that is why we need the benefit of a trial. i agree with the point that there is an inherent conflict of interest between local prosecutors and the police department am a because prosecutors rely on the pulleys order toevery day in move cases forward through the criminal justice system. a symbiotic relationship. it is hard to then turn around and expect the prosecutors will go after law enforcement officials who engage in the excessive use of police force. that is light in this instance, six members of congress, myself, in august, called for a federal justice department investigation of the violation of. gartner's civil rights. but we need to look at a state-by-state level on whether we need independent special s to step in whenever law enforcement officers are accused of using excessive

force. host: robert, good morning. you're on the air. is an interesting problem because the democratic when, they changed the law a black man was running for mayor. governor, hefor step down so governor cuomo could run. representing black people in new which the democratic state, even the union, would like to answer this question. time, they have their men circling around part-time jobs. there aren't number of people working consistently. host: we will get a response. thank you. guest: i appreciate the thoughts you expressed.

thingdressed the broader as far as the economy. the worst economic collapse, since the great depression in 2008. many financial institutions responsible for that collapse. they have rebounded. ceo constant -- compensation is way up. the middle-class and those aspiring to be part of it are struggling. this is actually one of the issues where congress needs to come together in a bipartisan way to help turn the economy around to ensure all americans can benefit from the recovery. representsm jeffries brooklyn and a little bit of queens. we appreciate having you on this money. we will hear next from the wisconsin republican representative who will be talking about the budget debate coming up in the days ahead and what is in store for the house of representatives. we will be right back. ♪

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the seat that network. therday, live coverage of morrill service for mayor marion -- marion barry. and saturdayd a,

night at 10:00 am on book tv on c-span2, the university of new hampshire assistant professor on how the northeast u.s. was not always the haven of racial equality and supportive of african-american civil rights. sunday at noon, our lives three our conversation with arthur , your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. on c-span three, saturday night at a clock on lectures in history, martha jones on female slaves and the law. and sunday at 8:00 on the presidency, president george h.w. bush's former prep -- secretary of state on the fall of the berlin wall. find our complete television schedule on c-span.org and let us know about what you think about the programs you're watching. us, or send us a tweet. conversation,n

like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> washington journal continues. host: the house is set to come in at 9:00 eastern this morning. we're joined with sean duffy to talk about budget issues, the debate ahead on the continuing resolution as it gets resolved here in the next week at least. before we get underway, we have been talking this morning about reaction about the decision in the grand jury there. a question we are closing our is the justice system. faith in law great enforcement. sometimes, mistakes are made. we see that calls being made. we have to have a look at the good, the bad, the ugly our

system. make sure it is working. we do not want to lose faith in our justice system. >> what is the next step in our federal response? guest: i don't know. i believe we evaluate the facts and make decisions. are some, there situations that go bad, some go believe people are fair and will look at the evidence. that might not always be the end want, but inities believe the system actually works more often than not. we have to let communities in our states make sure it works for them and their communities. host: the current short-term spending measure expires tuesday. details has to resolve and get at least some sort of short-term measure or this

omnibus spending bill. in termsthings stand of getting the budget passed? now.: it looks good right we're looking at doing a longer-term through the end of the fiscal year sending packets basically all of government except homeland security. homeland security will be a shorter-term bill that will go probably too early march. wide swath of individuals in the house supporting that theory they longer-term funding bill for the government, but actually a conversation about what we will action inecutive regard to immigration. that is an important conversation for the house to have. do we push back the president acting on his own and not going through the house of representatives?

is it appropriate for us to exert our spending authority? you will see the house having that debate, a good debate for us to have. >> that debate will get started in a way for us. what will that do in terms of the response for the president's immigration action? >> there are a lot of us who .upport immigration reform we were working on it this summer. small groups walking with democrats and republicans trying to navigate this. eric cantor primary race. people said it was because of immigration and i do not think that was actually the case. that was the claim. we saw the kids come from agile to our border. that was coupled with people going back to the political lastn, they derailed spring and summer. we will have another conversation next year about how we actually get immigration reform done. that bill underscores our

frustration and desire to push back on executive action and allows the house and the senate to work its will and find a package that will work with the people. with people who have come here and are working hard. what is the element that is missing that you would include in there? you look at history often times and go back to ronald reagan, you see am this the with the promise of border security later. people will buy into immigration reform, as long as you secure the border and then you can look at expanding our work visa systems for low skill in high skill label -- labor. you can come across to meet the demands of the economy, and some

sort of legal status. let people come out of the shadows, let people work and travel and pay their taxes. you can vote and tap into the entitlement system. way, but you have to have it tied into the deal, otherwise it never gets done. on the conservative side i'm a people will buy this kind of package as long as they know we will deal with the border issue. says congressman jefferies 32% are born out of the u.s., his constituents. what is the biggest immigration issue up there? guest: we do not have a whole lot of them. one of the largest his panic communities in my community is my wife and kids. state, not a border beyond the southern border.

i think this is an american issue. we are a country of immigrants and we have to have a fair system that works for everybody. the pointunderscore that people have come lawfully and are standing in line waiting to come. to do that is important. you do not want to undermine the whole process. important because people come here because they want opportunities and jobs. not justtunity comes from our great work force, but from our law, our system of government. have executive action that undermines that rule of law in the process we have amid undermines the very reason people here. it is governments that don't have good rule of law, that have , let's makevernment

sure we promote the rule of law, which promotes the opportunity people come here for. we welcome your calls about issues with the budget and immigration. -- they're showing senator ted cruz in a news conference with some of your more conservative colleagues. how do you feel about his role in terms of trying to influence house decisions? -- guest: let us deal with our issues in the house.

but i think this is a great debate we have in the republican party. we do not disagree on the outcome. we often argue about what is the best pathway. just to be a very forceful and sometimes public conversation to have. the debate is good for our country and good for our party. is it frustrating at all that the process and the very , at week of the session collection of all the other packages? >> it is. weould note in the house, passed a budget since we took control in 2010 every year. we go through the appropriations and we should then take our budget and appropriations and go negotiate with the senate . they do not do appropriations bills, so we have no one to negotiate and put this in a tough spot, was invested the end

of the year. hopefully with the new senate, they will start to do budgets , and peopleations should be up to see how the process works. it should be more transparent. instead of ramming all of the spending into one big go we will see for a few days before it is voted on, that is not the right way. we have callers waiting period michigan, independent line. thank you for calling. go ahead. i believe nobody is talking when they ate about immigration about the fact that the suppose it's system of ours is broken because it is overwhelmed. it has been overwhelmed by people from other countries. supposedly, we are letting in one million people per year.

then you have how many million shadowsposedly in the that have come here because they feel like it. if my husband and i wanted to and wete to australia, decided to bring 4 million people with us, i am not sure the australians would appreciate that. the system is overwhelmed, but i think it is because we do not have a willingness to actually enforce our current law, and also the law needs structural changes here at one note on immigration, a lot of times, people will believe they all come from our southern border. 40% who are here without documentation came near lawfully and just state. joe is in texas, the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. good morning. question -- here is my hope. understand control and we have that. i would love for both parties to work together. they did not do it when the democrats were in charge of the senate. they made a mistake. we have tough issues and i would like for us to sit down like adults and solve the issues. that is what i have to say. thank you. i think you are right. 350 bills we passed this year in the house have sat in the senate and have not really gone anywhere. there has not been a bipartisan approach. andave a divided government people have to work together and sit down and talk and have relationships with one another.

you might have different views and opinions. you might have hard-core conservatives and left-wing liberals, but they have to sit down and have a cup of coffee and get to know each other and start to work on the big problem facing america. i think that is what the country voted for this last november. host: texas, kathy. governmentepublican will follow the law of the land. barack obama is a big lawbreaker .y following amnesty it is completely illegal, the head of the country is allowing illegal activity. another thing i just have to say, please tell our democrats to stop bringing race into every that adulation and our police need to know we back them. this is ridiculous.

obama is going against our police department. i am sick and tired of all of this democratic negativity. i hope you fight against it. thank you very -- thank you. guest: i do want the secret service to protect the president. we have a set of roles in the books and the president is not a worsening those rules, even though he and of to uphold the constitution and the laws of the united states to faithfully execute. we have to realize we only have a certain set of tools we can use. some of that is the spending authority we have. host: the reality is the measure coming up that would stop the executive action of the president. in all likelihood, they will not take it up. hillary reid will not

take it up in the senate for a vote. it will not go anywhere. the most effective way will be on the financial side. host: your office put out a release. what area does that subcommittee covert? -- cover? real estate capital markets, a great space, a wonderful committee. people do not hear about a lot in the mainstream news. when things go wrong in our economy it is usually coming from issues that take place that we oversee on this committee. i am looking forward to having an aggressive oversight plan.

looking at how our agencies craft and implement rules that actually have -- a negative impact on the american consumer, making sure we are looking at transparency in the way we are doing business. the couple of different programs where the department of justice is trying to work with regulators of banks and credit unions to cut off illegal businesses abilities because they do not like those business. that is not the american way. they're collecting information on american credit cards. there is a line between the privacy bill and the government's right to know. we will take a life and china everywhere. republican line in georgia. the audit of the sense,

i think it was scheduled a couple of years ago. we should know if it is on schedule. two, c-span had guys, a , are younvestigation aware of the money being in the pipeline? is the money still there? up on theou bring us f 35? i understand it is like eight years behind and 50 years behind dhedule, and about 15 billion and overrun. guest: i had a hard time hearing you because you have some static on your line. i do not have the newest information on the f dirty five.

i apologize. i am not on the armed services committee. i would have had a more .roductive or you was he talking about audit the fed? i may have missed that. host: it was a little static key. sorry but thank you for calling in. texas, our democrat line. hello. caller: i understand your respect for the law enforcement and justice system but i insisted its years old. i remember when i was 16 years old and all i was doing was protesting so i could eat with people, so i could go to school with people, and law enforcement nazis and there were children, elderly, and we were just walking and asking to be treated he will and we were beaten and we had dogs six on us .

the same respect for law enforcement that you do because we are not like. we have not always been treated right by law enforcement very understand why we don't trust law enforcement they even had long oarsmen to go into our peaceful organization and send plants in their that would come in to start right and start trouble, so they had reason to come and attack us. it from both sides before you make a broad common -- comment like you made. our country is way better off for people like you who were willing to stand up and say i'm a we will not take this kind of government in this kind of repression. also, i do not want us to say that all lawn oarsmen is that99. we do have a process. -- is bad.

we do have a process. we have to look at the evidence that is out there and bring in independent-minded folks to take a look at it, whether it is grand jury or an actual jury, to make determinations whether we .ill prosecute or indict that is the american way. if there are changes we need to make, if there is abuse of power, we want to address that. if we need more training for law enforcement, let's talk about what that is and make sure law enforcement gets it. one of the points to come out of ferguson, this cannot solve every problem, but law enforcement, let's make sure they have cameras so we can see what actually took waste. we know eyewitness testimony often times is not always reliable. the video is reliable. spending my dollars in in regards to the cameras. would you support that? guest: i think it is a good

idea. it protects both sides. it lets us have a pretty good view of what is taking place. here is a tweet on the they think its, is a crime at the federal level, and the tweet is referring to the president's decision on immigration. the president will say, they had discretion and they will not to those who will, without documentation. when you look to some of the grand jury's and that is the discretion given to the authorities at that level. both are part of the executive branch. a good point. i'm not asking specifically for staten island, but what are the decisions that say, i will submit this case to the grand jury, that say, i have

enough evidence to bring? think youetimes, i have close cases where it is not clearly no or yes there it sometimes it is better to help make -- help the prosecutor make a decision. if they say it is not enough evidence, i will say no. in those those cases, it is nice to ask the community at large whether you should go through with that or not. pennsylvania is next up. michael, welcome. hello. i would like to talk a little on the immigration bill the president is trying to push through. i think you have got to look are and see what the laws before you try to fix anything. i understand the immigration, especially people i want to say from mexico, people may not like it, but they are coming over,

and they used to come over, just about to have a child, and then all of a sudden the child is born in the united states and family can say because of the child and all of this. that is not really the case here the case is not the law about children being born an automatic put throughat was after the civil war because of the slaves already here. for immigration. wholaw was made for slaves are already here and making them citizens and all. they get the laws right to start with and make everything right, and then you will be able to force -- to enforce the laws. that is all i wanted to say. to have a also have willingness to enforce the law and the president does not want to do that.

they will say, just enforce the is, you needtruth to get bipartisan buy-in. that is why we want to -- incentivize executive to enforce the law on the border, and we can do that by some fort of legal status for those who are here without documentation or a larger point of immigration not working. the debate has been taking place for a long time about unlawful immigration and it has not been fixed. negotiateke time to for those who applaud the president's you've action, we have 5 billion people who think they can come out of the shadows because they think the president will not support them because of this deferred action. if you step out of the shadows,

you expose yourself. the court can overturn the executive action or the next resident will not a send it. if you step out, you are now exposed their it is the executive action goes away am a you are at risk of being deported. you have 7 million people on top of the five who do not get any reprieve. everybody wants to see people work together. when you have a new congress coming in after the first of the year, the president cannot wait and say, let's see what will happen with new senators. let's see if they could push the action forward. and the president has no problem moving timelines, he said he has to get his executive action done in the summer, and then you push then youeptember and say, i do not want to do it so i will wait until after. he has no problem moving a line and has waited his whole president. what is another six months to see if we can get it done the right way? i do not understand why he has

gone this way. host: the fiscal times has written a week ago, a new ammunition to fight the immigration order. they're talking about a discussion on defunding the effort they're it they write about how hal rogers -- coldwater, saying it would be impossible to defund the president's is unilateral action because the prime -- the primary agency is funded by user fees. is that an insurmountable obstacle, and is this something you support, defunding the effort? is the president thinks he will use executive action, go through the house and ask us to fund it, you have another thing coming. but also, do whatever we can to get the immigration reform done.

a good point is brought up, that there are fees that are used to fund part of the president's executive action. you still have federal employees using federal paper and federal desks and federal heat. paying for it out of our federal funds. there is a ace for us to actually work on the funding side to take money away from the executive action. those other things are appropriated through the appropriations process. paul is on our line for independents. go ahead with your comment. i was calling about was you made a comment about not getting benefits. you are wrong. they are able to get state and local benefits, food stamps and everything else, because they are doing it right now. another man was correct when he

to change the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment should be changed to where both parents should be either legal citizens or documented citizens and that is it. one other thing, better for you andblicans to stop obama these terrorists known as progressives. if you do not stop them, you all may lose her next races. paul, who is your congressman? first of all, what i was talking about, to be clear, talking about benefits for those who would get them from a legal wetus, these are the reforms want to get to the house, border security, making sure the last here making sure they come

-- we have a situation in place to make sure they come lawfully. to make sure they are given a legal status am a they would not be able to tap into the entitlement system or vote because they are not citizens. i was talking about what we want to do with house action. anger, there is a lot of at the executive action, but we only have a certain set of tools and we are trying to use those tools as effectively as possible, and we actually respect our system of government and rule of law and how the process is supposed to work. some on the left have applauded the president's action and think it is fantastic. i promise you that one day, there will be a republican president. to take away things that liberals might like to pass a law the president does not say iswill enforce, whether it some environmental rule, a clean

water rule, i'm sure the liberals at that point will not like executive action. we have to be visionaries on this and make sure the system of government is used, whether we have a president that is a democrat or a republican. this president, i know democrats would be wildly upset at if they knew that republicans were using it against policies and principles they like. would you like to see scott walker in 2016? guest: he has given money back to wisconsin citizens. host: just reelected? a stunning victory especially for wisconsin. host: jim, good morning, democrat line. i am 71 years old and work for 32 years.

the republican party is sounding more and more like the nokia party of 1933. they started out just exactly they are today. they believe in a police state they are, i do not know what you could call it, discrimination against people of color is acceptable for the majority of americans, and i think sooner or later, we ought to take the republicans out and charge them with crimes against humanity. host: not a fan of the republican party. guest: it is comments like that that i think pull the country apart. there are passionate feelings on the left and the right. at one point, we have to come together and figure out solutions to the problems this

country faces. i do not think mage -- making claims like that advances the cause at all. in a policeieve state, but i do believe in the law and we need law enforcement that can effectively enforce the law. i do not know if he is saying we should take law enforcement out, that will -- but we don't not -- we do not want any law enforcement in your community. that could lead to better results as well. because people say we have a constitution that has guided us and we should follow that document, to make claims to not see germany, that we want to follow the document that made this country the most hospers and the most free, the most opportunistic country in the world, that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system known to man, that you want to undermine the system and the founding document they gave us that, it does not make a lot of sense to me.

we will try to get to as many calls as we can. mississippi, dixie, good morning. i have a couple of comments at a little question and then i will hang up. a broken glass republican, but i do not think the republicans are given a mandate in the last election. i think they were given their final opportunity to carry out the campaign promises they made to restore law and order and justice in the country, and like the other man who was hired to hear race brought into everything. another thing, i think the continuing resolution should be made to finance the government until the new congress takes over. thirdly, i will hang up and then listen to your answer, please tell me exactly what immigration reform means. put aroundhas been

so much that nobody has ever explained it. guest: dixie underscores a lot of frustration. the real desire for republicans to engage and fix .he problems we face again, over a cup of coffee, at the coffee shop or at mcdonald's, a lot of strategy goes on in how we should move forward. we also have certain procedures we can and will use. that point,note people can talk about reform and forideas, when they run office, but once they get here, they will come up and say, listen, let's do it tomorrow. every time it comes up, they want to do it tomorrow. that story has been told far too long. we have to stand up and fight for certain principles that will advance the cause of the government and those are

stations always cannot wait for tomorrow. a house and senate that will willup digg action, there be an effort to make it bipartisan and bring people in. i am hopeful it will be principled and bipartisan. democratsissippi, line, cheryl, go ahead. taking myank you for call. if we made the illegals here legally, make them pay taxes, maybe our deficit would be better. i work in a small shop in mississippi up the road and i have to check ids. in a green card and it was out of date by two years. host: we will let you go. a quick response. legal here without doing any other reforms, we will have the same problem in another 8-15 years. if you will offer a legal status

is not citizenship, you have to make sure you fix the border and make sure you will not ask a future generation to deal with the problem on the border immigration that will be dealt today. host: host: we take you live next to the house. they are working on the programs and policy bill for the next fiscal year. a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 4, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. in the waning days of this

113th congress, we ask your blessing, o lord, upon the members of this people's house and most especially upon the leadership. it is on their shoulders the most important negotiations of this congress have been placed. they have been entrusted by their fellow americans with the awesome privilege and responsibility of sustaining the great experiment of democratic self-government. give them wisdom, grace, insight, and courage to forge legislation that allows us all to move forward toward an encouraging future. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe.

mr. poe: 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 pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one minute speeches on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it was a bright sunday morning in the islands of hawaii. america was at peace and unprepared for war. soon the rising sun was darkened by hundreds of japanese planes as they bombed pearl harbor. the american battleships were sunk, over it,400 united states military were killed -- 2,400 united states military were killed. most of the united states aircraft were destroyed while

still sitting on the ground. it was december 7, 1941. in the chaos and confusion and still in his pajamas, army air corps second lieutenant, phillip rasmussen, and three others, took off into the blazing sky. they met 11 japanese planes head on. rasmussen was flying an old outdated p-36 hawk and he shot down one japanese plane while enemy fighters attacked him. they shot up his plane with over 500 bullet holes, but he was still able to continue the fight and eventually safely land. rasmussen received the sill var star for his defense of america that day and remained in the air force. as we contemplate on pearl harbor and those that were killed, we should remember there were a few who gallantly took to the air to fight those invaders. from the beaches of hawaii to the beaches of normandy, those that died and those that survived were america's greatest generation. we thank the good lord that

such americans ever lived. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> mr. speaker, let me tell you about a mom i met on tuesday, maria is from colombia. she has three kids. started a small business and lived here for 14 years and her congressman is the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. mr. gutierrez: maria's youngest is a u.s. citizen. but maria wants to work and live legally in the u.s. she told me, i'm too scared to leave the house unless i have to. we drive to school, church, and grocery storks that's it. maria knows anything else is too risky because any contact with the police could mean she gets deported and her family is split up. so today i give thanks that maria an her family in just a few months will sign up for that same peace of mind my family had because she's be eligible for deferred action

for parents of u.s. citizens. i'll think of maria and her children no matter how many times the republican majority makes me vote on bills to attack the president's actions that he's taken because they will prevent american citizen children from losing their parents. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, today i am extremely grateful for the opportunity to recognize melissa chandler murphy, deputy chief of staff and legislative director of south carolina's second congressional district office. no words can express the amount of appreciation i have for her service and compassion for the citizens of south carolina. melissa has served the palmetto state with professionalism and integrity. nine years ago she began her career with the office as a legislative correspondent and quickly worked her way up because of her efficiency and exceptional leadership skills

as she learned in woford college. melissa has served as a champion for constituents, going at great lengths to offer assistance to those in need. on january 3, melissa will begin a new chapter as she joins congressman elect dave rouser as his chief of staff. the people of north carolina seventh congressional district are extremely fortunate to have such a dedicated woman working on their behalf. with a republican office for the first time since 1874. with great happiness i wish melissa and her husband best wishes and continued success. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise against the poorly conceived anti-immigration bill that's being considered in the house today. the preventing executive

overreach on immigration act would paralyze the executive order announced by the president halting the deportation of families. families who are working hard and playing by the rules should not be treated like felons. i urge my colleagues to bring comprehensive immigration reform to the floor with the same expediency that they were able to bring this poorly conceived legislation to the floor today. our economy, our national security, and our families cannot afford inaction. rather than keeping hardworking families together, republicans are punishing communities by pushing irresponsible legislation like the bill that we are considering in the house today. like republican presidents before him, president obama's actions were within the law. if they weren't, republicans wouldn't need this slash dash bill to rollback the president's authority. this is a soap opera, frankly, we have seen too many times. can we please finally change

the channel and pass comprehensive immigration reform? the time is long overdue for a more family friendly congressional show. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to applaud the house's work to advance h.r. 647, the achieving of of life experience or able act passed the house with broad bipartisan support. under the current law individuals with disabilities face significant barriers to finding and holding employment and living independently because their access to certain safety net programs can be lost once they establish a minimum level of savings and income. the able act aims to provide families of these individuals with some peace of mind by allowing them to save for their children's long-term disability expenses. in the same way the families of able-bodied children can currently save for college

through proper 529 investment plans. as a co-sponsor of this legislation and having spent most of my professional career serving those facing life changing disease and disability as a health care professional, i'm proud of this bipartisan effort to empower individuals to live with greater dignity and independence. mr. speaker, it is my hope that the senate will act swiftly to pass this important legislation. these individuals and their families deserve as much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4329, the native american housing assistance and self-determination act of 2014 which passed on tuesday out of the house of representatives. visiting the nine tribes in the district i represent, i have seen the significant challenges that tribal communities face in providing decent and affordable housing to their members. so i know how important this bill is.

one issue i have worked on closely regards the neds of tribal veterans. mr. kilmer: who disproportionately suffer from homelessness. last year i met a man in my district who served in nation in uniform but was sleeping in his car. we can do better. last year i joined with representative cole to introduce the housing native heroes act which would expand new authorities and flexibilities to a program called the h.u.d. vast program which better addresses tribal veterans homelessness. i'm thankful to representative pearce and his colleagues for working to include strong provisions in this bill to tackle homelessness among our tribal veterans. i look forward to continuing to work to address the needs of our tribal veterans and i urge the senate to quickly take up and pass this bill. thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 5759, the

preventing executive overreach of immigration act, which i am a co-sponsor. president obama's decision to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is an unconstitutional abuse of power which flaunts the rule of law and opens the door for the exponential influx of illegal immigrants. our founding fathers risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor against such acts of a monarch. neither president obama nor any future president should tramp upon their sacrifice. mr. pittenger: h.r. 5759 wisely deals with our current crisis while also blocking future presidents from have egriege oust abuse. every american should be concerned by the president's unconstitutional grab of power. if a president can change this law, what prevents him from this abuse of power and other policies? i urge all of my colleagues, both democrat and republican, to join me in supporting and passing this legislation. i also urge the senate to stand up for the constitution and swiftly pass this legislation.

this is not the only action the house will take to restrict the overreach of the president. and i am committed to continuing our efforts in the coming weeks and the next session of congress. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds members to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, members of the house, i want to bring tonch's attention a "washington post" story this week pointing out that the iraqi army has 50,000 ghost soldiers. that's right, ghost soldiers, salaries being paid to soldiers that do not exist. we have spent $20 billion supposedly training and arming this iraqi army. mr. nolan: right now there's a request for another $1.2

billion. the time has come to stop supporting this corrupt government. the money for the 50,000 soldiers was going into the pockets of the military and government officials. mr. speaker, my friends, it's time to put an end to this, give our taxpayers some relief. use this money to rebuild america. and recognize the fact that we have no friends in this conflict. the money, the arms that we send inevitably end up being used against us. and contributing to the violence and contributing to the extension and the continuation of this tragic and senseless war and waste of human and financial resources. it's time to put an end to it, my colleagues. thank you for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is

recognized. >> mr. speaker, the day following the announcement of the seventh month extension to nuclear talks, iran's supreme leader, ayatollah khomeini, did a victory lap. he said in the nuclear issue america and colonial european countries got together and did their best to bring the islamic republic to its knees, but they could not do so. and they will not be able to do so. mr. perry: these remarks are incredibly disturbing, especially when cuppled with his earlier intention of building 100,000 centrifuges. the iranian regime is bragging they are running circles around western negotiators by achieving sanctions relief without intercading any change in behavior. the economic effects of tough sanctions brought iran to the negotiating table to begin with. we must continue to hold iran's feet to the fire with economic sanctions. to do otherwise plays right into iran's hands and may force our allies in the region, particularly israel, to take

matters into their own hands. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the national defense authorization act that we are considering this morning, important to the security of all of our country, even if there are some provisions that are subject to significant disagreement. . important to especially families in san antonio that i represent in what we know as military city, that in joining with this bill we are joining another aspect that is very important to bearx county. nd that is the alamo part of bearx county and the inclusion of a provision that i passed here in the house on june 3 of last year to expand the san

antonio missions national historic park. san antonio has a unique collection of spanish colonial resources, the largest of anyplace in the united states. since passing that legislation, it has lingered in the senate and now through bipartisan agreement we have included it in this particular piece of legislation along with some other parks and natural resource matters. the legislation now will allow us to move forward with our world heritage status, will protect cultural and economic future in san antonio. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 148, house resolution 770, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill

h.r. 3979, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the share responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. with the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on armed services or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-58, modified by the amendments printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house

the bill h.r. 5759, to establish a rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part b of the report on the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendments 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 the judiciary and, two, one motion to recommit with or without nstructions. section there, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 5781, to provide

short-term water supplies to drought stricken california. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section four, the chair of the committee on armed services may insert in the congressional record at any time during the remainder of the second session of the 113th congress such material as he may deem explanatory of defense authorization measures for fiscal year 2015.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of the rulings, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: mere, house resolution 770 provides for consideration the national defense authorization act for the year -- fiscal year 2015. it also allows for consideration of the executive amnesty prevention act and the california emergency drought relief act, a bill that would provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken california. this combined rule is necessary because congress is coming to a close and we need to get our work done. one of the outstanding items that most important to me is

the 2015 ndaa. mr. speaker, i was proud to stand on the house floor in may when the house passed its version of the 2015 ndaa. i was happy to highlight the inclusive and transparent process that the armed services committee and the house as a whole took in crafting this year's national defense authorization act. we held countless hearings, heard hours of testimony from our combatant commanders and we worked a lot of late nights within house armed services committee. the committee alone, the ndaa -- in committee alone, the ndaa was amended 155 times. the bill moved to the house floor and it was again amended 160 times, amendments were considered. it was careful, it was deliberate, it was an open process and it's precisely how the house in this congress should work on all issues. when the ndaa was passed this

body, i was proud of what we produced and i was really proud of the process that we took to get there. e senate, though, absolutely different. as is so often the case, they didn't act. they either couldn't pass the bill or they just chose not to. ither way, it's a shame. they left us with a mess now that we have to resolve and eventually a final product was crafted in the last minute between house and senate staffers. wasn't done in the conference because the senate never passed the bill. it wasn't done in the conference because the senate just ignored the fact that the ndaa was a priority for this country, to make sure that we fund and equipped those soldiers and airmen and sailors

and marines that fight the fight for this country, they ignored it. so when you don't get to a conference when you have members argue the points of either piece of legislation, whether it's a senate bill or a house bill, it really does a disservice to our men and women that fight for this country. because they don't get to hear the arguments. they don't get to see the argument. and that's unfortunate. listen, we go through all the motions. in the house we get it right. in the house, through the appropriations process, but then again through the process of the ndaa, we get it right. we have those hearings. we take the testimony and we listen to those that are most affected. the senate, i don't know what they do but they honestly, in my estimation, didn't care enough to get it done for

whatever reason. , we did as a member an awful lot of work just to get the product to the floor. hasc, it left hask -- 160 times people had an opportunity to amend it and change, improve it, add things they thought was necessary for the defense of their country. but once again, the senate just ignored that process and that's unfortunate. listen, congress as a whole is harmed by this process, but more importantly, it's the troops that are harmed by a process that's broken. it's the troops. we're not out there in harm's way, but they are.

we owe them better. i think the house has done that. i think the house has actually done everything in its power to make it right with the troops that we put in harm's way. but the senate doesn't seem to care. and that's troubling to me. i'm concerned about our war fighters. we are their voice. as members of congress, we're their voice. we're the elected representatives of the people, but they're also citizens too. we're representing them. we are their voice. and they need to be heard on every issue. so unfortunately ndaa is not everything that everybody wants and i get it. it's always a compromise and i get that. but we need to show more solidarity with our war fighters so they know that

their voice is being heard here in the capitol. i fear because the senate botched the process, their voice didn't come out as loudly as they should have. mr. speaker, the rule also allows the house to consider executive amnesty prevention act. this legislation, if enacted, would nullify the president's recent executive action. regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the policy goal of the president, every member of congress ought to be concerned about what it means when he takes that type of action unilaterally ignoring congress. once again, we're elected -- if you look at our article 1 powers, we're elected to pass laws. we're elected to do that. the president is elected to faithfully execute the laws that are passed by congress. doesn't matter if the house did

or did not do what the president requested. it doesn't give him the unilateral action to go ahead and, you know what, i can just do it on my own and that's what in bill addresses. listen, this nation's benefited by this delicate balance that we have in our government. it benefits every day when we do things the right way. the constitution is our guiding principle. it's our guiding document, and you just can't say, you know what, i want to do it differently because i disagree with what the legislative branch is or is not doing. it's not appropriate. it's not the way the founding athers crafted it. the executive does not have the power to write law. we do. we need to re-establish our

rights as elected representatives of the people to craft laws that affect the people of the united states of america. it's really just beyond frustrating when it comes to the fact that all of us, democrats and republicans alike, should be jealously guarding our article 1 powers because it matters not whether it's a republican president or a democratic president. this institution matters. otherwise what are we doing here? otherwise why are the american people voting every two years to send representatives to this body to ensure that the constitution is upheld and followed? 's not meaningless but it is important. i've said before, the legislative versus the executive issue, it doesn't be a democrat versus republican issue. it should be the fact that we

should guard the rights and privileges that have been extended to us because of us being elected to this body. i support the rule because it's important that we have a healthy debate on all the issues that have been outlined, and i urge my colleagues to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts. . mcgovern: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this convoluted closed rule which includes a huge defense bill, a partisan anti-immigrant bill, a california water bill and from out of nowhere an

arizona land exchange bill all in one. the gentleman from florida is praising this congress' somehow being open. the fact of the matter is this is the most closed congress in the history of the united states of america. this is appalling the way this house of representatives has been run. routinely, important, vital issues have been shut out from debate on the house floor and today is no exception. the rule includes the f.y. 2015 national defense authorization act, and i'm pleased that the ndaa establishes the blackstone river valley national historic park, but this version of the ndaa also authorizes over half a trillion dollars for the pentagon's base budget and on top of that includes an additional $63.7 billion for the pentagon slush fund to finance the continuing war in

afghanistan and the new war in iraq and syria against the islamic state. . once again congress is failing to do its job. once again this bill continues to fund two wars for years to come without congress authorizing either one. first, afghanistan. we are ostensibly pulling out of afghanistan in just three weeks, but in fact we are leaving about 10,000 troops behind for the next several years. and congress has the responsibility to authorize this new mission. we can't just continue the same old, same old. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a reuters article entitled obama widens post 2014 combat role for u.s. forces in afghanistan. it doesn't sound like we are winding down anything. twice now ranking member, adam smith, and congressman walter jones, and i, have tried to offer an amendment requiring a vote next march to authorize

any post 2014 deployment of u.s. troops in afghanistan. and twice the leadership of this house has refused to allow our amendments to come to the floor. what is the leadership afraid of? why do they refuse to allow a debate and vote on authorizing america's post 2014 mission in afghanistan? don't we owe it to the troops who are going to be there? don't we owe it to their families? the gentleman from florida talks about that we need to be the voice of our troops. we are not the voice of our troops. we are ducking these important debates. it's shameful. we are letting our troops down. we are better than this. and we ought to be debating and voting on these important issues. we are also at war against the islamic state. on july 25, this house overwhelmingly passed a resolution that i offered that if the u.s. were involved in sustained combat operations in iraq, congress should vote and

enact an authorization. 370 members of this house voted for that resolution. two weeks after that vote, we began bombing iraq. we have been bombing iraq nearly every day for the past 4 1/2 months. we have increased the number of u.s. troops in iraq to around 3,000. on september 22 we started bombing syria. we have flown scores of bombing missions over syria over the last two months. we bomb iraq and syria as part of a coordinated military operations with the iraqi military and kurdish military forces. we bomb to protect infrastructure. and we bomb to target towns and camps harboring islamic state forces. if that's not being involved in sustained combat operations, i don't know what is. the war against isil began under this congress. it has escalated under this congress. it has expand interested iraq to syria and now maybe to turkey under this congress. it is the responsibility, the

constitutional responsibility of this congress, the 113th congress, to authorize it. and yet while the bill authorizes the money to carry out this war, it does not allow us a yes or no vote on actually authorizing the war. last night in the rules committee i offered amendments to limit funding for the iraq-syria war until congress enacted an authorization to ensure that u.s. ground troops in iraq would not engage in combat operations. both were rejected. both were rejected. mr. speaker, enough is enough. it is the institutional and constitutional duty of the congress of the united states to decide matters of war and peace. it is time for the leadership of this house to step up to the florida state and bring an authorization to the floor. it is time to debate it and vote on it before the 113th congress adjourns. no more excuses, no more

whining. just do it. the rule also includes h.r. 5759, the preventing executive overreach on immigration act. give me a break, mr. speaker. give me a break. for over a year and a half a senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill has been awaiting house action. all it needs is a house republican leadership with the political backbone to take it up. because we all know that the votes are there. we could pass it today or tomorrow or next week. we could put an end to all this rancor, all the nasty sound bites by simply doing what we are paid to do. debating and voting on major pieces of legislation. i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you don't want the executive to take administrative action, start acting like a real congress. there's still time before we leave town for the holidays, stop this farce. take up the senate bill. pass it. and send it to the president

for signature. mr. speaker, whether it comes to issues of war and peace or whether it comes to major issues like comprehensive immigration reform, the answer is simple. all we need to do is our job. i urge my colleagues to defeat this ridiculous triple closed rule. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from florida for yielding. i want to talk a little bit about the legislation and then the rule itself. not unusual that we are in a difficult moment near the end of the session and have must-pass legislation. the main portion of this legislation, the national defense authorization act, is actually very good and very bipartisan. frankly, it was passed out of committee with overwhelming vote, both sides of the aisle. we all know that the chairman and the ranking member, two of

our most distinguished members, they worked very well together. like anything in half a trillion dollar bill, i can quibble with this or that, but the reality is i favor the legislation. have no problems supporting it. and the rule that moves it forward. i also want to agree with my friend, mr. mcgovern. i have the same concerns he does about the authorization for military action. and jointly signed the letter with him to that effect. look forward to continuing to work with him to that effect because he's precisely right. we need to address this. i think the appropriate way is a full authorization debate not an amendment. but my friend certainly states his case eloquently. we also have a major lands bill appropriate with this. most of that bill is really pretty noncontroversial. most of it went through committee or a lot of it across the floor. and there's a lot of good things in there. things i find very easy to support. there's a particular portion, however, that i do oppose. and this is section 3003 as i

recall. but it's basically a copper mining issue in southeast arizona. we have two indian tribes that have sacred sites in this area on what is now federal land, and they have opposed this legislation. now, this legislation was debated on this floor and stand alone legislation. and then pulled because the votes were not here to pass the legislation. so we are passing by rule a bill that the majority in this house did not support. unfortunately -- fortunately, the bill is somewhat different. there are a couple of things that have been added. a consultation with the tribes in question. a stronger environmental review. whether this is window dressing or sincere is hard to know. but i'm going to urge the tribe to use the -- the tribes in question to use the consultation fully and aggressively, and i'm going to urge the federal agencies that

are responsible for the environmental considerations here to be extraordinarily aggressive in their oversight. we do have a trust responsibility when it comes to sacred sites on federal lands or nonfederal lands for that matter. we have a governmental responsibility. this is a bill, remember, that did not make it across this floor. and it's never been considered by the united states senate on the floor. frankly, if that bill couldn't make it across this house, i very seriously doubt it would have made it across the floor in the senate. we really have the rules in a sense supporting the authority opinion inside the congress. that is unfortunate. -- thwarting the majority opinion in congress and that's unfortunate. when you serve as a member of the majority on the rules committee -- i was given extraordinary latitude last night to try and change this rule in a way that would have stripped this particular provision, and was allowed and

did vote against the rule in committee, when you're given that responsibility, once the committee makes its decision, you also have a responsibility to accept the decision that's been made. i also have the great privilege on my side of the aisle as serving as a deputy whip. and that usually requires that you support the rule. that you support your bipartisan, which is pretty routine on procedural matters on both sides of the aisle. 12 years i have never voted against a rule that my own party put on the floor, even if i had disagreements with it. i do have disagreements. but in the end i'll support the rule with reservations, hope that the provisions that are in the law to be fair to the authors that have been added since that legislation, will give us some avenues. i think we ought to reflect long and hard over using this kind of procedural mechanism in this way. on our side of the aisle we would like to think we are going to be a different kind of congress and have been a different kind of congress.

and we can always play the back and forth. we've got plenty of gotchas for the other side in terms of how they used rules when they were in the majority. if we are going to do things differently, it needs to start someplace. i wanted to come down here, highlight this as i think a mistake, but make it clear at the end of the day i support the rule that the committee arrived at. but i'll be looking forward to working with my friend on his particular concerns on authorization. i'll be looking forward and really watching this issue in arizona with a great deal of concern. and i will continue to push aggressively that we change the manner in which we operate. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. . mcgovern: mr. speaker, the american people would be better served if we addressed our broken immigration system, and if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 15, the immigration reform bill. to discuss our proposal i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the

rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chair. what -- motion that mr. mcgovern has made might be our last opportunity in this congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. we have a bipartisan bill right here in the house of representatives, it's called h.r. 15. it's almost identical to the senate bill that passed with more than 2/3, republicans and democrats, supporting immigration reform. what does that mean? this is a bill that secures our border. this is a bill that creates over 200,000 jobs for american citizens. this is a bill that restores the rule of law. this is a bill that is supported from the faith community, from the business community, from the labor community, from the law enforcement community. this is a bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for de facto americans who have lived here in some cases for decades for all of their adult lives. by defeating the previous

question, we will have the opportunity to pass that bill. mr. speaker, there is sufficient support here in this body among democrats and republicans to pass this bill now for immigration reform, h.r. 15. and actually solve this issue, because you know what, there's one thing that i think democrats and republicans can agree on that what the president has done with his executive actions doesn't solve the entire immigration issue. yes, people are discussing whether they think it helps or hurts. whether they think it's illegal or legal. even though it's clearly contemplated in statute with regard to the authority given to the secretary. with regard to prioritization. but it doesn't solve it. the president alone can't establish border security. we need an appropriation and a plan from united states congress that we have in the bill that will pass if we can defeat the previous question per mr. mcgovern's motion. mr. speaker, immigration is a

challenging issue for our country. challenging for a lot of reasons. we are a nation of laws. we are also a nation of immigrants. we need to reconcile those two. we need to ensure we have an immigration system that reflects our values as americans and that is good for our economy and for job creation and restores the rule of law. we can accomplish that right here, right now, send the bill back to the senate where i believe they'll ratify it. on to the president to address this issue once and for all rather than have this sideshow of a discussion about just fixing a little bit around the edges. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. massie: thank you. mr. speaker, on june 19, 2014, the house of representatives passed the historic amendment to the fiscal year 2015 department of defense appropriations act. the amendment was offered by myself and ms. lofgren, along

with several of our house colleagues. our amendment blocks government bureaucrats from performing backdoor warrantless searches through the private -- of the private email content and telephone calls of u.s. citizens. the amendment also prohibits the n.s.a. and c.i.a. from requiring technology companies to place back doors in their products. our amendment passed the house by an overwhelming bipartisan and veto-proof majority, 293-123. now, some that didn't vote for the amendment said the appropriate place was in the ndaa, not in an appropriations act. i tend to agree with them. i'd like to see that in the -- we could only only put it in the ndaa. recent talk, if you will, this amendment will be stripped from

the omnibus. if that is the case, i think it does belong in the ndaa this year, because this is the bill that authorizes these programs that we've heard so much about. you know, americans were horrified to learn that the government was spying on them without even bothering to get a warrant. and the overwhelming number of members who voted in favor of the massie-lofgren amendment did so because they listened to their constituents. i hope we listen to our constituents today, include provisions to reform the n.s.a., particularly the provision to stop the back door warrantless spying on americans in had this ndaa, and i thank the gentleman for yielding time and urge you to include this in the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding and, mr.

speaker, i rise today to highlight one provision of this national defense act bill that hasn't gotten much attention but that will make an important difference in the lives of many new moms who happen to be in the military. over the years, i'm proud to have worked with my colleagues to make our military and veterans health care programs more responsive to the unique needs of women. far too many barriers to optimal health care remain, and that's why i'm so pleased that my tricare moms improvement act was incorporated into this bill. health care providers overwhelmingly recommend that new moms exclusively breast-feed their infants, but we know that despite their good intentions far too many women who want to breast-feed their babies find the cost of lactation supplies and lack of support to be a barrier to that choice. and while most women covered by private insurance do have access to these services, women

with tricare do not. my tricare moms improvement act, included in this year's defense authorization bill, would end that disparity, that discrepancy. we must do all we can to support our service members and their families, and this is one small but meaningful way to do just that. so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and a privilege to address you, mr. speaker, and i rise to address the underlying bill that we refer to around this hill now as the yoho bill, h.r. 5759. i appreciate the gentleman from florida for drafting this bill. he and i are consistent in our philosophy, our constitutional understanding and our approach. i would say, though, that the bill moved a little bit from the time that it was first presented. it had the word amnesty in the

tle and it said preventing executive amnesty, now it says preventing executive overreach. it tones it down for me. it says in the bill it ought to be applied on a case-by-case basis and not to whole categories of persons. mr. speaker, prosecutorial discretion can only be applied on a case-by-case basis. it cannot exempt them from the application of the law. so i want to make sure this congressional record is clear that this bill doesn't endorse the idea that we're suggesting prosecutorial discretion as anything other than what it actually is and that's on a case-by-case basis. i'd say also, no provision shall be interpreter applied to offer the executive branch to exempt categories of persons unlawful of presence. i agree with that. any action by the executive branch for the purpose of circumventing shall be null and void and without legal effect.

that's nice. this bill amounts to a esolution, a resolution of disagreement with the president. i don't think it makes it clear enough that president has clearly violated the constitution of the united states. i don't want this to be into the record as something that's ambiguous and i would also point out the president knows the law. he taught the constitution for 10 years. for 22 times he said at least that we know of into the public individual, in the videotape that he didn't have the authority to do what he did. and so if the president has little -- so little respect for his own opinions, my point would be, how would he have a lot of respect for this bill? so i just -- i encourage the gentleman, i thank him for offering it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to just be clear about one thing. the president did not create this problem. the cowardess of the house

republican leadership created this crisis. over a year and a half after the senate passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill, this house -- this house, mr. speaker, has failed to bring it up and debate it. if it's a crisis of leadership, then it's here in this house. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you for yielding. i'd like to highlight a significant provision in the national defense authorization bill and it's language based on h.r. 2415, the las vegas public valley springs and tulley springs fossel beds national monument. this important legislation will enact a number of land conveyances across southern nevada, including over 400 acres for the nellis air force base for critical training missions. in addition, the legislation will protect nearby lands that protect fossel beds dating back to the ice age. this bipartisan legislation enjoys the support of the

entire nevada delegation as well as the las vegas metro chamber of commerce, county and local officials, education institutions, local tribal governments and area environmentalists. for years we have been working with leadership in the house and senate to advance this legislation which will strengthen our national security mission at nellis. it will promote economic development for southern nevada and it will preserve our natural history for generations to come. i yield back and thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on the budget, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. this legislation, defense thorization bill, is now 1,648 pages and we're being told on the floor of the house that we either vote for the whole thing or nothing because

we're not given a chance for any amendments in between. there are some hugely consequential decisions being made for our national defense in this bill on issues of war and peace. it was just last september the president increased the number of american troops in iraq to help train and equip the iraqi and kurdish forces there. mr. mcgovern and i and mr. jones have a bipartisan amendment saying that u.s. ground forces in iraq should not be engaged in combat operations going forward. the president has asserted authority under the aumf. that's a blank check. we don't think there should be a blank check for the executive. this body should vote to make it clear that u.s. forces can't be involved in another ground war in iraq. there's also a bipartisan amendment offered by myself and mr. dent from pennsylvania and others that says we should vote on the question of whether we should now arm the so-called moderate syrian rebels for two years at a price of $500

million or up. now, whether you're for it or against it, we should have a vote. i happen to think it's a bad idea. we're not going to be able to successfully micro manage the syrian -- micromanage manage the syrian war. the target of those force is not isis. in the process we'll be inadvertently strengthening isis. whether you agree with me or not, for goodness sakes, we should have an amendment to make a choice. thought that's what why we're here. we owe it to our troops. instead of a 1,600-page-plus bill that comes to the house floor and doesn't give us an opportunity. so since we don't have that opportunity, i'm going to vote no on the defense authorization bill. i don't like to do that, but it is irresponsible and reckless for this house not to vote on these important issues separately.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman from texas and the chairman of the rules committee, mr. sessions, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i thank distinguished gentleman from florida who, by the way, mr. speaker, has three sons who serve or who have served in the united states military, who yesterday so adequately expressed really the concerns of not only a member of congress, a father, a proud american but from a man who wants and needs america to lead in this world rather than follow. yesterday -- turned into last night in the rules committee, we spent a good bit of time that i think, mr. speaker, was very thoughtful and on a bipartisan basis members of

this body expressed deep and dear reservations about actually where we are as a country, where our men and women are in harm's way, the mission and the purpose of what we're attempting to accomplish overseas. america has adversaries and also enemies. we have people who would do terrible things, not just to their own people in foreign countries, but who want to engage the united states to draw us in for further conflict. the united states is without, in my opinion and i think others, a strategic and tactical plan that would effectively be understood by congress and the american people. yesterday that turned into last

night, we had members of this body on a bipartisan basis who showed up at the rules committee to politely and professionally express their reservations about us funding through the national defense authorization act what is considered to be a year or two -year-long process of funding without a clear mark, a clear understanding about what we are agreeing to. mr. speaker, i found myself not just agreeing with the likes of mr. mcgovern and others who spoke about a need for us to know what we're doing, but i found great confidence when we had the gentleman from colorado, mike kaufman, who showed up and -- mike coffman, who showed up and spoke about the unrelenting fraud on behalf

of other countries taking american tax dollars. the problem is that we are debating this without any real discussion because our friends on the other side of this body, of this building are not willing to engage us on the issue. so we're viewing this in a difficult way today. i want to show up and to say to you, mr. speaker, and the american people that what we're attempting to do with this document -- mr. nugent: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman from florida, a member of the rules committee. i want to say to members for what we're preparing to do today that in january there's going to be a reorganization and discussion around this exact same issue where we will have a partner in the united states senate with thoughtful

content. i'll end here. if the chinese, the russians and the iranians can establish a policy of where they are in these dangerous areas, the united states should also. we need leadership and it will happen starting january 5. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i appreciate the words of the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, and he's correct. we were in a meeting yesterday for quite sometime. over six hours in the rules committee discussing multiple amendments on the defense bill, immigration bill and other things as well. my problem with what happened yesterday was that after all that talk, we got nothing. not a single amendment is being made in order here. we have yet another closed process. and i appreciate the fact that senate could be difficult, but the senate is not the problem

when it comes to the house of representatives debating and voting up or down on an aumf on iraq or syria or any other war for that matter. we have that -- we could do that ourselves. we don't need anybody to tell us we can do it. we don't need the white house to tell us we can do it. it's our constitutional responsibility. so, yeah, we did have a long meeting. we had a lot of discussion. it was a spirited discussion, but at the end of it all, we got nothing. and i regret that very much because the issues that we talked about last night are very, very serious and we owe it to the american people, we owe it to our men and women who we put in harm's way to have these serious discussions and we are not having that on the floor today. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. . ms. mccollum:00 --