr. webster: for purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of the resolution. all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: house resolution 964 provides for consideration of h.r. the 65, the reduce

regulatory burdens act of 2014. on monday the house had a thorough debate on h.r. 935. while built in that game the 2/3 majority necessary to pass by suspension, it did receive 253 bipartisan votes. it's important we pass this bill in order to reduce the regulatory burden that's been aced upon nearly 365,000 pesticide users and this rule allows us to to that. the rule also allows the house to consider h.r. 76, resolution will allow the speaker to initiate litigation for actions by the president or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the constitution. the fact that we have to suit president simply to ensure that he's working within the constraints of the constitution to me, mr. speaker, is troubling. but that's the situation we are facing. while we have always had disagreements between the lemming and executive branches about how expansive the

president's authority is, the constitution is explicit that congress writes the laws and the president's role is to take care that those laws are faithfully executed. no president may have both power. our founding fathers understood the danger of having a president who not only enforced the laws but made them. an executive whose powers would easily infringe on our citizens' liberty. our founders saw this first hand. that's why they were fleeing, to come to this country and form this contry. they knew the executive would try to exceed the power afforded under the constitution even when it's occupied by someone who previously taught the limits of the constitution that puts on presidential power. that's why they were so careful in delegating among the three branches. this system of checks and balances has served america so well for so long.

i'm sorry for the civics lessons, but it's clear some on the other side of the aisle have temporarily lost sight of how important these checks and balances are to the functioning of this house and to the legislative branch in general. but that wasn't always the case. when representative conyers, for instance, was chairman of the judiciary committee, and i quote, we are co-equal branch of government. if our systems of checks and balances is going to operate, it's imperative we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or ignoring the bills that are signed into law, unquote. representative nadler for his part cautioned, and i quote this, and i hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to destroy the power of congress and the judiciary and to limit

our power to protect the liberties of the american people against encroachments by the executive are a waste of time, i hope that they will rethink what they are doing here, unquote. mr. speaker, i read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one party or one president. the legislative versus executive issue is not a democrat versus republican issue. to be frank, the legislative branch has been on the losing end of this for quite some time. but my point is that we shouldn't be socalous and shortsighted as to not defend our article 1 power simply because the president in questions happens to belong to one party. we don't take action now, what stops future presidents? republican or democrat from eroding our powers further. congress itself has shown little opposition to the harm that is

done to the separation of powers over the years. that's why it's critical that we take action now. this should not -- this should be a cause for lemming branch to unite around, not divide it over. instead we have members of congress standing and applause when the president says he would bypass congress to enact his agenda. mr. speaker, half this body stood up in applause. it should have been in defiance. here we have members in congress cheering for a president for basically saying he's going to eliminate their purpose here. this isn't the first president whose actions have raised alarms over overreaching executive, and it's clear if we do nothing it will not be the last. i urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, to stop the assault on separation of powers, let's finally say to the executive, enough's enough. let's finally say, support the constitution, support the separation of powers, and

support this rule. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend from florida for yielding me such time -- the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. that's ok with you, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. today we are taking up a very serious issue on constitutionality, separation of powers, but the rule also covers the deregulation of pesticides. i think that should be noted here as well, because one is as ridiculous as the other. this is a ridiculous lawsuit. one house of congress seeking to sue the president for not implementing a law they have tried everything to kill. the majority wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract

us from the real problems of the united states. instead of tackling climate change and modernizing our crumbling zprass, the majority wants to sue the president tore doing his job. the record is clear this has been judged the most recalcitrant and useless congress in history. this lawsuit will be a monumental waste of time and energy and funds. it is a political maneuver, time to peak as americans go to the polls in november for the midterm elections. the lawsuit is a drumbeat pushing members of the republican party to impeachment. last week in the rules committee, democrats attempted to amend this resolution in the pursuit of transparency and accountability. and we offered several amendments that addressed the cost of the lawsuit. the majority in the rules committee voted down every amendment that the minority offered. and with this closed rule, we have set a new record, by the way, for the most closed rules in a single congress.

on the committee level, on the house floor, in the minds of our citizens, this is a closed process. a partisan maneuver and nothing but political messaging opportunity. this lawsuit is a gimmick which even legal scholars in the minority's own party say will fail. including the conservative driver and former justice department official, andrew c. mccarthy. he wrote about this lawsuit and said it is, quote, a classic ase of assuming the polls of meaningful action while in reality doing nothing. democrats in the house and the american people could not agree more. the house minority has three main concerns about this lawsuit. first is the cost, second, the partisan nature. and third, the lack of legal standing and the implications for our constitutional separation of powers. first the cost. since the passage of the affordable care act, which not a single republican voted for, a

majority has mounted a herculean effort trying to repeal, to dismantle, discredit it. it seems they can spare no expense attempting to take health care away for millions of americans. not only do they shut down the government to deny americans' health care, it took from this economy, $24 million to pay that shutdown. and in addition, with the over 50 votes on the house floor, to undermine repeal, to away with the affordable care act, the majority spent more than $79 million on that voting effort. when the minority of the rules committee requested from the majority the proximate cost of a lawsuit, we got a response that read, quote, a lawsuit is a small price to pay, end quote. cost is not a hypothetical question because there are real consequences for our country. the minority and the american people still would like to know

how much will this cost, and where will the money come from? we asked directly through letters and by offering amendments to the resolution, and we have gotten no clear answers. what cuts will come from what programs that americans depend on to pay for this ridiculous lawsuit? the majority will spend money on ore than 13 hearings and debriefings, 25,000 pages of document and al low $3.3 million on a select committee on benghazi. all that money on benghazi, but won't give us a concrete answer where the funds will come from for the lawsuit. in a similar lawsuit when the republicans defended the discriminatory defense of marriage act, they paid the lawyers $520 an hour. i choke over that figure. at that rate we would have paid over $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. if we are spending that kind of money, we ought to do it in the open and that amendment was

defeated on party lines. the majority does not intend to make this lawsuit anything but another opportunity to attack the president which leads me to our second concern, its partisan nature. as i said, no republican voted for the affordable care act. and after sten with us efforts to take health care away from millions of americans, the majority plans to fund a lawsuit that if successful would result in the faster implementation of the affordable care act. the inconsistency is breathtaking. let me reiterate that. after not a single vote for health care, for over 50 votes to kill it, they are suing the president of the united states because he it not implement it faster. i don't know how anybody can make sense out of that. all this effort to derail a law that is working. just two days ago "the washington post" reported in an article entitled medicare finances improve partly due to

the a.c.a., the affordable care act. hospital expenses, the trustee report says. the affordable care act, this article stage, that the affordable care act has extended the life of medicare by four years because of the savings. that will only get bert. i ask unanimous consent to insert this article from "the washington post" dated july 28, 201, into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. a recent poll from the commonwealth fund found 77% of people were pleased with their new coverage. republicans themselves have a 74% satisfaction rate with the new plan that they have bought. so house majority's going to spend unknown millions of dollars coming from somewhere to stymie a law their own party members support. so, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert this article from talking points memo, citing this survey from july 10, 2014, entitled survey most republicans who bought obamacare coverage like their plan.

into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you. it is also obvious to the american people that this is a political stunt. a recent poll commissioned by cnn shows 57% of us oppose the lawsuit. that's right. the majority of this country recognizes for what it is, a political scheme. they recognize there is no basis for this lawsuit. our third concern is the legitimacy of standing in the legal sense, as well as the constitutional principles that the supreme court has said limit the time disputes the court can consider. perhaps the best authority for the inadd whichcy of the majority's claim to standing is one of the majority's own witnesses at our rules hearing. the florida international university college law professor, elizabeth price foley. professor foley wrote in a february article, and i quote, when a president delays or

exempts people from the law, the so-called ben nevillent suspension, who has standing to sue him? generally no one. ben nevillent -- ba nevillen suspensions of law don't by definition create a concrete injury for standing, end quote. there's more to quote. let me finish that. that's why when president obama delayed various provisions of obamacare, his actions cannot be challenged in court. congress probably cannot sue the president, either. that's the end of that most important quote. if the majority's own witness doesn't think that congress has standing, what judge will? and finally, one of the most dangerous possible consequences to the lawsuit would be the unprecedented transfer of powers from the legislativement to judicial branch. this concern for maintaining separation of powers as was written into the constitution by the founding fathers is exactly why courts have established what

is called the, quote, political question doctrine, end quote. it says that courts should stay out of fights between the other two branches of the federal government. and should defer to the other branches when the constitution says the matter to be resolved is the responsibility of the president or the congress. that couldn't be clearer, mr. speaker. the mismanagement of our nation's funds is deplorable. the partisan nature of the stunt is apunditly clear, and our constitutional balance of powers is in jeopardy. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the closed rule which yet again distorts the legislative process, stifles debate, even on the most important issues. we will ask the house to defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, i'll bring up four bill the bring jobs home bill, the paycheck fairness act which pays women equally to men for

the same job, third, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10, and finally, the emergency student loan refinancing act, which makes it easier for young people to pay their college loans. these -- these are the priorities of america. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and align themselves with those priorities instead of this lawsuit which is surely a waste of time, of money, and resources. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i yield four minutes to the chairman of the house administration committee, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and the underlying resolution.

mr. speaker, the ultimate law of our great nation is not just the important work that we undertake here in the house. above all else, it is the constitution that we all swear to preserve, to protect and to defend. above everything, it is the constitution. and the first words of the constitution, article 1, section 1, are the following. all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. it doesn't just say some, it says all legislative powers are vested in the congress of the united states. no other entity of our federal government has the power to write law, not the executive branch, or the judicial branch, only congress. article 1, section 7 states the following. every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate

shall be -- shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the president of the united states. if he chooses he shall sign it -- if he approves he shall sign it, if not, he shall return it. if he approves, it shall become law, if not, he returns toyota congress. nowhere is the president given the authority to rewrite the law on his own. n article 2, section 3, places the following responsibility with the president he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. mr. speaker, this resolution asks the third branch of government, the judicial branch, to solve the problems arising from the president's failure to faithfully execute the law. specifically, aspects of the affordable care act as he is required in article 2, section 3, and to have exercised power

expressly given to congress to write the law under article 1. mr. speaker, the founders, in their genius, put in place a system of checks and balances for a very, very important purpose which is to make certain that no one person could both impose and then enforce the law. because that type of action amounts to tyranny, mr. speaker. tyranny. and in short, we have no king in this nation. in america, we have a president. we do not have a king. and mr. speaker, as a representative of the people the 10th district of michigan, d someone who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, i believe strongly that i have a responsibility to support this resolution so that the courts can affirm the legislative power is vested in this house, in the people's house, not in

the white house. and as the chairman of the committee on house administration, i will have the responsibility to verify that any contracts with those who will litigate this case comport with the rules of the house. that's a responsibility i take very, very seriously. as such, many on the minority side have asked, how much will this cost? my answer is, we don't know yet because no contracts have been negotiated. we don't know how long such litigation will take to conclude. but the question i would ask is , what price do you put on the adherence to the rule of law? what price do you place on the continuation of our system of checks and balances? mr. speaker, what price do you put on the constitution of the united states? my answer to each is, priceless. priceless, mr. speaker. and i'm certain that this process will move forward with

due diligence that it will be conducted within the rules of this house, and it is my firm theep in the end, the courts will uphold the constitutional principles that are the bedrock upon which our great nation has been built. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague on the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it's important that we remember why we are here today. we are here today not because of the majority's commitment to the rule of law, but because of politics. we are here because the republican leadership of this house is trying desperately to placate the far right wing of their base. they're trying to placate a vocal and organized faction that refuses to accept the fact that the american people elected barack obama twice as president of the united states. they are birthers, and tea

partiers, and minuteman militia members an supporters of nullification. but here's the problem. they will never, ever, ever be satisfied. listen to this finding from a poll taken just this month. 41% of republicans surveyed believe that president obama is not really an american citizen. 41%. that is the base of the modern day republican party and it is ugly. if you are really concerned about the balance of power between the exec tiff branch of the congress, there are ways to address it. just last week, i worked with the republican and democratic leadership of the house and of the foreign affairs committee to reaffirm the proper role of congress in matters of war and peace. i brought a resolution to the floor under the rules of the house and it passed by a vote of 370-40. that's the way we should do our work around here. not this nonsense about lawsuits. and it's the same with the affordable care act.

i know my republican friends are devastated that the bill they hate so much is actually working. millions of people who didn't have health insurance are now covered. millions of people can now get preventive care. millions of adults can stay on their -- millions of young adults can now stay on their family's insurance plan. being a woman is no longer considered a bre-existing condition. insurance companies can no longer discriminate against the sick. as we learned just yesterday, the affordable care act has already helped to extend the life of the medicare trust fund by four years. the entire republican majority in this house was built on opposition to the affordable care act and yet it stands. and the fact that it stands makes the republican leadership do desperate and irrational things. it makes them vote to repeal the a.c.a. over 50 times and makes them decide it's somehow a great idea to sue the president for the way he's implementing the law. it saddens me to see how low a

once-great party, the party of abraham lincoln and teddy roosevelt has sunk. instead of addressing the real and pressing needs of our country, raising the minimum wage, passing the long-term highway bill, instead of doing that they have been reduced to government shut douvens and lawsuits and partisan stunts and gimmicks. this is show business at its worst. enough of this stupidity. i say to my republican friends do, your job. do the people's work. this is shameful. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does -- the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague on the rules committee, dr. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my friend from florida for yielding. i want to commend my colleague from michigan, congresswoman miller, for explaining our motivation on this resolution.

mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule, in support of the underlying resolution, and -- in support of this effort to restore every branch of this government to its proper constitutional bounds. this is not about politics. if there were a republican president doing the same thing, i would feel just as strongly. this is about the constitution. our constitution was drafted deliberately to ensure that the greatest pow for the our government resided closely with the people. that is why the portion dealing with congress was placed first. in article 1, the framers placed the ultimate power of creating laws with the congress and they particularly empowered the house of representatives, the people's house. every two years, members of this house face the voters and our actions in this body are judged. no other member of this government must submit to the judgment of the people more

regularly. for too long this body, under the leadership of both democrats and republicans, has creaded parts of our constitutional authority to the executive branch and the agencies that are at best remotely accountable to voters. it's time for that to stop. today we take a step to make it stop. this lawsuit is about actions. the actions of admferings that has claimed more power than it has been given. even when we have already given it more authority than we should have. i bear no animus to this president but i strongly disagree with many of his policies. his stated priorities, and ultimately his actions. this lawsuit is not entered into lightly. it is not our first responsement but rather, it is -- not our first response, but rather, it is our last resort. i'll vote yes on this resolution, not for elock torl gain but to preserve our

constitution and the separation of powers enshrined therein. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: for purposes of unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for purposes of a unanimous wonent -- consent request. mr. butterfield: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1010, a minimum wage increase to jump start the middle class instead this partisan lawsuit attacking president obama. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would advise that all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate only. does the gentleman from florida yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request? mr. nugent: i do not. i want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only and we are not yielding for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida does not yield. therefore the unanimous consent cannot be entertained. mr. butterfield: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: isn't it the tradition of the house that the speaker yeeds to -- yields to those who want to make a u.c. request during the course of debate. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate only. ms. slaughter: for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 4582, the students emergency loan refinancing act, to jump start the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose, therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. ms. slaughter: for the purpose of unanimous consent request i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. hahn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for purposes of a unanimous consent request. ms. hahn: i ask a ask for -- i also ask for unanimous con sent

to bring up h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness act to jump start our middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking our president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: for purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1010, a minimum wage increase, in order to jump start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose, therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. ms. slaughter spb for the purposes of unanimous con sent request, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. matsui: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness act, to jump start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the

president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: for purpose of a unanimous consent i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 45 2, the student emergency loan refinancing act, to jump start the middle class instead of -- instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: for the purpose of a unanimous consent request i yield to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. clark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clark: i skms ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness act, to jump start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose, therefore the unanimous consent

request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 851, the bring jobs homes -- bring jobs home act to jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit against the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose, therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. eshoo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up the students emergency loan refinancing act, h.r. 4582, to strengthen the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from from has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for

the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1010, the minimum wage bill, give america a pay raise, jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan attack on the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: meesh, i ask unanimous consent to consider h.r. 4582, the students emergency loan refinancing act, that would help the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair enses that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the gentlelady's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlelady from maryland, ms.

edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1010, america deserves a raise by raising the minimum wage to jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. roybal-allard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. roybal-allard: i ask unanimous consent to bring up the bring jobes home act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of bringing up this partisan lawsuit against the president. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. ms. slaughter: for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness

act, to jump-start the middle class instead of this unprecedented partisan lawsuit against our president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up, and i'm pleading to bring up h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness act, to jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president of the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent to bring up the paycheck fairness act, men, women, same job, same pay, to jump-start the middle class

instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. davis: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 851, the bring jobs home act, to jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit which we don't need, mr. speaker, attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the gentlelady's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the if you were of a -- for the purpose of a unanimous consent, i yield to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent to bring up the paycheck fairness act to jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose.

therefore, the gentlelady's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1010, a minimum wage increase, to jump-start the middle class instead of the partisan lawsuit attacking the honorable barack obama, president of the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the gentleman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and i ask unanimous consent to ing up h.r. 851, the bring jobs home act. surely, mr. speaker, the gentleman from florida will want to yield time for that, to

jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan, pointless lawsuit attacking the president of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from florida has not yielded time for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to immediately bring up h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness act, which would jump-start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the president of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from florida has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the gentleman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes.

mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to oppose the resolution authorizing the speaker to bring a legislative branch lawsuit against the president. never before in the history of the congress has there been institutional litigation between the two co-equal branches of government. never. don't my republican friends understand that the house, acting alone, cannot by itself enforce a legislative enactment? it must be bicameral. this resolution will establish a precedent unknown in our injure is prudence. it's -- jurisprudence. it will threaten the separation of powers principles and the checks and balances that we have long cherished in this country. do you want the judiciary to become the arbiter of disputes between congress and the president? our branches are co-equal. do you really want to cede to the courts the authority to

resolve disputes between the branches? would you want the president to sue the house for missing a budget deadline? where does it end? how do you plan to pay for this litigation? this resolution would give the speaker a blank check to pay legal costs and expert costs which would add to the deficit. i call on house republicans to talk to objective legal scholars, read the literature and court decisions. protect the court system and reject this dangerous legislation. this is a very sad day in the 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. every day that president obama has occupied the oval office, you have attacked him. you have attacked his ideas. you have attacked those who surround him and his cabinet and you are denying the american people a functioning government. i sincerely believe that you are trying to set the stage for a despicable impeachment

proceeding should you hold the majority in the house and gain a majority in the senate. shame on you, house republicans. shame on you. i ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule and on final passage. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. rice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. the gentleman nk for yielding. the only people i hear talking about impeachment in this chamber are the democrats. the democrats must want the president impeached as far as i can tell. mr. speaker, my favorite piece of art in this capitol building is a picture in the rotunda of a group of our forefathers who gathered together because they were -- they could no longer bear living under a monarchy. and they decided that they would fight for freedom. they signed the declaration of

independence knowing full well that they were signing their own death warrants, their own death warrants if they were caught and tried for treason. our forefathers fought a revolution against the greatest military power on earth to escape the bonds of a monarchy. at the end of the bloody revolution, the last thing they wanted was another king. they wanted freedom. to protect that precious freedom, they designed a government where power rested with the people based on a separation of powers. the legislative branch makes the laws. the president enforces the laws. president obama has decided that he cannot be bothered with the separation of powers. he has bragged that if congress will not accept his priorities he has a pen and a phone and he

will make the law. he may have a pen, but the people have the constitution. our forefathers recognized that one man who can both make the law and enforce the law is not a president. he's a king. thomas jefferson once said, freedom does not disappear all t once but is eroded imperively day by day. the prosperity of our country sprang from our freedom. our form of government set forth in the constitution by our forefathers has protected that very fragile freedom for 200 years. my friends across the aisle worry about the price of the lawsuit to protect our freedom. our forefathers paid dearly for that freedom.

many paid everything. our freedom is in peril. we cannot stand by and watch the president shred our constitution. i stand in support of resolution 676. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the fact that only democrats are speaking of impeachment. just today "the hill" paper announced that a most respected and admired member of the republican conference said that the lawsuit, spear-headed by john boehner, in quotes, is a show, end quote. he also said, why not impeach instead wasting $1 million or $2 million of the taxpayers' money? if you're serious about that, use what the founders of the constitution gave us, end

quote, and he's referring to impeachment. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished the gentlelady from the empire state for yielding. mr. speaker, this lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of time and a cover-up with respect to the house republicans' failure to effectively govern. you have failed to create jobs. you have failed to increase the minimum wage. you have failed to deal with our broken immigration system. you have failed to extend unemployment insurance for the millions of americans who have been left on the battlefield of the great recession. you have failed to deal with our crumbling transportation and infrastructure. mr. speaker, your majority has failed to do what is in the best interest of the american people. and so to cover up the mess, you are taking us on a joyride through the article 3 court system.

it is an effort that will crash and burn. yet, nonetheless you're willing to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to make a down payment on impeachment. instead of engaging in responsible legislative action, the house majority has chosen to act up and to act out in order to satisfy the thirst of the blame barack obama caucus. shame on you, mr. speaker. it's time to get back to the business of the american eople. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the sgrealt from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the

gentlelady. you know, i've been kind of scratching my head as to why it is we're filing this lawsuit. you know, why is it that the independent house, the speaker of the house, second in line for the presidency, instead of passing a bill, is filing a lawsuit. i think i've kind of figured it out. the power of the majority is being used in a way to make that power useless and impotent. they can pass any laws they want in this house. they can repeal any laws they want in this house. in fact, have repealed health care 55 times. once it gos across this hall, into the senate, it dies. it's not taken up. if it were taken up, it would never be signed by the president. i've got another idea. instead of filing a lawsuit, let's do our job. we've got some disagreements. we think, and i think the american people believe, and i know the president agreeing, we should raise the minimum wage. you don't. let's work it out.

we believe in the president -- we believe, and the president believes, and the american people believe, we need comprehensive immigration reform. let's take it up and have a vote. we believe it's time for equal pay for equal work. what are we afraid of? why don't we take it up? is the judge going to help us decide this? should we have an out of court settlement? which means we actually have a discussion a discussion that includes the members of the republican party who have different points of view, supposed d -- as opposed to just the narrowest view fless most gerrymandered districts. it means we work with our counterparts in the senate. so mr. we do our job speaker, you've got a job to do that can't be done by a judge. you've got a job to do that won't be resolved in a court of lall. it'll be resolved here in the united states ho -- in a court

of law. it'll be resolved here in the united states house of representatives. the fact that we disagree, the fact that the issues between us are difficult and contentious is no excuse to not do your job. the republicans represent a lot of american, but the democrats represent at least half of america. never in the history of this country have we made progress by refusing to legislate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind all members of an essential rule of decorum in the house. under clause 1 of rule 17, members are to direct their remarks to the chair and not to other members in the second person. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i reserve. sproy the gentlelady from new york is recognized. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i yield one and a half minutes to ms. edwards of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: just when i we think the dysfunction can't get any worse, the republicans

surprise us, find a way to prove us wrong. they're going to cap off seven months of the worst do-nothing congress in this nation's history and republicans have decided to chart a dangerous and unprecedented path by suing the president of the united states. the american people have to hear this. suing the president of the united states, mr. speaker. and for what? because the president is doing his job? and so when house republicans are not doing their job, they choose to sue the president of the united states. the american people do see this for exactly what it is system of we move from one political stunt to the next, mr. speaker. from shutting down the government, that's what republicans did, to a lawsuit, and then onward to impeachment. this do-nothing congress, mr. speaker, suing the president of the united states. we should be working to make college more affordable. to enact comprehensive immigration reform. equal pay for equal work.

raise the minimum wage. renew unemployment benefits. improve the nation's infrastructure. instead, house republicans are suing the president. i thought this was a fringe element, mr. speaker, of the house republican majority. but it is not. it is the majority. but somehow, republicans in the house of representatives, you know what, we get it. the republicans in the house don't like the president. they don't like the president. mr. speaker. but they're suing the president of the united states. shame, shame, shame. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to the previous question because defeating it will allow an amendment that provides for consideration of legislation that will in fact create jobs, grow the economy,

support small businesses, ensure equal by and alleviate the financial burdens on working families today. there are so many things we can and should be doing right now to spur the economy for the american people. we need to help workers. we need to help them find opportunities. we need to achieve higher pay for their hard work. and instead of considering those many bills, this republican majority continues to waste this institution's time by pushing a partisan lawsuit against the president. this is the first time in history that a branch of congress has tried to sue a president. my god, what a legacy you leave. americans are tired of partisan dysfunction. they want to see us working to solve their problems. and defeating that previous question will allow us to have

a vote today on something very important to american families, and that is equal pay for equal work. women in america face overwhelming financial challenges. they're more likely to be poor. make minimum wage. go bankrupt. less likely to have retirement security. and women still only make 77 cents on average for every $1 made by men. that's $11,000 lost wages every single year. and over the course of a career, that adds up to $434,000 lost. i have introduced a paycheck fairness act in every congress since 2007. it passed the house twice with bipartisan support. it would ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. a famous american once said, and i quote, mind you, i believe in marriage, and children, and home, but i am not one of the kind that think that god made women to do nothing but to sit at home in the ashes and tend to babies. he made her to be as good as men and better too.

if a woman can do the same work a man can do and do it just as well, she should have the same pay. that was buffalo bill. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. delauro: that was buffalo bill cody he, said that in 1898, 116 years ago. women, mr. speaker, are tired of waiting. let us not waste our time on the partisan lawsuit against the president, let us defeat the previous question and today give women a vote on equal pay for equal work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i ask unanimous consent to place in the record an exchange of letters between myself and chairman sessions and between ranking member brady and chairwoman miller of the house administration committee.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: this exchange of letters catalogs our repeated requests for an estimate of the projected cost of this partisan enterprise and the identification of accounts that will be cut to pay for it. as you will note, the responses to our letter provide no information about the cost estimate and no indication of rom where the funds will come. mr. speaker, this lawsuit, if people are supposed to think that this is a genuine concern, by the house of representatives, and not a partisan gimmick, then why didn't the majority consult with democrats or the senate beforehand and say, we want to do this on behalf of congress, will you talk with us about participating? that idea of joint participation is long gone from here and i regret to say that. but that didn't happen. it was cooked up in some meeting where we probably discussed thousand win back the

senate or whether to impeach the president or how the campaign fundraising is going and so forth. you're not fooling anyone. this is about politics and the elections and you know it and i know it and polling shows it, all the people in the country know it. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the democrat leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank congresswoman slaughter, our ranking member on the rules committee for the time and also more importantly for her great leadership in so many ways. in so many ways it has been about her advocacy for the priorities of the american people. so today, we have on the floor of the house legislation that is a serious matter about suing

the president of the united states. instead of doing the people's business which is what ms. slaughter and others have advocated for, whether it's bringing good paying jobs home, creating jobs by building the infrastructure of america, reducing the cost of higher education for family, investing in our children, raising the minimum wage, passing legislation, to have equal pay for equal work. everything that would increase the financial stability of america's families. instead, we are wasting the taxpayers' time and money on the floor of the house on a matter that is serious, intu a waste of time. there are those who have said that this initiative to sue the president of the united states is about a step toward

impeachment. others who say no, it's instead of impeachment. i told the speaker that i had a similar situation years ago, not similar in terms of the -- of the subject because i think there's no basis for this and no standing on this house on the subject of suing the president. but similar in that there were calls for -- by some to impeach president bush. when we took the majority and people were very unhappy about the iraq war and the false claims made to draw the american people into support of that war effort, which proved to be untrue. it wasn't about people in your caucus clamoring for suing the president. it was about hundreds of thousands of people in the streets objecting to the war in iraq and the false basis on which we went in. but when i became speaker and

people clamored for the impeachment of the president, i said what i advise the speaker to say right now. impeachment is off the table. this isn't about impeachment. that simple sentence, will be a clear one. impeachment is off the table. why hasn't the speaker said that? why are there those in your caucus who won't deny that that is a possible end in sight for this ill fated legislation that you bring to the floor? we're going to adjourn tomorrow for five weeks, five weeks, leaving unfinished business here. we need to solve problems for the american people, to create opportunities for them. but that kind of legislation is nowhere in sight. whether it's job creation reducing the cost of higher education, equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage,

which i already mentioned. we have precious few hours remaining to act on the priorities of the american people and finish the can't-wait business for the congress. so much needs to be done, the humanitarian situation at the border which is an opportunity for taos do the right thing. the highway trust fund, to deal with it appropriately and give it the proper amount of time instead of rushing it through. but once again, republicans are putting the special interests in the howls of impeachment-hungry extremists before the needs of the nation. the lawsuit is only the latest proof of house republican's contempt and disregard for the priorities of the american people. it is yet another republican effort to pander to the most radical right wing voters at taxpayers' expense, $2.3 million spent defending doma, a doomed case, defending doma,

more than $3 million on the select committee to exploit benghazi, and by the way, something that had been investigated again and again at the very admission of leaders on the republican side. why are we doing this? and then this, which we don't have a price tag on, that they will reveal to us, but again, why would you sue somebody unless you want to prove something? and why would you go down that path unless you wanted to do something about it? but the fact is, republicans in congress have no standing on this suit. most constitutional scholars have, or do, admit that, even your expert witnesses have in the past said you don't have standing on it. middle class families don't have time for the republican

partisan grudge match with the president. they know this is -- it's a funny thing because -- well funny in the strange interpretation of the word funny, but a couple of weeks ago, steps of the capitol, house democrats were there to launch our middle class jump start about some of the issues i raised, job creation here in the u.s., affordability for college, early childhood education, all of those things, equal pay for equal work, raise the minimum wage. we were doing that on the steps of the capitol and in the capitol buildings, the republicans were launching their lawsuit against the president. what could be more different in terms of addressing the needs f the american people? we made the point this was all happening on the same day, but the fact is that difference of focusing on progress and job creation and process and do

nothing is what we live through here every single day, and today is another one of those days on the floor of the house. so let us recognize what this s. erious, serious on a path to nowhere or maybe among some of your ranks a path to impeachment. but if we want to talk about the lawsuit, it behooves the speaker of the house to say impeachment is off the table. i hope we can hear that soon and then we can see what the merits of this case are. it has no standing. it has no merit. it has a political basis and let the american people judge it for what it is. if you don't want to hear

people use impeachment, as your people have done, then tell them impeachment is off the table. that's what i had to do. that's what the speaker should do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves? mr. nugent: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. managers of this legislation, unemployment, the deficit, outsourcing, higher education, immigration, tax reform, gun control, medicare, social security, transportation, a continuing resolution, the kraine, syria, nigeria, libya, israel, iran, instead about alking about any one of these,

-- talk about suing the president for implementing a policy that the majority supports. go figure. what a colossal waste of time. what a colossal waste of taxpayer money. we know why the majority's focusing on this instead of trying to solve the country's problems. it's because they have no solutions. we haven't heard any unless you're keeping them in a secret black box. their only goal is indulge the partisan impulses within your own party. 57% of whom want to impeach president obama. the house of representatives is apparently taking its marching orders from sarah palin. good for us. the fact of the matter is that the american people are tired

of the relentless partisanship that has led to congress having a lower approval rating than head lice. our constituents want us to solve problems. that's one of the reasons we get paid. our colleagues in the senate today are voting on legislation i put forth to end tax breaks. we couldn't even get a hearing on this side of the building. these are the kind of -- kinds of commonsense solutions. i want to read something, mr. speaker, if i can get 20 more seconds. ms. slaughter: i'll yield the gentleman 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: if you don't know where this came from, that's part of the problem. let it resound loud as the rolling sea. sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us. sing a song full of the hope that the president has brought us facing a rising sun of our

new day begun, let us march on for victory is won. your problem is, most of you don't even know where it came from. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would remind all members of the house an essential decorum of the house. members are to direct their remarks to the chair and not to people in the second person. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and if the gentleman is ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. slaughter: thank you. i ask why did the majority shut off all amendments to this resolution and more importantly, why have they even blocked a traditional motion to recommit? that's something that we

generally always give to the minority on both sides of the aisle, a motion to recommit. now, i think the reason is -- you know, being somewhat cynical, and i'll admit to that after what we've been through here, the senate says they don't want us to have a motion to recommit because our side might bring up a motion, which will be our privileged to do, that might put the republican members on record on impeachment. now, i don't know that. we got no answer as to why we were not given the privilege of the motion to recommit. but there's one thing we do know. we know this lawsuit is going to cost unknown millions and will be an unconscionable waste. we know that that cost is going to come out of programs that have already suffered grievous cuts over the last few years and on whom people oftentimes depend for their very lives. we know it is pure partisan

because the democrats were never consulted at any point on this issue, and we know it's flawed because experts have told us there is no way in the world that the house of representatives has any standing on this issue and that a good federal judge will send it back to us almost immediate he. we know it is a distraction, and we know what it distracts us from are the serious, serious issues that all of us hear about every day from our own constituencies. do you think anybody ever calls me up and says, why don't we impeach the president, or go after the president because it's raining today and it surely is his fault? no, we don't hear that. i hear about, i'm having a hard time getting a job. i need to help pay for my child's education. i hear a lot of times, my daughter's unemployment benefits have run out. she's facing eviction.

i don't know what i'm going to do. i hear people who talk about the children who have come to this country, many of them unaccompanied, by themselves in an absolutely inhumane wave of human suffering that we need to pay attention to. i know out there today we had floods in my part of the area of the country in upstate new york that have devastated the entire water projects and sewer projects and something needs to be done, but we won't do that. so mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no, to defeat the previous question and please vote no on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. this is one of the most important issues that has ever faced any of our time in congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i appreciate you recognizing me. you know, we've heard a lot here today. a lot of it i don't know exactly where they're coming from, but we've heard a lot of things today. you know, democrats like to believe -- or like the american

people to believe or go to that narrative that congress has not done its job. you have to remember that the house of representatives is one half of that. the senate is the other half. if you think about it, we've sent 40 jobs -- 40 jobs bills over to the senate where they're gathering dust, they're gathering dust on speaker reid's -- leader reid's desk. we've passed seven of the 12 appropriation bills here in the house. senate, zero. we've passed important tax legislation to ensure our economy continues to grow and the companies continue to hire. we'll be voting today on a veterans' package to help our veterans and tomorrow for the second time we'll consider a bill as it relates to the highway trust fund. so perhaps the republicans in

the house are getting their job done with support of members on the other side of the aisle. how many bipartisan bills are sitting there in the senate just languishing away because there's a decision made just not to move anything forward from the house? that's unfortunate because that hurts the american people. mr. speaker, we hear a lot of things that are supposedly what we want to do, but here's what i believe we are trying to do today. it's about defense of the constitution. it's pure and simple about the protection that is guaranteed by the constitution to the two houses in the legislative branch and to the president of the united states in the executive branch and to the judiciary in that separation of power is within the constitution. that's what we're fighting for. forget about all this other

stuff that has been thrown up as a smokescreen. we're fighting to defend the constitution, and people say, well, you know, it could cost money. well, thank goodness, thank god that our founding fathers didn't say, you know what, it's -- it could cost our lives. they didn't make that decision. what they said, it's important for the future of this country that we live by the constitution, that we design a constitution that will endure for in the future. mr. speaker, i suggest to you this constitution has endured and has provided the guidance for this country to move forward every day. it's not by happenstance. it's the fact that we're supposed to live by and defend the constitution. mr. speaker, you know, a sheriff -- when i was a deputy sheriff, you know, if we said, you know what, i don't -- i don't agree with the free

speech portion of the constitution, we'd stopped free speech. i had to defend people and stand there and put my body in front of people that were opposed to what the people behind me were saying, that were repugnant to us and to most americans, but i had to put my safety at risk for their free speech. i could have said, you know what, i don't agree with that. it's just part of the constitution that lets us have free speech. we didn't rewrite the law. we didn't rewrite it. you know, yesterday -- or the day before, i'm not sure which day it was, but in the rules committee we heard an impassioned description from mr. webster of florida who was the speaker of the house in florida who was sued by the governor in regards to the implementation of law. and guess what, that body won.

and thank goodness that, you know, the house won in the supreme court of florida. and they didn't say, you don't have standing so forget about that. you know, a lot of people are trying to presuppose what the supreme court's going to say or do. i would suggest to you that i'm willing to go along with whatever the supreme court says. now, i may not like it, but i'm willing to go along it because i do believe they are the arbitrators, the ultimate arbitrators as to what is constitutional and what isn't. you know, it's amazing that this document that we're talking about that there's a question about it, that there's a question about the separation of power. and i'd like to read a quote from then-senator barack obama and the quote is this -- we've got a government that was

designed by the founders with checks and balances. you don't want a president that's too powerful, a congress that's too powerful or a court that's too powerful. everybody's got their own role. congress' job is to pass legislation. the president can veto it or sign it, but what george bush has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, he's been saying, well, i can basically change what congress passed without attaching -- by attaching a letter saying i tonight agree with this part or that. i'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way. it's not part of his power, but it's part of the whole theory of george bush that he can make laws as he goes along. i disagree with that. once again, quoting then-senator obama. senator obama says, i taught the constitution for 10 years. i