u.s. >> inc. many americans understand this. i know when my constituents -- when they were searching around for information on the internet and said we can't find anything about this connection. >> thank you. >> i'm sensitive to the tremendous responsibility that we must be out of this room but i felt it's very important that as you well know, the bill is going to put these children to the border patrol and straight to the court within seven days. let me say the light that has been put on the board of patrol agents, the training is what they need and the facilities are what they need and i think we are going to make a difference and would you just say what

owing to happen when this seven day time frame and any challenges we are dealing with, what's going to happen? thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. ask the children are going to be unprepared for the legal government they will be pushed through. many are eligible to stay and with proper counsel would succeed in their claim. and shippedenied home to face the violence they fled quite simply. >> and we will not be a nation of mercy. >> and it will be remembered. >> let me think the panelists and those of us here, representing the border community, this has been particularly effective in texas to provide some balance to this whole issue. i appreciate that. making sure due process

continues to be the core of what this law is. thepoint was made about american people not getting it by think the american people are getting it. it's not a simple political tovenience where we expedite provide the political coverage or explore situations for itctoral purpose will stop fundamentally about us as americans, fundamentally about our way of life, our tradition, and are now use. i appreciate you reminding us of that as a group and as a people and whatever audience we have, thank you. to the kids who were here today, i think no more powerful statement can be made about this need to puthink you a face to the reality and i'm so

glad we are here. so that we don't talk about these children and abstract forms and continue to demonize them and marginalize them without them having a voice. they had a voice today and i thought it was a very powerful. with that, let me conclude the meeting and thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] immigration in a moment, but first, in ohio, half a million people are without drinking water after a toxin was discovered believed to become -- believed to have come from algae nearby lake eerie. samples are currently being tested by the epa. if you tweet on the ohio delegation -- several members of congress from ohio sending out a photo from the ohio attorney

general showing people loading cases of water into their cars. great to see so many ohioans helping out with water for toledo. mena democratic congress tweeting people in toledo are showing great calm in this emergency. check on the seniors you know. we will keep you up aided on the situation as it is made available. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs offense for washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of public industry. we are c-span. brought to you by a public service by local cable and satellite provider.

>> before going on recess for five weeks, house passed two pieces of border legislation. one measure, nearly $700 million bill to secure the border and another to make changes in the process of deporting children. those bills go to the senate that are not on the agenda for when the senate returns will stop we will be taking your calls in about 40 minutes, but first we will look at the debate on the house floor. >> thank you. i think the gentlewoman for yielding. the time is he a -- the time is late, the causes great. so we canve clarity understand what is before us. today, we have an opportunity to work together to address the humanitarian emergency at the border. instead it's a day of missed opportunity. the republicans and leadership has rejected our hand of friendship to compromise on the supplemental. instead of bringing legislation

forward that could solve this problem really and truly, it has resisted the appeals of military and and religious leaders across we aretes will stop called upon to ensure our response strengthens our tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable will stop this legislation we have before us does not do that. it is wrong. but don't take my word for it. the u.s. conference of catholic opposeurges members to and come together to craft legislation that is more befitting of the united states and the american people's history of compassion and generosity to vulnerable children and refugees. refugees. the archbishop of miami, speaking on their behalf, has said, of this legislation the two pieces of legislation before us, this is a sad day

for our country, the archbishop wrote. a chamber of congress is poised to send vulnerable children back to danger and possible death. it violates our commitment to human rights and due process of the law and lessens us as a nation. that's what the archbishop said. in their letter, the bishops further state their opposition to h.r. 5232 and say that it stems from its elimination of the deferred action for children's arrivals program. otherwise known as daca. in conclusion, the bishop's right, how our nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a moral test of our national character. we ask that you oppose h.r. 5230, and 5232 which we feel ail to live up to that test. others such as the american bar

association writes, due to their age, lack of education, language, and cultural barriers, and the complex it of u.s. immigration law -- complexity of u.s. immigration law, they face obstacles to face an immigration judge on their own. it is the children most likely to be eligible for some relief under the law who may least be able to articulate their experiences under this proposed procedure. they have been through a lot of trauma and we want to add to that. yet this has not been enough to stem what the house republicans have -- the path they are going down. to further poison the pie, they offer their caucus the chance to even be less compassionate in their vote to end daca and to deport the creamers -- dreamers. it's not enough for republicans to send desperate children back to violence in their home

countries. they must also vote to deport the best young immigrants and brightest in our schools. vote to send victims of domestic violence back to their abusers. vote to hand witnesses back to drug lords. vote to remove the parents of american children. these pieces of legislation dishonor america. they are a rejection of our values. but don't take it from me. take it from the bishops, the evangelical table, and others. they count -- they one run counter to the respect for the spark ofdy vinity that we believe exists in every person. the respect for the dignity and worth of every person that we share. that these pieces of legislation ignore. house republicans have truly lost their way. i certainly hope that you will consider rereading the paraable

of the good smare -- the parable of the good samaritan who helps a stranger. he did not ignore or harm a stranger he saw on the road. perhaps that may be a path back for you. i pray that it's so. mr. speaker, i want to submit for the record the letter of the bishop the evangelical table and the list of hundreds of organizations, faith-based and due process oriented who oppose these piece of legislation. i urbling my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for his dedication and hard work to finding a solution to a problem that none of us created here in this chamber.

and i rise today in strong support of this supplemental appropriations bill for the crisis that's going on on our border. i'm very proud of our conference this week, seeking input and solutions from members, taking the time to make sure that this legislation deals with the problem and crafting this legislation to make sure that there's no loopholes and that we deal with the specifics and we actually put a bill on the floor that should be supported. mr. speaker, the obama administration has ignored the law and unilateralliest tablied immigration policy without the consent or the counsel of congress. so unfortunately, the humanitarian crisis on our nation's southern border is a result of the lack of leadership. to solve this problem, this

legislation today, the legislation that's here, that we're debating, provides critical funding for the national guard on those states that are seeing an influx. it also authorizes additional judges to hear the increasing case load that they're seeing grow and grow more and more every day. it also makes important reforms to current law to ensure equal and timely due process for all of those unaccompanied fires. mr. speaker, common sense doesn't often prevail here in washington but i can tell you that common sense hoosiers in my district, they understand that first of all, our border needs to be secure. so that our immigration system can then be reformed. and you know, we are a nation of immigrants. we have all -- we all have a

history in our family of those who have -- taken oh this -- taken the effort, made the effort to come to this great country and legal immigrants are looking for those opportunities that they've dreamed of. i thank chairman rogers for his work and encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. marino: i sat here quietly, listening to the arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i find it absolutely amazing that they say because the president would not sign this bill, and because the senate would not pass this bill, they're right, the senate wouldn't pass it. there are hundreds of bills on harry reid's desk he would not bring to the floor for a vote

and certainly the president would not encourage that to be done. but we are doing our job here in the house. we put a lot of time and effort in this. we looked at this law and we realize what had had to be done. i come from a law and order background and we don't have law and order. we have distrust, we have gangs coming across, we have drugs coming across the southern border and my colleagues on the other side don't want to do anything about it. you know something that i find quite interesting about the other side, under the leadership of the former speaker, and under the leadership of their former leader, when in 2009 and 2010, they had the house, the senate, and the white house, and they knew this problem existed, they didn't have the strength to go after it back then, but now they're trying to make a political issue out of it now. what we need to do is pass this legislation, make sure these

children get back to their families, and we need the line -- we need to line up and protect this boarder from people coming across. i did the research. you might want to try it, madam leader. do the research on it. do the research, i did it. that's one thing you don't do the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will address his comments to the speaker. the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: i urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation because apparently i hit the right nerve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, adam smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute.

the gentleman from washington the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman from washington will be recognized. recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i rise in opposition to thillbnd also the bill that will follow. we have a humanitarian crisis -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members will take their seats. remove their conversations from the house floor. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. smith: we have a humanitarian crisis on the border in our country. not this bill nor the next bill on daca does anything to address it. these children are fleeing unimaginable violence, fleing a life they can no longer bear. it's not a problem of border security. these children are turning themselves in. they are simply fleeing the violence in their home countries. and they're not just coming to the united states. belize and coast -- and costa rica and other countries have seen an uptick from guatemala, el sal vacor and honduras because of violence there. instead of dealing with this, we have a bill that's hopelessly inadequate in terms of fund, we will not provide enough judges and enough funding to give these children the due process they deserve. worse than that, we're stripping them of any rights and any protections by sending them back as wick i -- as quickly as possible without the due process this house voted for in 2008, signed by president bush that gave these children the due process they

deserve, and then we're going one step further, to undermine the ability to have children who were brought into this country, through no fault of their own, the dreamers that we have long supported, and we are tell toing them that now they won't be allowed to stay in this country. this is a humanitarian crisis, not a border security issue. i urge us to vote down both of these piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the chairman of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mr. rogers: the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. it's been discussed throughout the debate this afternoon and this theavepk we do face an unprecedented humanitarian emergency with literally thousands of unaccompanied alien children crossing our southwest border monthly. a number that has more than doubled since the last year.

it's been said by some that it's due to president obama's mixed messages and administration's unwillingness to enforce the law, but regardless of what the reason is, we have a crisis that is growing. the bill that's before us this evening represents a simple, measured approach to the crisis at the border. it is not comprehensive immigration reform. rather it focuses on fixing the issues within the context of the law. issues that have fueled the influx of these children. it also streamlines the process to ensure that those who are not eligible for asylum are quickly and safely repatriated to their families. while at the same time, it adds protection to make sure that children who have been trafficked are generally in need of asylum, get that protection they need. like many of my colleagues, i appreciate the leadership's willingness to listen and address these matters in this bill before us, and i think we've all come together and

done a great job to craft this legislation. i believe this now provides the necessary and appropriate language needed to move forward and address the crisis we are seeing. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the jerusalem from new york is recognized. -- the gentlewoman from new ork is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. king: i want to first thank all the people who work sod hard to put this language together. it makes me feel good to see the team that's done system of but i think there's a misunderstanding as to what happened with how we got to this o.t.m. language, wilber forest language that's current law -- wilber force language

that's current law -- wilberforce language that's curn law that we're seeking to change. there was a law in 2007 called wilberforce. it had two provisions. one is if you violated federal law you were exempt from the provisions that would have been beneficial to an unaccompanied child and the other was if you were a threat to national security. those provisions were taken out, a new bill introdunesd december 9, 2008. the next day was the last day of the session. we all put up our last votes, we left the capitol and headed for the airport, there was a unanimous consent request that was called -- they tchailed bill up, asked unanimous consent to discharge it from committee, called the bill up, passed it voice here on the house, sent it over to the senate where they took the lateral, they passed it by voice to the president of the united states. no republican voted for this bill. this is a bill that is the foundational excuse for the president and this is what we're trying to fix here tonight and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, as we close this debate, i'd like to address my remarks to our distinguished chairman with whom i have worked for quite a while and just once again i would like to say, this bill deserves a no vote and i look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way to pass a real , comprehensive immigration reform bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, this is a fair bill. it solves a crisis on our border. it does so in a financially safe way, responsible way. it strengthens the border.

it humanely treats those who are in our custody now. and arranges for them to be humanely returned to their home families, where the presidents of the three countries told us, we want these children back. and so this bill will do that. gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mitts backman: thank you -- mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. i also thank mrs. blackburn who is responsible for this bill this evening and i wholeheartedly support, and this is why. last weekend i think the nation was stunned when our president said that he would unilaterally use his power, raw power, to effectively grant amnesty to five million to six million foreign nationals here in the united states illegally. he said that he would do that with his power. and what happened this week is that this body came together and we decided to answer the president's unconstitutional

call. so this bill effectively, this daca bill, we'll put forward the strongest possible legislative response that this body could put forward. we say in this bill that the president has no power, no authority administratively to grant permits which would effectively grant amnesty to five million to six million foreign nationals illegally in the united states. in other words, mr. speaker, we will put a handcuff on one of the president's hands. -- we need to have mr. goodlatte: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional one minute. mrs. bachmann: now in the united states senate, the majority leader harry reid left town. he's left town. not only did he fail to complete an immigration bill, but he knows full well that president obama may illegally grant amnesty to five million to six million foreign

nationals illegally in the united states. without doing anything. what harry reid has the opportunity to do is come back and join us. we'll be here any time, any day, anywhere, any how. we'll join him here in august, september, whenever. he needs to put the other hang cuff on this lawless president's hands. so that we can strain this president from granting amnesty. that's what the american people want us to do. we do that tonight with this bill. we invite harry reid to bring the senate back and put the handcuff on the president's other hand so we can have sovereignty again on our southern border. and i yield back to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the chair wishes to remind members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. he gentleman from the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan controls the time. mr. conyers: i yield to the gentleman.

mr. cicilline: is it not a fact we are here because the republicans oppose this legislation in the senate and not sufficient votes to move the bill, and that's why we are here. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. mr. conyers: i reserve. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i'm one of those who come from the state of texas and like many in this house, i have been down in the texas-mexico border. you have to be there to know what's going on. i went up and down the river with law enforcement officers from the state of texas and we see the people on the mexican side and the mexican government

is complicit waiting for us to pass and they start coming across. and the other side talks about it being one group of people, children. that's not true. because the people that are being apprehended are not just children, a lot of them are teenagers, a lot of them are older. there were 144 nations that came across the border this year, represented. this week before i got there, ukranians. hree why is everybody coming to america through south texas? because they believe where they start out, whether kids in honduras, or terrorists, ukranians or someone else, they believe this president, this administration says, you get to america, we are going to let you

stay. we have all kinds of different kinds of legal reasons, but the bottom line is you will stay in america and america will stay in america. and the reason they believe that is because the rule of law is not being enforced. third-world countries protect their borders better. and who is benefiting? not the kids. many of them are dying and getting hurt. it's not america. who is benefiting? it's the drug cartels, criminal gangs, ms-13 gangs. they are making money off the rule of law. the gentleman is recognized is. mr. poe: the rule of law is not recognized and that's all we are asking,.

people all over the world who want to come to america, let them know there is a right way to come. and the wrong way is -- they shouldn't believe that you get here, you are going to stay here because the administration is not going to enforce the law. that's why we have the chaos and the 50,000 to 60,000 people crossing in texas. all we are trying to do is get law.to enforce the rule of let's treat them all the same way. and that's why i support the legislation. the rule of law is going to be enforced. i yield to the chairman. mr. goodlatte: i make the added point and i yield to the gentleman. i yield the gentleman an

additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. goodlatte glat 50,000 naccompanied minors, all categories are up, children are up most, but all categories are up and 85% are not unaccompanied minors. the gentleman makes a point about the crisis. the president caused it and the president should act now and america is not open to people who violate our laws. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. ms. jackson lee: parliamentary inquiry as to the bill that is on the floor is not the bill dealing with daca for five years, graduated from high school going to college and

working and actuality, is not dealing with the unaccompanied children, but is it not true this that this bill will not be passed in the senate and we are passing a bill that has no future? the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. mr. conyers: we are ready to close on this side. mr. goodlatte: i only have one speaker remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from. -- michigan. mr. conyers: i recognize gentlelady california to close e remainder of our time, representative lofgren. ms. lofgren: some members have asked whether this bill

terminates deferred action for dreamers with daca, this question was put to chairman goodlatte today at the rules ki nd he answered that the text speaks for itself. he is right. 527, on page 1, the text terminates daca by prohibiting dreamers. it also prevents future deferred action which we continue to deport the parents of the dreamers and parents of u.s. children sending those children into foster care or prevent dreamers who have not yet filed for deferred action. so bavelly, this bill will have the effect of removing daca from

the dreamers and making them deportable. the role that daca has had and i would like to ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to put into the record a report from the cato institute, titled, daca did not cause the surge in unaccompanied children." you can see ith is impossible that daca has been the cause of these children coming from the the war-torn countries as report reports. now we know that this bill would alimb limb nature daca and the bill also returns to our bitter two-year fight about re-authorization against the women against violence act. it took three years to

re-authorize at the beginning of this congress and when we did it, we did it over the strong opposition. today's bill undermines the baveng of basic premise, that victims should be empowered to lead their abusers and denying and ility of abusers self-pronings for a visa to work for the months to take. this one change will prevent their ss spouses for abusers. we have heard a lot of discussion about the law. but i think it's important to recall that the ability to make prosecutorial decisions is well-grounded in the law. in fact in 1999, i recall the

letter sent by then chairman henry hyde signed by congress to the clinton administration. and the supreme court comm in the arizona case recognized the broad authority of the administration to make decisions about whom to prosecute. the arizona case reafffirmed the legality. so all this discussion to the contrary is nothing more than legal nonsense. and ports the dreamers reinvigorates the republican war on women and back to their abusers. this is bad policy. it's an outrageous bill. it's being done in the worst

possible process. and i wish so much that the republicans had reached out, taken the offer of our leaders to sit down and work together and come up with a solution that really works for our country instead of deporting the dreamers that are are the hope and inspiration of our nation and with that, i yield back. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: daca is more than just more of mr.al discretion, it creates benefits that are not created under the law. it is my pleasure to yield to the the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: i thank you, mr. chairman. and i rise in support of my

amendment to prevent the expansion of the deferred action for childhood aprifles program that was indeed ununlawfully put in place on august 15, 2012. what this amendment does is to return us to the original language of h.r. 5160. plus it strengthens that original language by looking beyond july 30 and what it will do is to tie the president's hands as to future executive actions that he might ack to expand amnesty. it would freeze daca. now i want to read the bill because it's not a lengthy bill and beginning on-line one, section one, restrictions on employment authorization for aliens not in lawful states.

no agency or instrument atlanta of the federal government may use federal funding or resources after july 30, 2014, one, to consider or adjudicate any denied application of any alien requesting consideration as authorized by the executive memo dated june 15, 2012 and effective on august 15, 2012 or by my member rund umh or policy. and number two, to newly authorized deferred action for any class of aliens not lawfully present in the united states. and number three to authorize any alien to work in the u.s. if such alien was not lawfully admitted into thes with the i will gracious and nationality is not act, u.s.c. 1101,

in lawful status on the date. that is it. that is what is in this piece of legislation. what it does, in effect, is to give central american children a false hope. it says they are going to be able to obtain amnesty as those have done before in this program. and the reason we are so concerned about this and the reason my colleagues have come and talked about their concern, what is happening is you have the fraskers, you have the ky oath yose who are preying on these innocent people and they believe if these children can ake it here, they will get help. certainly we care about these

families. we know this these countries want to get their children back and reunite them with their families in their home country. now, mr. speaker, what we are hearing is that the administration would like to expand daca. we have heard that the president has instructed secretary johnson and general holder to come up action. ons to address the percentages of increases cannot be denied. we see what is happening on this border. mr. poe talked about what he has seen happening with those families. and true to form, just as governor perry warned us, that this was going to happen, indeed it is.

we are seeing this unprecedented increase going back to 2009, looking at where we are today, with the children, with the kings, with the adults that are streaming across this border and disrupting life along the uthern border for american families. . one other point. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. the gentlelady deserves to be heard. the gentlelady may proceed. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. we talked a little bit about the constitution tonight. and indeed we all know that when you look at the constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 4, that is

where those enumerated powers are given to congress. they are given to congress. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. proceedings in the house will not continue until the house is n order. those members who prefer to have conversations, if you would respectfully remove those onversations from the floor. the gentlelady may continue. mrs. blackburn: i thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, article 1, section 8, clause 4, the powers are given to congress to establish, 'm quoting the constitution, a uniform, a uniform rule of naturalization.

questions remain about what president obama might do using his executive power. let's look at what he had to say on friday. >> republicans are trying to pass the most unworkable versions of the bill that they are the know is going nowhere. were to pass the senate i were to be there. they are not even trying to solve the problem. this is a bill that they could not pull off yesterday.

this was an issue that they had to put as a top priority. they're trying to come to our country. without additional resources, we're not going to have the resources we need to fully solve the problem. while they are out on vacation i'm going to have to make some choices to meet the challenges with or without congress. yesterday even though they have been sitting on it i partisan immigration bill for over a year, republicans suggested since they do not expect to pass the hills that i should go ahead. keep in mind, a few days earlier they voted to sue me for acting

on my own. if it put out a statement suggesting i should act on my own because they couldn't pass the bill. immigration has not gotten done. they consolidate and refinance at lower rates. that did not pass. even improving diplomats are critical. purely localr reasons the republicans blocked our new ambassador to russia.

let them ahead and passes. we are doing every day with the crisis in ukraine. >> hearing from the president and the house just now we're going to take your calls from south carolina. what are your thoughts? what can the president do? what about congress? unknown to surely. >> i did not call in as a republican. i called in as a independent. i did vote for the president. he brought up a number of these. he should not be here.

what to think specifically about immigration policy? i do believe we have a law that is already in place for immigrants that are currently in the country. two adults that are trying to pass the borders. i'm educating them. they will not be allowed to come into this country unless they take the right courses. i just cannot go here without doing so. >> sorry to cut you off and we're going to david.

how should the u.s. address immigration policy? you for taking my call. i'm not a democrat or republican. with come to a crossroads where we have both the senate and congress walking on egg shells because they do not want to mess up their condition jobs and standing up and saying enough is enough. they know the u.s. is open arms. behalf of them way back when. our country is going down the tube. you go back on the land in the 6000 and to do it the

proper way. of the jobdvantage opportunities. the feature here has no future. >> lisicki look at an arco cool from the associated press. let's see what he does not have the power to do. he can give them official work permits which would allow them to get jobs in the league and the u s. cannot give them permission to work permanently in the u.s.. onto another call this is david. what do you think the u.s.

should be doing? we are supporting them. they bring in all sorts of diseases. welfare, obamacare, we are the ones paying the bill. mexicans have been here over 20 years. they don't want citizenship. read babies. free everything. how about our elderly people? >> what do you want to see happen? >> for them to get departed back. a friend of mine is mexican. head to go5,000 per

in the front door the right way. >> ag is in st. peter's were florida. what are your odds? >> are you there? i think you need to turn down your tv. their ego. you go. >> i came to this country 40 years ago. i knew the requirements were very strict. what i don't understand is why the country is taking this burden. people will get hurt. i work in social services. later when they become legal, they bring their parent.

>> what about your experience? how did she enter the u.s.? >> i came as a student. i was a student. i was never a burden to the country. i had a middle income. children when they are committed london, theyin have a right to choose these. look.'s take a

this is the deferred action for childhood reaction. more than 600,000 will have paid for this deportation. this covers people under the age of 31. some action tog provide $700 million to secure the border. a lot of that is not fixed acted to pass the prednisone see. taking your call about what we should be doing about the situation. >> i am a professional health care provider that was laid out due to the changes. knowld like everyone to that we have always taken care

of these payments. this is nothing new. all this does is cost the taxpayer. people should come here easily. is no free pass. there sick and tired of game violence in arizona. we are sick of the harassment by the federal government. the onident only studies situation in order to circumvent this. with theirren along parents. they should all be sent back. let's take a look at some ideas from the republican side of the aisle.

senator marco rubio talks about what might happen here on out. was knew how difficult it lyrically. iran or office to make this. believe this is when the company needs to solve for the good of america. this is not my job. i did not get elected to maintain good old numbers. as far as what to do about immigration -- >> if it is not political with ou-- >> that is not what you are saying. we're talking about two separate things. we are not talking about what to do. i just outlined to you what to do. things.to do those and then adjust the people that are here.

we are not debating what to do. we are debating how to do it. we will never have the votes necessary to pass one bill. it will not happen. our choices are we can either continue to beat our head against the wall or we can try another way and perhaps we can make progress. and trying to figure out a different way of doing it or we can actually achieve -- achieve it. >> michael is on the line for democrats. what are your thoughts. >> i am so sick and tired of all these evil coming to the borders. president obama needs to be in each.

he is not. >> nancy is on the line. what are your thoughts? what my idea is to send them all back. it is choking us. they have to spend more taxes. a lot of these have been ignored. i do not care if they came 40 years ago. if they spent time here legally they should go home. can president obama order immigration all by himself? on facebook he right president obama is just trying to help some kids. republicans are saying no.

rob is on the line from kansas. go ahead. all, i am a victim of indigo alien crime. this hit home to me. there are so many old like me. policies should serve the public. what we see are employers hiring aliens because they are cheap. they are encouraging further illegal immigration. .e need to reconsider illegally youre

child is also illegal. we need other reforms so that this is where our money goes. we need to do a lot. the first inkling to we should turn the border as we send them home. we will have the phone lines open tomorrow during washington journal. >> now we will look at the cia. here is some of the diane feinstein's. love there the of was a move to reserve and protect this in the committee's own secure spaces.

revocation was handled in a matter consistent with the classification. prevents the revocation of a document from the cia facility to secure committee offices on capitol hill. the document was handled and trends for did in a manner consistent with the classification. it remains secure with the restrict the access and committee spaces. now the generally 15th 2014 meeting with director john brennan. in writing that they provide a complete version of the internal review. partialed to the

document they currently possess. december senator markey udall a code this request. 2014 the ciaary informed the committee it would not provide the internal review. committee, citing the deliberative nature of the document. shortly thereafter, on january 15, 2014, c.i.a. director brennan requested an emergency meeting to inform me and vice chairman chambliss that without prior notification or approval, c.i.a. personnel had conducted a search -- that was john brennan's word -- of the committee computers at the offcite facility. -- offsite facility.

this search was not only of documents provided by the committee by the c.i.a. but also a search of the stand-alone and walled-off committee network drive containing the committee's own internal work product and communications. according to brennan, the computer search was conducted in response to indications that some members of the committee staff might already have had access to the internal panetta review. the c.i.a. did not ask the committee or its staff if the committee had access to the internal review or how we obtained it. instead, the c.i.a. just went and searched the committee's computers. the c.i.a. has still not asked the committee any questions about how the committee acquired the panetta review. in place of asking any questions, the c.i.a.'s

unauthorized search of the committee computers was followed by an allegation which we now have seen repeated anonymously in the press, that the committee staff had somehow obtained the document through unauthorized or criminal means, perhaps to include hacking into the c.i.a.'s computer network. as i have described, this is not true. the document was made available to the staff at the offsite facility and it was located using a c.i.a.-provided search tool, running a query of the information provided to the committee pursuant to its investigation. director brennan stated that the c.i.a.'s search had determined that the committee staff had copies of the internal panetta review on the committee staff's

shared drive and had accessed them numerous times. he indicated at the meeting that he was going to order further forensic investigation of the committee network to learn more about activities of the committee's oversight staff. two days after the meeting, on january 17, i wrote a letter to director brennan objecting to any further c.i.a. investigation due to the separation of powers constitutional issues that the search raised. i followed this with a second letter on january 23 to the director asking 12 specific questions about the c.i.a.'s actions, questions that the c.i.a. has refused to answer. some of the questions in my letter related to the full scope of the c.i.a.'s search of our computer network.

other questions related to who had authorized and conducted the search, and what legal basis the c.i.a. claimed gave it authority to conduct the search. again, the c.i.a. has not provided answers to any of my questions. my letter also laid out my concern about the legal and constitutional implications of the c.i.a.'s actions. based on what director brennan has informed us, i have grave concerns that the c.i.a.'s search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the united states constitution, including the speech and debate clause. it may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function. i have asked for an apology,

and a recognition that this c.i.a. search of computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. i have received neither. besides the constitutional implications, the c.i.a. search may also have violated the fourth amendment, the computer fraud and abuse act, as well as executive order 123 3 which 3reub9s the c.i.a. from conducting domestic surveillance. days after meeting with director brennan, the c.i.a. inspector general, david buckley, learned of the c.i.a. search and began an investigation into c.i.a.'s activities. i have been informed that mr. buckley has referred the matter to the department of justice, given the possibility of a criminal violation by c.i.a. personnel. let me note, because the c.i.a.

has refused to answer the questions in my january 23 letter and the c.i.a. inspector general is ongoing, i have limited information about exactly what the c.i.a. did in conducting its search. weeks later, i was also told that after the inspector general reviewed the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice --, excuse me, referred the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice, the acting counsel general of the c.i.a. filed a crimes report with the department of justice concerning the committee staff's actions. i have not been provided the specifics of these allegations or been told whether the department has initiated a criminal investigation based on

the allegations of the c.i.a.'s acting general counsel. as i mentioned before, our staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handled the sensitive material according to established procedures and practice to protect classified information, and were provided access to the panetta review by the c.i.a. itself. as a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the justice department that senate staff may have committed a crime. i view the acting counsel general's referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and i am not taking it lightly. i should note that for most, if not all of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program, the now acting general

counsel was a lawyer in the c.i.a.'s counterterrorism center. the unit within which the c.i.a. managed and carried out this program. from mid 2004 until the official termination of the detention and interrogation program in january, 2009, he was the unit's chief lawyer. he is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study. and now this individual is sending a crimes report to the department of justice on the actions of congressional staff, the same congressional staff who were searched and drafted a report -- researched and drafted a report which details how c.i.a. officers including the acting general counsel himself provided inaccurate information to the department of justice about the program. mr. president, let me say this -- all senators rely on their staff to be their eyes and

ears and to carry out our duties. the staff members of the intelligence committee are dedicated professionals who are motivated to do what is best for our nation. the staff members sho have been working on this study and this report have devoted years of their lives to it, wading through the horrible details of the c.i.a. program that never, never, never should have existed. they have worked long hours and produced a report unprecedented in its comprehensive attention to detail in the history of the senate. they are now being threatened with legal jeopardy just as the final revisions to the report are being made so that parts of it can be declassified and released to the american people. mr. president, i felt that i needed to come to the floor today to correct the public record and to give the american

people the facts about what the dedicated committee staff have been working so hard for the last several years as part of the committee's investigation. i also want to reiterate to my colleagues my desire to have all updates to the committee report completed this month and approved for declassification. we're not going to stop. i intend to move to have the findings conclusions and the executive summary of the report sent to the president for declassification and release this is a distorted recounting of the event. i encourage everyone to read the

minority views and decide for themselves here the final report is expected in coming weeks. >> american artifacts on american history television. reveals a classified document about the target vietnam. they passed a revolution, getting him run powers to wage wars. >> watch more american history television while congress is in recess. american history television on c-span3. from washington journal, davis is 45 minutes. .www.c-span.org

joining us now is lisa curtis with the heritage foundation. ,he is a senior research fellow good morning. caller: good morning. highlighted in the papers about the presidential election in afghanistan. the headline this morning is there is in on it being delayed. for those who may not be following, talk about the election and the problems we are staying with them. guest: we're at a critical point in afghanistan. after a relatively successful first round of elections in april, now we face a crisis situation where the second round -- the candidates are not accepting the results. what happened in april, we had a relatively high turnout of the population for the vote. but no one candidate crossed the 50% mark. one of the candidates, dr. abdullah, got about 40% of the vote.

another candidate got about 32% of the vote. in the second round of elections, which were held on rgani went from getting 32% of the vote to getting 36% and abdullah got about 36%. bdullah called foul, saying there were corruptions with the second round of elections and did not accept the results. there were fears that he would try to establish a parallel government, which would cause chaos in the country. so, secretary kerry stepped in and went to the country on july 12, brokered what looked like a solution to the problem, by getting both candidates to agree to a recount.

they are now in the process of recounting 8 million ballots. 24,000 ballots -- host: these are paper ballots? guest: yes. and with the u.n. involved. the problem is, they still have not agreed on the terms of that process. we still had news this morning llah did notabdua show up to the recounting process. they are now going over the details about a couple ballots being found not valid. does the whole box get thrown out? they have not agreed on the terms. we are still in a crisis situation in that country. the hope is that both of those candidates, they both understand democracy, they both have a lot of exposure to the west. resolving this crisis is important for

countries. if they don't resolve it -- we're likely to see the resumption of civil war. the hope is that they understand that and that we will see some coming together of the mines in the next few days. host: what about president karzai? has he weighed in on this or offered something as far as the election is concerned? guest: dr. abdullah claims that the other candidate is working with karzai's people and the election committee people, that they committed this fraud together. he is alleging that karzai is part of this whole problem. karzai, himself, has taken a backseat role. he has allowed the u.n. to play a role in this recount. he has kept a low profile. he would like to see this draw out. were supposed to have a new president named yesterday. of course, that did not happen.

a lot of people think he is just playing this out. host: lisa curtis -- the situation in afghanistan, how do we view what is going on in the u.s.? what does this mean for them to have a new president, especially when it comes to policy efforts with troops pulling out of afghanistan? guest: it is extremely important. we have 12 years of investment in this country. over 100 billion we have spent to rebuild this country. over 2000 u. over 2000 u.s. soldiers have lost their lives in the conflict. we have enormous investment. frankly, if we don't have successful democratic process, then the country begins to fall apart again. it will allow the taliban to come back. they're still allied with al qaeda. al qaeda will open up their training camps and we will be back to square one. we will have the same problem that we faced before 9/11. it is enormously important for the u.s. to do everything we can

to facilitate an end to this crisis. it will determine the future direction of the country and how safe the u.s. will be from the global terrorist threat. host: our guest is joining us to talk about results of afghanistan's elections and issues regarding afghanistan as well. please dial the numbers on your screen. if you want to tweet us or send us an email, you may do that. the two men contending, how similar or how different are they from president karzai? guest: either candidate would make a good president of afghanistan.

either candidate would be much more helpful to u.s. goals in the region and president karzai. we could not get much worse than president karzai at this point. even though, when he first came into power, he was seen as a leader who could bring the different ethnic groups together. unfortunately, over the last few years, he has been extremely unhelpful to the u.s. in terms of criticizing the u.s. involvement, blaming the u.s. for civilian casualties. he would not agree to a bilateral security agreement that was necessary for the u.s. to continue to maintain troops in afghanistan post 2014. he refused to sign that, even though the afghans had stated that they wanted u.s. forces to stay on. there was an assembly last fall. they overwhelmingly voted in favor of the u.s. maintaining troops in the country post 2014.

however, karzai refused to sign a bilateral agreement. on the other hand, those candidates that are vying for the presidential spot have indicated they will sign the bilateral security agreement if they are elected to power. i think either candidate would be a good partner for the u.s. and a much better partner than karzai has been. the problem is, they have to be willing to work out the electoral body. i think what secretary kerry is trying to do, in addition to trying to have this audit, was to ensure that once the audit is done, the final results are announced. that there'd be some kind of power-sharing between the two candidates. the deal was that the loser, who is not elected president, becomes the chief executive of the government. he also has some power within that set up.

the problem is, they have not worked out modality, who picks the ministers, how much power do they have? they have not worked out those details. there is a strong sense that they will have to have some kind of power-sharing between these two individuals. host: lisa curtis is here from the heritage foundation. george is on independent line, hi. go ahead, please. you are on. caller: we have been there for 12 years. our military has gone between the two wars and budget cuts. it is more or less a dictatorship country. and they have not gotten their act together, nor do they intend to get their act together. everybody is power grabbing. how long do we have to stay in a country where we can see no end

to its history? guest: well, the u.s. is withdrawing from afghanistan. by the end of this year, our combat troops will be out of afghanistan. the question is, whether the u.s. maintains a residual, noncombat force, that would basically be involved in training and advising the afghan forces and carrying out counterterrorism missions as needed. certainly, the u.s. has been involved in this conflict for a long time. there has been a lot of pressure invested in this country. but, i think, everybody supported the u.s. going into afghanistan and toppling the taliban after the 9/11 attacks. we knew that al qaeda was an ally of the taliban. now, we're to the point where

our combat operations are ending. i still think it is important that the u.s. remain engaged with afghanistan, not in a combat role. to do the supportive role right, you do need a certain number of residual forces in afghanistan. i think it would be a mistake that we did not leave any forces in iraq. i think we are seeing the results of that with al queda's resurgence in iraq. we cannot afford for that to happen in afghanistan. you're right, we have been involved in combat for a long time. the combat operations are ending. we still need to support the government and support the army that we have helped to build up. host: here is iris from michigan, independent line. caller: hi there, good morning.

miss curtis, i would like to know if you or anybody else in the think tanks have the knowledge to discuss these subjects. do you give advice to the government? it just boggles my mind that we have to always be at war for american interests. can you answer that for me? what experience do you bring to the plate, please? thank you. guest: yes, thank you. i have 22 years of experience in south asia issues. i have worked with the cia and the state department and i have worked on capitol hill, where i have advised a senator on the foreign relations committee. i travel frequently to these regions. i was hired to provide my best thinking and advice on u.s. policy in these regions. i do the best i can. with regard to --

i think you asked what think tanks do. basically, we are there to educate the public, to try to offer policy advice. a lot of what happens in government is not public, as you know. we try to help with that gap between what the government is doing and what we see is happening. hopefully we provide an educated role. we explain, having worked in different-- parts of the government, hopefully i can explain how government agencies interact, how they formulate policy. we are often called to testify before congress. two weeks ago, i testified not on afghanistan, but on india, the foreign relations committee. i think that there is a role for the think tanks, for public

institutions, to weigh in on the policy process of the u.s. host: would you know if there is a team from the state department that is observing what is going on as far as the election is concerned? guest: absolutely. at the state department, you have senior representatives on afghanistan and pakistan. they just named a new one. dan sullivan has experience in the region. he has been traveling back and forth to the region, supporting secretary kerry. secretary kerry was in afghanistan july 12 to try to broker this agreement. further, he did a good job in 2009 of brokering the agreement at that time, after that election. there was discrepancies about the vote in question. he was able to convince abdullah at that time to not demand a

second vote and to allow the first vote to stand. that produced president karzai as president. i think he is the right person to try to work out an agreement here. i think he has the trust of the afghan leaders. if anybody can sort of not -- help bring about an agreement, it would be secretary kerry. host: cara, democrats line, hi. caller: i would like to ask her -- in 2001, rumsfeld said on the air to america that they have lost $2 trillion. during bush's administration -- have they ever found it? ok. guest: i'm not sure what this $2 trillion refers to.

i would just say that, yes, there is an enormous amount invested in afghanistan over the last 12 years. there are still challenges that remain in afghanistan. the u.s. has achieved to some of its goals in afghanistan. i do not think it has been a complete disaster there. we see that many more children are going to school. the economy is much more developed than it was when the taliban was in power in the late 1990's. and, we see that al qaeda and the u.s. was able to push al qaeda out. so, i think that we have made some good moves and afghanistan. it is fair to say that there is an enormous amount invested in this country. so, i sympathize with the caller's concerns about the

financial investment. i do not know what the $2 trillion refers to. host: when it comes to the war in afghanistan, you paint it one way. president karzai paints it another way and that was published in the atlantic. he says i am a pacifist in my heart. we should have fought -- my effort was to repel the conspiracy in which afghan blood was shed. so, my purposes were different from nato. guest: i'm not sure what president karzai's game is at this point. he would not be where he was if we had not had a conference at the end of 2001, after the taliban was toppled. the international community imported the new government. unfortunately, tensions between the u.s. and karzai have escalated in the last few years. it is partly him trying to maintain his popularity in afghanistan. sometimes they are opposing the

u.s. that can be a popular position with his constituents. i also think that part of it is he has been in power so long that he is not getting good advice. he is not thinking straight. as i explained earlier, you have afghans asking him to sign the bilateral security agreement with the u.s. he simply would not do it. it is anyone's guess what his game is. a lot of people think he is just interested in maintaining power. i think that is important for this country. we need to see a resolution

toward the end of this crisis and moving beyond karzai. there is going to be no love lost for karzai in this country. host: from pennsylvania on the republican line, gary is up next. caller: maybe the american people should be informed of the status of the agreement. we have been in italy since 1943. what is the problem about having troops in afghanistan or iraq for stabilization for a couple of years? guest: thank you very much for the comment. i could not agree more with the caller. if you look at korea, we have 30,000 troops there. almost six years after that war ended. why can't we have 10,000 troops stationed in a country from which the 9/11 attacks took place?

the largest attacks in history. 3000 innocent people on u.s. soil. we need to consider what is in the security interest. we need to have a continued presence. ace -- a supportive role. we need to remain financially engaged in helping to support the afghan military as well. if you compare the cost to the potential for protecting our national security interest, it is clear. host: he asks how long we should stay in afghanistan and the total cost of staying there. guest: i think that we should look at the u.s. remaining

engaged indefinitely. that means having a relationship with the government. clearly it will not be a sustained effort. we're looking at about $4 billion for the year. for the government itself, it should be the amount that the international community can be supportive of. this is one area that we're going to have to be engaged for a long time to come. the afghan army will not be able to support itself with its own funding. it will need support from the u.s. and other countries. we are saying about half of that, $2 billion or so, that the u.s. would provide per year. if you look at that compared to another 9/11 type attack, i

think we would say that this is worth it. host: all of the lines start with a 202 area code. the numbers are on your screen. pete is from columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: you're guest says that the reason to stay in afghanistan is because of the 9/11 attacks originated there. 9/11 attacks were all saudis. was it conceived in germany or who knows where? it does not seem to be a reason to stay there. i don't know why we have troops in germany. guest: osama bin laden came.

-- has come to afghanistan. the taliban was ruling afghanistan. they allowed al qaeda to remain in afghanistan. clearly, there was an importance for al qaeda in afghanistan. there still is. the core leadership is still located in the tribal areas. as soon as the taliban is able to gain more territory and was able to take over the country again. leaders would be able to quickly come back from afghanistan and reassert their power base. it is not true that al qaeda has been decimated. what we think is that al qaeda was not able to spread its power and ideology through

organizations throughout the world. we do not see an end to the al qaeda threat. we see a changing al qaeda threat. one of the core countries that al qaeda relies on for its power base is afghanistan. pakistan as well. it is important that we remain engaged in the region, in afghanistan and pakistan, to keep this terror spread under control. host: karen from florida, independent line. caller: hello. the reason why 9/11 happened is because of american imperialism, our aggravation of these people that live in the middle east who want nothing to do with us. a lot of times, they claim that they attack us because we are free or because they do not agree with our culture or women do not wear burqas. it is a bunch of b.s.

we going to those countries and exploit them of their resources. that causes them all sorts of trouble, so they want to react. there are plenty of countries where people are free and democracies that these so-called terrorists do not attack. these attacks do not happen. how do you explain that there are all of these countries that are democratic or free and the so-called terrorists do not attack them? why did they target us? host: countries like what? caller: there are plenty around the world to do not get attacked, japan is one of them. how about japan? i don't know what the phrase so-called terrorists means. i don't understand that comment.

second, other countries are being attacked. you have the london subway bombings in the u.k.. you have the train bombings in madrid, spain. terrorists don't lenny eight. they are attacking countries everywhere. most of the people who are killed in terrorist attacks around the world are muslims. wrong inou are thinking the terrorists are just focused on the u.s. they are not. they are focused on any other countries that do not adhere to their extremist ideology. they even attack saudi arabia, a very conservative, muslim country. problem. global it is not just something the u.s. faces.

examples ofenty of the u.s. cooperating with other countries against this menace. that is in the future where we need to look, cooperative actions between the civilized nations of the world to deal with this terrorist scourge. host: michael in florida, republican line. my main concern is the harvesting of opium, poppy. poppy. >> that's a big issue in afghanistan. the other issue is the way the people are armed, the locals are armed. can you give me a comment about what you know about two things: the corruption within the government that exists that we turn a blind eye. the other part is the infrastructure of the drug lords

and their inflewence on not only the population. they have been doing this for hundreds of years and they are still there. how are we going to tackle that infrastructure, the corruption that's already existing within the government today and, as well as the drug cartel, that basically anything out of the speed limits. so i will leave you to the question. thank you. ? >> well, yes. thank you. i think you are absolutely correct. the newaarcotics issue is a hug one in afghanistan. what they have found is that, you know, over 90% of opium in the world actually is produced in afghanistan. so this is a major problem. it's been a problem for the last, you know, 30, 40 years in afghanistan. so this is something i think that will have to be dealt with if we are going to see a stable afghanistan. the u.s. has some success in

some parts of the country in dealing with this issue. different problems. we have beenability control the issue. what they have found is that given the farmer's alternatives, alternative ways to make their living, because, unfortunately, there has not been a diversified econo economy, and the farmers simply find it more lucrative to invest in drug production. so, this is something that i think we need to look at and this is another reason why you would argue that we should remain engaged in afghanistan and continue programs we are running in helping afghans find alternative ways to support themselves and to develop and diversify the economy. it comes back to the economy. if the afghans have options, if

they have a lotternatives that they can readily integrate with the other economies of the region, i think this is the way forward. this is the initiative at a time u.s. has been talking about, trying to bring integration between the different economies of south and central asia and provide alternatives, livelihoods for the farmers in afghanistan. >> lisa joining us from her taj foundation. >> i lived around the world. i think most of the interference has been amateur or based on commercial interests. i will give you an example. if a couple of dozen criminals from chicago blew up a building in new york, the people of the united states would not start bombing chicago in the hope that they would get the coherence of the guys that did it.

another example might be to see these things from an outside perspective or different perspective: if an army came to the u.s. from a foreign country to relief us of the ku klux klan or the mafia and spoke almost no english? would we think that was sensible? we are doing things not really sensible. we have exacerbated the situation. it's worse and worse. the only thing i can think of that drives people like some of these foundations that claim to be intellectual but aren't really intellectual. they are backed by people who have commercial interests, perhaps to sell arms to people, perhaps to get control of oil and/or commoditiecommodities. to interfere in another country, iraq, they are capable of managing their affairs. someone from boise idaho who

thinks they can arrange bab loan i can't better than the bab boneians is mad. >> guest: let's talk about afghanistan. you have a country that was moved by the taliban in the late -- ruled by the taliban in the late 1990s, not allowing women to go to school, to work, to even leave their homes in some cases. and you had people that were -- i met with many afghan women who were very grateful that the u.s. came in, toppled the taliban. thinks have not been difficult. it's been -- it has been difficult. i think you can talk to plenty of afghans who are appreciative to the u.s. helping to overturn the taliban and allow their country to engage a on a democratic process. look at the vote april 5th.

60% of the afghans turned out to vote despite the taliban threats they don't want to be ruled by idealings on. you have laid out your view i think i have heard a different view, at least from the afghans that i have met and that i have spoken to. >> in new jersey, this is pat. hello. >> caller: hello. thank you. i would like to know why all of the terrorist threats we are getting. are people coming into this country even after 9-11? we have security alerts. there are people who are allowed to enter america after we were attacked. i would like to know why. i see afghantan as a sovereign country. i don't see who is looking to invade them. they are capable of managing their affairs. why shouldn't we say as long as they sponsor terrorist groups,

no one other than afghanistan can enter the u.s. thank you. >> thank you. the caller is right that there has been many threats to at a time u.s. after 9-11. thankfully most of these threats have been thwarted. this is basically done by our homeland security agencies and good police work, good investigative work, good intelligence work. we have beenability thwart many of those plots. not all. you had the boston bombings, the fort hood shootings. you have some events that were not prevented. there are many more that was. there was one plot that a few years ago to bomb the new york city. that was thwarted. the man was toured. you have many other examples of this. this is because, i think of the invest, th

investment that we have made in our homeland security infrastructure since 9-11. >> will this ultimately be signed bottom karzi or someone who succeeds in the election who signs it? >> the thinking it will be whoever succeeds president karzai but the problem is now we have this long, drawn-out audit process. nobody really knows how long that's going to take. and the clock is ticking. here we are in august. we need a bilateral security agreement signed soon so that the u.s. can plan for its residual force. we are now coming up against the clock. there has been some talk about whether karzi could go ahead and sign it, you know, even though he has said he will not do it, is there a way to convince him to go ahead and sign it now? the thinking is that it would be

his successor. >> he was asked what he would tell american troops as they depart afghanistan. i want you to listen to it and get your reaction. >> show tremendous respect to the american people. they are hard working people. they own their daily bread and butter through shear hard worer it's a compassionats society. in afghanistan t through paying taxes and sending them to afghanistan. it's highly appreciated. i have not a complaint but tremendous regard for them and admiration. tive complaints and, at times, anger, very strong anger at the u.s. government at the way they behave to afghanistan and to the

afghan people. >> lisa curtis, your reaction. >> i think, you know, he showed his appreciation for the u.s. forces and what they have done in the country. i think he knows his audience at that particular time. but as i mentioned, he has mailed some very unhelpful -- things that have not been appreciated in the u.s. over the last several years. and there will be no love lost when car eye finally, steps down so i think where he started out as, you know, a good leader, a consensus builder, showed leadership qualities, his behavior has become more e radic, and his relationship with the u.s. as a result has become severely strained. >> a call from south hampton.

this is robert. hello >> caller: good morning to you in the united states. hour are you going? host: host: fine. >> caller: this entire issue in afghanistan has been sorted out -- could have been sorted out a long time ago with security and what have you if we were to simply take the opium production use it to provide generally cheap and very affordable pain medication for hospitals and out-patient clinics throughout the world instead of relying on very expensive pharmaceutical-produced, you know, sort of companies and that would have the affect of cutting off the finances of al-qaeda and of the terrorist groups. i am wondering whether or not there should be investigation this is the reason why this has

been a non-event the opium production could supply us with a huge amount of very, very cheap pain medication once it's distilled into numerous varieties. >> that's the open-ended question. i would like a response please. thank you very much. >> it's illegal and so there is a whole underworld and that's how they are making the money. so i can't really speak to legalizing that and whether that has any impact on the economy either in afghanistan or the u.s. but i think the problem is you can't distill them down to the opium production issue. afghanistan has faced civil war you had those who invaded the country in the 1980s and reports u.s. pakistan, awed e arabia.

weapons went into the country at that time and the u.s. did make the mistake of turning its back on the country in 1989 after the so far yes, it is left the country was awash in weapons and, this is part of the problem that we have in afghanistan, that the u.s. did turn its back on the region to not remain engaged and not help, you know, turn the war-torn economy into a better country with schools, hospitals, et cetera. i think that is the major conundrum and problem that we face in afghanistan it's big. it's complicated and it has to do with, you know, given the afghan people alternatives, alternative livelihoods but i think, you know, it's much more complicated than just one more call from maryland, independent line, go ahead.

>> caller: good morning, c-span. what people fail to realize is that al-qaeda was a creation by the cia and fbi in the united states. we supported osama bin laden when he fought against shaz. they are if you knowing weapons to 0 sam a bin laden. these boogey men are a creation of the united states? >> i wouldn't argue with you that the u.s. did support the afghan mujadine in the 1980s but he was not a creation of the u.s. by any stretch. he was an independently wealthy man he did not independentd depend upon the u.s. i don't think it's accurate to

say he was a creation of the u.s. but the u.s. did support the mujahadine. there were weapons poured into the country and then the u.s. made the mistake of turning it's back in 1989 there was no resource for saying the u.s. was trying to exploit. it was purely an effort to, you know, expel the soviets from the region so they could not keep spreading, you know, we are dealing with the fallout of that but we can't afford to turn our backs again as we did in 1989. >> lisa curtis with heritage

foundation and researches issues of south asia and >> coming up tomorrow on "washington journal" -- u.s. policy in the middle east with tamara cofman wittes. jason riley discusses his book, "how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed." join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" -- live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span. thursday was virginia congressman's eric cantor's final day as majority leader in the house. he lost his bid for reelection in june during a primary. kevin mccarthy will be taken over as majority leader for the rest of the congressional session. before he stepped down, leader can't gave a farewell address from the house floor for about 15 minutes.

-- leader cantor gave a farewell address to the house floor for about 15 minutes. been anpeaker, it has honor and a privilege to serve as majority leader of this distinguished body. i look around this remarkable chamber, and i see so many friends and colleagues who have inspired me, and who have inspired this congress to do great things for the american people. walking into this building and walking on to this floor is something that excited me every day since i was first elected to congress. as it should. not one of us should ever take for granted the awesome honor and responsibility we have to serve our fellow americans. this is a privilege of a

lifetime. i think of the sacrifices that help me rise to serve the people of the virginia's seventh district. my grandparents fled religious persecution in europe in order to find a better life. my grandmother, a young jewish widow, was soon raising my dad above a grocery store in richmond just trying to make ends meet. and so it goes two generations later her grandson would represent part of what was james madison's seat in the house. and then go on to serve as its majority leader. i have truly lived the american dream. that's what this country is supposed to be about dreaming big, believing that each generation can do better than the last. now, unfortunately, we have seen that dream erode in recent years, and our nation faces many challenges. too many are left wondering if

we can be an america that works, an america that leads. too many children are condemned to a bad school because of the zip code they live in. being poor in america should not mean being deprived of a good education, and we've all got to continue fighting for these kids. this is the civil rights issue of our time. now even after kids graduate high school, too many can't afford college or access the skills they need to join a new and dynamic work force. government policies often increase these costs and restrict opportunities. during my time here, we have made some progress on some of these issues, but, frankly, not

enough. one of my proudest moments was watching the president sign into law the ga by ella miller kids research act sponsored by congressman greg harper and peter welch. prioritizing federal dollars towards finding cures and treatments for disease can enrich and even save lives. the added benefit? cures can help alleviate health care costs. all the while too many moms and dads who are healthy are stuck without a job or barely getting by in one that doesn't match their potential. this congress, the house has passed many bills, some of which were bipartisan, to help create jobs and opportunities for those who desperately need them. i hope more of those bills will make it to the president's desk before year's end. our nation and our economy cannot meet its full potential

if we in america are not leading abroad. i look around at colleagues on both sides of the aisle, at chairman, ranking members, at my good friend, democratic whip, steny hoyer, all of whom have soberly and seriously helped ensure a fight for a strong foreign policy so that our nation can lead in order to help keep our people safe. yet never before have i been more worried about the prospects of that peace. due to our diminished engagement on the world stage. instability and terror seem to be come interesting every corner of the globe. the middle east is in chaos. iran is marching towards a nuclear weapon. russia has reverted to a cold war footing and invaded ukraine. now, america does lead in so many areas, including

innovation, scientific discovery, and medicine. but we've also got to make leadership abroad a priority. i shudder to think what the world looks like in five years for us and our allies if we don't steel our resolve and stand tall with those who stand with us. mr. speaker, we don't always see eye to eye, even within our own parties in this chamber, but that's how it's supposed to be, our founders did not design a rubber stamp. this congress we have found ways to agree on much more than was ever reported with many bills passing this house in a bipartisan way.

for that, much of the credit goes to the hardworking staff that quietly works around the clock to help us do our job. i would especially like to thank my team. starting with chief of staff, steve, and my deputy chief, neal bradley, as well as our whole team for being there every day it to assist members on both sides of the aisle to help them deliver on their legislative goals. thank you. mr. speaker, aid also like to thank you for all you have -- i'd also like to thank you for all you have done. thank you for the example of firm leadership you show and at the same time for not being afraid to show us all your kind heart on your soft spot from ime to time.

mr. speaker, you reminded me yesterday that you and i have met with each other at least once a day, every day that we've been in session for the past five years. for that, mr. speaker, i thank you for your patience. i'd like to thank our conference chair, kany -- cathy mcmorris rodgers. she's as tough as she is compassionate and her voice has so often helped our conference in this house. i'd also like to recognize two of my colleagues and dear friends who i joined several years ago to begin a fight for reform on behalf of the american people. to chairman paul ryan, thank you for your dedication to finding solutions to the problems that face our government. but more importantly, thank you for your commitment to

identifying those conservative solutions that actually help people find their path to the american dream. i know your efforts will continue to impact america in a positive way. and to my closest confidant and my good friend kevin mccarthy, our new majority leader. i know you will make this institution proud. i will miss the daily challenges that we faced together at the leadership table but i know that your leadership will serve as an inspiration for all of us. sthror many more members and staff on both sides of the aisle who have made my time here so rewarding. many of you have become as close to me as family and that is what has always sustained me while being away from my own family in richmond. i know i speak for all of us when i extend a heartfelt thank

you to the capitol police and the sergeant at arms for all they do to protect us every day, us and our families. finally, i want to thank my family, my wife diana, her mother, my children, evan, jen, and mikey, my parent, my brothers, all of whom made sacrifices so i could serve in this chamber and as a member of leadership. they are my inspiration and they are the rocks on which i will always lean. so mr. speaker, i close by once again thanking my colleagues for their service. i thank them for their friendship and warmth and with that, i yield back.

[applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] cantorsday congressman

lost his bid for reelection, and political reports he will be resigning from congress on august 18. he has asked the virginia governor's office to hold a special election so that his replacement can begin immediately instead of in january. the judiciary committee held a hearing recently on gun filings against women and pending legislation, that would add additional protections to the violence against women act. during the hearing, the committee heard from a witness who talk about how his life changed as a result of gun violence against his sister. this is two hours. >> good morning, everyone. the hearing will come to order. i'm delighted to see you all here and i welcome the witnesses, thank them for coming. member, the ranking distinguished senator from iowa. i welcome senators klobuchar and