pay to come to morehouse we want to be that good. host: and that is the present morehouse college president john silvanus wilson, junior. joining us on the c-span bus in atlanta. several colleges in the next. we'll have more next week. president wilson, thank you for your time today. guest: thank you. host: again, if you want more information about this tour, it started at howard university. in the following days, we will speak to the heads of florida a&m university, tucking the university. you can find out more about this tour when you go to our c-span website, www.c-span.org. the the speaker pro tempore: will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communicati m the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c., february 11 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable david w. jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker, i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house a message in writer. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members fromis smiedy the mority a mority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the jotyndinit leaders d the noty whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr.

dold, for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. february 11, 2015, what is the special significance? we become involved in our routine and our responsibilities, we greet our colleagues and the day continues. this was not the case 50 years ago. a young navy pilot climbed into the cockpit of his f-8 crusader aboard the u.s.s. coral sea readying himself for a mission over vietnam. and now imagine yourself mr. speaker, a young naval aviator, they're some of the best that we have in our armed forces. some may say a little cocky. they're actually able to fly a flying engine, in essence, an f-8 crusader can go faster than the speed of sound. they can fly missions and actually land back on a ship at

night in rough seas. so 50 years ago today this young naval aviator as he aboarded his f-8 crusader, was going to fly a low-level mission, about 1,000 feet above the surface. and yet after he took on some fire, very quickly he realized he was in some trouble. the cockpit filled with smoke. he had a very short time to exit the plane. his parachute opened about 35 feet above the ground. and broke his pack upon impact. this young pilot's world had just changed and dramatically. what was he going to do with the pain? his first thoughts were, when am i going to be killed? he was picked up very quickly marched by bayonet. the interesting thing, mr. speaker as the second american aviator shot down over north

vietnam, he was a prize and therefore was photographed. while this may not seem lucky, was actually very fortunate in fact his family now knew and the people back in the united states now knew he was alive and in captivity. he was indeed one of the lucky ones because as the p.o.w.'s would mount over this conflict in vietnam, many did not have that same luck. having broken his back on impact, he was looking for medical attention. the medical attention he received was a white robe and a bunch of cameras taking pictures and as soon as the cameras left, the extent of his medical treatment ceased. he was taken to a prison which we now affectionately know as the henoai hilton. he was the one eventually credited for naming it that. as those that know that have been in captivity and many of

us have read, when you're in captivity you're able to give your captors four basics -- the your name, your rank, your serial number and your date of birth. well, as we know, this obviously was not going to be enough. over the next eight years and a day, this naval aviator endured some of the worst. torture and at some point in time everyone breaks and the torture that they endured and that this man endured eventually had to give whether it was sitting on broomsticks for days at a time or tying your arms behind your back and having your elbows brought together by ropes and then slowly risen above your head. so he did give some additional information. his father, a lawyer, but also owned a farm in pennsylvania. the vietnamese wanted to know

how many chickens did they have. well, at some point in time he said, that's pretty innocuous information, i'll let them know, 19 chickens. well, he knew when he got back to his cell and some of these cells, mr. speaker, were about three-by-nine, some four-by-nine. now, just imagine spending 10 hours in a four-by-nine foot space, not to mention 2 1/2 years of solitary confinement, eight years in captivity. so he gave this additional information and as he went back to his cell realized it was going to get worse and worse. he tried to take his own life, mr. speaker, because he thought he let his country down. communication, though, however, was a huge savior. a savior for himself and for the other men that would be in captivity that sense of camaraderie, that sense of

making sure that your brain could continue to focus on other things that message to keep them and their spirits up. they devised a tap code. it was a five-by-five metric. a b, c, d, e. the next line hijj. they left out the k. they left out the k because that would not make it a five-by-foot box. his courage, integrity leadership with fellow people were ever present. his valor in the face of the impossible ensured that he returned with honor. lieutenant commander robert harper schumaker, now admiral schumaker, holds a near and dear place in my heart. he happens to be my uncle. when my wife and i had our first daughter, we decided to name her harper after one of the most incredible people we know. mr. speaker my daughter gave

me very clear instructions before i came here and that is to let everyone know how much we love this american hero in my office i keep two pictures. one of the day he was shot down and the other was the day he was united with his family. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dold: it reminds me of the power of faith and the strength of a brotherhood. and the honor that tpwhoun could take away. on the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest hours endured by an american aviator, let the record show that we stand and applaud this most revered american patriot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. the scheduled march 3 invitational of speaker boehner to israeli prime minister netanyahu to speak to a joint session of congress is wrong on many levels. it's a delivered attempt by the israeli prime minister and the speaker of the house to undercut an effort at diplomatic solution to stop

iran from becoming a nuclear power. this is calculated to occur at a very sensitive stage reaching a potential agreement to limit iran's nuclear ambitions. undercutting that diplomatic option is wrong for the united states. it undermines our efforts to smooth choppy waters at a time when we are deeply concerned with isis hezbollah, iraq, afghanistan syria. the potential being able to work with iran beyond the nuclear weapons issue is important for trying to manage many of the world's most explosive problems. it's impossible to fully comprehend the next steps if we undercut this diplomatic effort. why give iran an excuse to blame the united states for failure of negotiations and play to their hardliners who don't want any agreement that would contain their efforts to build nuclear weapons? there are no other good alternatives. some of the people most eager to ultimately use military force against iran are the same

people who were so enthuse -- enthusiastic about going to war with iraq. the fallout of the war with iran would likely be as bad or worse at a time of upheaval in this troubled region. there are other critical issues besides the negotiations with iran. it's outrageous to think that israel or any country would use congress as a prop for their highly contested domestic elections. this proposed speech would be right in the middle of the short heated israeli election. it's unseemingly counterproductive when only to look at netanyahu's television commercials from his last election, how he used his appearance before congress to see where this is going. finally, there is the issue of respect for the office of president and the responsibility to conduct foreign policy. i can't imagine what the reaction would have been if speaker nancy pelosi had

offered french president sarkozy an opportunity to lecture republicans and george bush about our disastrous policy in iraq. republicans would have been -- would not have been happy. this is not good for israel either. it's creating a backlash at home for netanyahu. it's creating heartburn for some of the strongest supporters of israel in congress and straining the relationship between the administration and the government of israel. this is coming at a time when the majority of israelis think their country is headed in the wrong direction, when netanyahu doesn't have a majority support of his countrymen, when the election is quite close with the significant number of undecided voters and polls tell us a majority of israelis think this speech is a bad idea. it's unnecessary it's unfortunate and it's a bad precedent. joint sessions involving heads of state and other world

leaders should advance american interests and be a positive expression of our values and our opportunities not a partisan or ideological device. this proposed speech fails that test. the invitation should be withdrawn or rescheduled or the israeli prime minister himself should reconsider. i for one have no intention of being part of dignifying this blatant political act with my presence because it's not good for congress, it's not good for israel and it's not good for the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker seven score and 12 years ago another gentleman from illinois went to gettysburg, pennsylvania, to dedicate the four-month-old still unfinished union cemetery at the sight of one of the

blood -- site of the one of the bloodiest battles in american history. there he would give one of our nation's most defining speeches. amazingly president lincoln's address was not the main event of that day. edward everett former president of harvard, was the event's main speaker spending two hours lecturing about ancient greece and how that society honored their fallen soldiers. everett later wrote i should be glad if i could flatter myself that i came as near to the central idea to the occasion in two hours as president lincoln did in two minutes. because in the 2 1/2 minutes lincoln spoke, he did more than honor our fallen soldiers. in 272 eloquent words he reminded us that we live in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. he asked whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. in his address the president also issued a challenge to his

contemporaries and generations of americans thereafter saying, it is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. and he concluded that our nation shall have a new birth of freedom and government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth. in his address, i believe president lincoln was asking the question -- what do we as americans mean when we say all thus are created equal? and the over 150 years since the gettysburg address we've had our struggles but we've also had our successes. we've suffered the supreme court's decision in plessy vs. ferguson and also brown vs. board of education. we allowed the women of this nation remain disenfranchise for mohr than a century but we also passed the 19th amendment which affirmed a woman's right

to vote. we lived through the travesties of jim crow. we also celebrated the passage of the civil rights act. we watched truman's executive action to desegregate our military. we passed don't-ask, don't-tell and then repealed it. we passed doma. we now witnessed the legalization of same-sex marriage in 37 states and the district of columbia. all these examples serve as reminders of the difficulties in ensuring equality for all, but they also demonstrate a nation that has responded to challenge and has been reborn. each time we've come a little closer to living up to the ideal that all of us are created equal. to paraphrase dr. king, the moral arc of our nation may be long, but as history shows us, it bends toward justice equality and freedom. in times of disdense and equality and injustice, great leaders like lincoln have reminded us of our true nation's promise, equality. let's rededicate ourself to our

nation's unfinished work. let's recognize that all love is equal and extend marriage rights to all of our citizens once and for all. . all americans have access to fundamental right let's finish -- the work the senate has started and pass comprehensive immigration he reform bill, let's last the employment nondiscrimination act so no american can be fired simply because who they love or who they are. let's allow our neighbors and freppeds who put in a full day's work whether in the mail room or boardroom, provide their families with a living wage. lincoln modestly believed no one would long remember his address that day at gettysburg, but we do remember and strive to honor those who have sacrificed and struggled and continue to struggle for equality because we believe as dr. king spoke of on the steps of lincoln's own sacred memorial that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its

creed. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about the deteriorating humanitarian and human rights situation inside sudan. regrettably as the attention of the world has been pulled in many different directions, the people of sudan have been forgotten. foreover a year and a half, the situation inside sudan has been getting worse and worse. it happens quietly, out of the limelight, but the suffering of the suedianees people is not silent. their -- sudanese people is not silent. on july 22, 2004, the house of representatives adopted house concurrent resolution 467, by a vote of 422-0. that resolution declared that

the crimes of sudanese president, alba shish shall -- alba shir in darfur constituted genocide. over a decade later, they have increased their genocidal attacks in darfur. as humanitarian agencies withdraw from the region unable to carry out their missions in the face of unrelenting attacks, the civilian and displaced populations in darfur are left without protection and without witnesses. in the past weeks, the government supported bashir's rapid support forces have intensified their campaign of attacks, bombings, rape displacement, and destruction. according to the satellite sen continual project, these forces are better equipped, centrally commanded, and fully integrated into the state's security apparatus with legal immunity from prosecution.

according to reports by united to end genocide, since january 1, at least 20,000 innocent civilians have been forced to flea their forms in darfur. the president is bombing civilians blocking the investigation of reported mass rape of over 200 darfur women, and in the midst of the sharpest increase of violence in the years demanding removal of u.s. peacekeepers. on january 6, the united nations office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs reported that 115 villages have either been abandoned or burnt to the ground in north darfur. attackers have forced women, children, and elderly to leave their villages with nothing to survive on. often looting everything belonging to civilians. it is clear that the r.s.f. and their masters in khartoum are engaged in a campaign to strip the people of darfur of everything they own, anything that might keep them alive, and condemn them to increasing

poverty displacement, starvation, and death. and the world, including congress, and the u.n. security council, remains silent. in the border states of -- defenseless civilians face a relentless bombing campaign by the sudanese air force and ground attacks by the armed forces. on january 20, a hospital run by doctors without borders was deliberately targeted by an aerial bombing campaign depriving the local population of lifesaving care. in the past few months under the auspicious of the african-american, countries from the region as well as the united states and europe, have sought to bring the bashir regime and various rebel forces to the table in order to negotiate a secession of hostilities and promote an inclusive national dialogue. this is a worthy effort and worthy goal. but while such talks meanders, khartoum continues its genocidal

campaigns to impose military solutions to the political crisis facing sudan. president bashir has no political solution to sudan's problems. as the people of darfur know only too well, displacement starvation, and death are the only strategies being pursued by the government in real time and real life. it is unconscionable, it is shameful that these horrors are taking place inside sudan in complete silence. the lack of response by the united states, by the europeans by the nations of the region only serves to provide bashir with the green light to continue the killing. over 10 years ago, congress called these very same actions acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. at the end of this month, i intend to reintroduce an updated version of my bipartisan bill, the sudan peace security and accountability act. and demonstrate to the suffering people of sudan, especially those in darfur, and the blue

nile that we hear their cries and that this house intends to take action i he -- take action. i ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: the president issued the aufm, the authority that has been asked for to determine the questions of war and peace particularly in light of the dangers we face with isis. in spite of that we are holding hostage the funding of the armor of security for this nation, department of homeland security. the committee from which i have sat since the horrible hineous act of 9/11. we take our work very seriously. we know that we oversee the national security of this nation

along with the very important aspects and leadership of our defense department. every day we are mindful of the roles that individuals play who are part of the department of homeland security. rather than looking to be concerned about the dangers of unaccompanied children, as our republican friends seem to be, challenging the president's thoughtful executive actions within the context of his constitutional authority, we are now using those reasons for holding hostage the very armor of domestic security. mr. speaker let me tell you, the t.s.o. officer that i see as i travel around this country are frontliners. i speak to them all the time. they have protected this nation from various attacks or potential attacks, might i say, stopping threats that many of us are not even aware of. these very faithful workers,

along with border security workers, will have to work without pay. they will have to be reordering of the strategies of our secretary of homeland security. mr. speaker, 40,000 border patrol agents 50,000 t.s.a. 13,000 immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e. officers 40,000 coast guard, 4,000 secret service will be threatened. so, mr. speaker, i demand that we do the right thing with eight legislative days left. fund the department of homeland security. speak in a tone that is that of america. defend our nation, protect our nation, stop this politicizing of the funding of the department of homeland security. i ask the republicans to join me in an important patriotic effort. fund the department of homeland security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as we celebrate african-american history month, i rise to acknowledge and pay

tribute to one of the most outstanding athletes in the history of baseball but also one of the most congenial personalities in public life. ernie banks. known as mr. cub, mr. chicago mr. ambassador for baseball. ernie banks was indeed, a superior athlete, playing 19 years for the chicago cubs named m.v.p. in 1958 and 1959 named to the all-star team 12 times, hit .274 with 512 home runs. voted into the baseball hall of fame on his first year of eligibility. but it was actually his cheerful attitude and his love of the game that made him such a popular player.

ernie was always the absolute optimist. you can always count on him to express a most positive attitude. every day was a good day. let's play, too. no matter what the cubs' record, this was the year that they could win the pennant and become world champions. after his playing days were over, ernie became a coach and was active in the community. he founded a charitable organization became the first black ford motor company dealer in the united states and even ran unsuccessfully for the chicago city council. a few years ago, ernie approached me about an effort he had under way to get young athletes who grew up in the inner city and depressed communities to pool some of

their resources and reinvest in the rebuilding and redevelopment of these neighborhoods. he was an inspiration to stars like magic johnson isiah thomas, and others who are doing just that. in 1997, he was inducted into the baseball hall of fame. in 1999, he was named to the major league baseball all century team. and in 2013, he was awarded the presidential medal of freedom by president barack obama. ernie banks, we salute you, mr. cub mr. chicago mr. ambassador for baseball, but most importantly, mr. cheerleader for life and positive living. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, for five minutes.

mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my strongest support for the invitation to have prime minister benjamin netanyahu address this body and express my personal support for the speaker's invitation. congress is a co-equal branch. the constitution acknowledges that. it establishes that. to suggest as some have that this body does not have a role in the geopolitical and diplomatic strategy of this nation is flatly wrong. we fund this body funds this congress funds our diplomatic activities. we fund, this body this congress funds our military activities. and this body authorizes the use of military force as acknowledged by the president just today with his delivery of a request for authorization to use military force.

and this body, this congress, authorizes sanctions. and this body has expressed strong support in recent years for additional sanctions on iran. we have a disagreement with the president, very respectfully, on this issue. but to suggest that this body, this congress, this co-equal branch established by article 1 of the constitution should simply lay down its responsibility because the president of the united states suggested during the state of the union that he will veto any additional sanctions we pass, would be a dereliction of our duty, of this body, of this congress. and that is why we have expressed our interest and we have said to the president that we do want to hear from our greatest ally in the middle east. to express our position of how to secure the region.

it is appropriate, we are a co-equal branch, and at a time when the president continues negotiations with iran, over the objections of so many in this body, at a time when the administration has had to acknowledge, forced to acknowledge a secret letter to iran, it is appropriate for this body to stand up, and it is appropriate for this body to suggest that he we stand with israel perhaps in a way that the president does not. . so this body this house we welcome the prime minister in march. we look to hearing his vision, the vision of our greatest ally in the region, on securing peace in the middle east, providing for the stability of the middle east, securing democracy and to say with the people of israel that we stand with you in providing for your security. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker my question all my colleagues today as i stand before this body is, if we could present a humanitarian disaster would we, should we? right now somalia may be on the brink of a preventable humanitarian disaster. my district happens to be home to one of the largest somali american communities in the world and is certainly the largest in the northern -- in the western hemisphere. and so my constituents have come to me and have explained in very detailed and moving ways that it is time for us to figure out this problem that we have in the united states with helping people remit money that they have earned to their loved ones in the horn of africa. somali americans in my district

are part of the progress somalia has made as i have and many people around the world are. this is a nation that for over two decades had civil war but now has a president, a legislature and is planning for elections in 2016. the -- this country is fighting off al shabaab a terrorist organization in league with al qaeda and this nation has fought off all famine and won't of many kinds and now they are on another kind of problem and this problem has to due with remittances and the ability of somali americans to send money to loved ones. the progress they have made is fragile and we in the united states don't need to worry about sending money there right now, although we should and we have and we are. we need to just get out of the

way to allow somali americans to send money to their own loved ones and our financial system is inhibiting that. every year somali americans send about $215 million to somalia, a figure comparable to the entire u.s. aid package, which is approximately about $200 million an hour -- a year. somali -- individual somali americans send more money than the united states government sends there and that is life-saving money that is shut off now as we speak. the bank that provided 60% of the remittances or funds sent to somalia closed the accounts that sent money from america to somalia. now somali americans can't send money to their loved ones and somalia can't receive money they depend on for food, for

school fees, for medical bills, many institutions in the united states to avoid serving money -- service businesses that send money to vulnerable nations like somalia due to concern that the money could find its way into bank accounts of unsavory money launderers. so the goal of the u.s. financial regulator is good. we want to keep money from the money launderer and the terrorists, but do we arrive at a point where our regulation is so tight that even the legitimate money that we want to flow is being cut off? i'm calling on our government to get together, treasury the office of comptroller currency, state department and have a real conversation how we can stop the bad money but also let the good money flow. as i said, somalia depends upon this money.

it is a very fragile state. it is emerging from being a failed state and if they cut the remittances off, we will see catastrophic results. and one of catastrophic results is al shabaab who argue that the west and the united states in general don't want to help somalia. we need to stop them by figuring out how we can achieve our goals by stopping bad money from flowing and allow good money to flow. for years i've been asking for agencies to work with me to prevent this foreseeable tragedy. we need to be creative about finding solutions. the federal reserve bank of new york could use its wire service to process transfers to east africa. that's a possibility. we could follow the example of the united kingdom and set up a safe corridors program for banks to safely transfer money while managing risk. we could provide proactive training and assistance for banks that want to serve east african communities and there's

no shortage of ideas, but i urge our government to sit down at a table and figure out a way to stop the money launderers and the bad money from flowing but to certainly allow legitimate remittances to flow. we could prevent a catastrophe if we do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from hawaii, mr. takai, for five minutes. mr. takai: aloha mr. speaker. on february 27 the department of homeland security will run out of money, 17 more days. if this is not resolved, the best case, approximately 200,000 workers will stay on the job without pay or be furloughed or at worse not work. mr. speaker, i was elected to

congress and came here promising my constituents no more government shutdowns, no more federal furloughs and no more sequestration. yet, here we are on the verge of letting funding for homeland security run out and partially shutting down government. this impasse needs to end and it needs to end now. i say the bottom line, to pair tries d.h.s. secretary johnson's point, security for our nation is not free. our homeland security cannot be hijacked by political games. we must get past this political stalemate and work out a clean bill for funding homeland security. if we don't, significant portions of the department of homeland security could be crippled and hundreds of thousands of critical federal personnel, our constituents, could be affected. let's remember that we're talking about some of the most critical security personnel who

are working to keep americans safe. shuttering the d.h.s. domestic nuclear detention office, which would no longer alert and coordinate with local law enforcement agencies and withholding the securing -- the cities grant that pay for critical nuclear detection capacities in cities across the country halting research and development work on countermeasures to devastating biological threats on nuclear detection equipment and on cargo and passenger screening technologies. crippling fema's preparation for future disasters. furloughing nearly 22% of fema personnel. and ending fema's training activities with local law enforcement for weapons of mass destruction events. although some d.h.s. employees could continue to work in the event of a shutdown, they would be forced to work without pay, creating a significant distraction and dealing a direct blow to morale. among those who would be

affected and expected to protect americans without getting paid would be more than 40,000 border patrol agents and custom and border patrol agents, more than 50,000 t.s.a. aviation security screeners, more than 13,000 immigration and custom enforcement law enforcement agents and officers, more than 40000 active duty coast guard military members and more than 4,000 secret service law enforcement agents and officers. holding hostage funding of d.h.s. for the purpose of overturning the president's executive actions on immigration is wrong. president obama was forced to take action because of the inaction of this house to consider a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that the senate passed last year. and here we are again yet with more inaction. we cannot waste any more time here with political bickering, and it is not fair.

it's not fair to try to hijack homeland security funding with an anti-immigration agenda. the security of our nation and our people hang in the balance. again, no more government shutdowns, no more federal furloughs, no more sequestration. let's get to work, come together, answer the call of our constituents and just pass a clean bill for d.h.s. funding. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess un

to use military force to fight isis and he will address the nation about that at 3:30 eastern. we'll have that live on c-span3 this afternoon. house speaker john boehner with republican leaders talked about that and other issues in their briefing this morning which just wrapped up on capitol hill. >> good morning, everyone. new lighting effect here. this week the house will continue to focus on the people's priorities, passing another three bills that will increase a number of jobs available in america. we'll advance tax relief for small business that will help create some 200,000 new jobs.

we're going to continue to keep our promise to the people by finishing our work on the keystone pipeline. you've all heard me say this before, we build pipelines all around america every single day. keystone has been reviewed and approved numerous times. even our president's own state department will say it creates 42,000 new jobs, but instead of listening to the people, the president is standing with a bunch of left-fringe extremists and anarchists. the president needs to listen to the american people and say yes, let's build the keystone pipeline. >> hear, hear. >> i'll pause for a moment so you can keep writing that down. as the speaker said, this is actually a big week and we're taking up three bills. three bipartisan bills. keystone pipeline. taking the version that came directly out of the senate. charitable donations.

and small business tax relief act. yesterday, cathy and i and jason smith, nonprofit -- toured the nonprofit d.c. central kitchen. it was created by an individual who happened to be a small business owner. he was a promoter. he watched individuals that were hungry and thought i could do something about it. in 1989 he took that excess food and created the d.c. central kitchen. in doing so he fed people. did he more than just feed people. he created jobs and went beyond. we met an individual there by the name of dwayne. dwayne had served in prison for a number of decades. came out, went to cullnear school. he's now -- culinary school. he's now been manager for eight years. he has a 5-year-old daughter and he talks about her college fund and her future.

that -- a simple individual somewhere in america decided to do something and create something better that's what our bill continues to enhance. too many times in washington they put these cliffs out and continue, can you get the donations. we enhance that to make it permanent and we do it long and before this sunset begins. small business, everywhere we go, we know that's the lifeblood of creation. the expensing is the createst part of where they look for investment. so three bipartisan bills. you're going to see republicans and democrats vote for them. but you know what else they have in common? three veto threats by this president. i don't think the president should veto energy security throughout north america. i don't think the president should veto charitable giving across the country. i do not think the president should veto small business growth. this is an opportunity with

this new american congress that president can rethink what he's prioritizing, because in this congress we care about growing america's economy, not washington. >> the house has been focused on creating jobs and we started right out the box passing the keystone pipeline bill. the senate made some changes, sent it back and today we're going to take that bill up and send it to the president's desk to create over 40,000 american jobs. i urge the president to sign this bill. in his veto threat, the only thing he cited were issues in the state of nebraska. those issues have now been resolved. there are no issues that the president has stated with that bill that shouldn't be able to overcome and the president shouldn't stand in the way of creating those good american jobs and that important energy security. so as we send that i over i hope he takes it up and signs it. something we sent over to the senate deals with funding the department of homeland

security. in that bill we also put in language that prevents the president from moving forward on illegal actions on executive amnesty. the senate's got that bill. there are some people saying, well, how are we going to get the department of homeland security funded? the way to do it is for the senate to do the job that the house already did. it's time for the senate to take up the house-passed bill and send it either back to the house if there's something they don't like about it or send it to the president's desk. there are a number of senators who are voting against bringing this bill up to fund the department of homeland security who months ago made statements in support of the house bill. actually said that the president doesn't have the authority to do what they do and now they're voting against the bill to fund the department. it's time for those senators to put their money where their mouth is, to actually vote to take the bill up. if there's something they don't like about it, the legislative process actually allows them to put an amendment at the desk and go and fight to make that change. that's how this legislative process works.

so we passed a bill to fund the department of homeland security. it's sitting over in the senate and now it's time for the senate to do their job. >> good morning, everyone. as we continue to advance an opportunity economy, today i wanted to highlight just one of the things that makes america exceptional. and that is the spirit of generosity that we see all across this country. we see it in homes, in schools, in hospitals, in hearts. and yesterday kevin mentioned that we had the chance to visit d.c. central kitchen right here in the heart of the nation's capital. you know, since 1989, they have -- they have fed more than 30 million people -- provided 30 million meals, at least. and beyond the tremendous effort to get that food and to distribute it, they're changing lives and it was so inspiring to meet lives that had been

changed, people, because of this effort, had gone to school, had got some training and now were employed. and this is one of the many organizations across the country that embody that spirit of generosity. in eastern washington, i visited christ kitchen and we have a campus kitchen at gonzaga, union gospel kitchen and there are so much more. a large number of americans give to charities. it's estimated that 95% of american households give to charity. it only continues to rise. and that's why we are advancing solutions that are going to encourage that kind of generosity moving forward. that's why we're focusing on legislation that simplifies the tax code promote charitable contributions and give certainty to people in all corners of the country. not only does that foster that spirit of generosity, it improves people's lives. >> uncertainty can be the enemy

of productivity. it holds back families and small businesses. at home in kansas uncertainty is one of the major issues that i hear about regularly. folks struggling with stagnant wages and an economy that's not rebounding quick enough. for too long the tax code has consisted of temporary measures and indefinite provisions that washington seems to renew retroactively after the fact. this needs to change because hardworking families and businesses are better. this week the house is going to consider two bills that are he designed to make some tax provisions permanent. these measures will ensure that folks can plan for the future, knowing that the tax code will not suddenly change leaving them stuck with an unaccounted for tax burden. these measures represent a really strong start towards paramount issue which is reforming our broken tax code.

to be simpler fairer, flatter and easier to understand so we can grow our economy and help create good-paying jobs. while we continue to work towards tax reform, sensible bills like this will fix long-standing issues and help build an economy that functions efficiently and effectively for all americans. >> well, good morning. i'm tom reed from new york. you know all these guys obviously, but i was asked to come here today to talk about my bill, our bill that is part of the charitable package of these tax extenders that we'll be talking about this week and that's the fighting for hunger incentive act. it's time. we care for the american people. republicans care for the american people. and what we're talking about here in this provision is that we're going to recognize in our tax code policy that we do on a regular basis all the time. allow people to give their food that would otherwise end up in

a landfill to the people in america who need it most. our fellow citizens that are hungry, that could use this food. so today let us go forward and pass this bill and say to american people, we're going to stand with you, we're going to get washington, d.c., politics out of the way and we're going to do commonsense provisions such as fighting hunger so that people will have the food on their tables rather than in the landfills and go to waste. thank you. >> mr. speaker, the president has sent up his request for the authorization of use of military force. judging by his statement, i guess you've seen the language of it and your concerns, if you express them to us. >> well, the use of military force to deal with isis is an important step forward. and i think the president's going to have to make his case

to the american people. the delivery of this authorization is the beginning of the legislative process that will involve hearings, markups and i'm sure changes as we go through this process. and so at this point i think we got an awful lot of work to do before we get into what i'm for and what i'm against. i think we need to go through the process. >> in terms about flexibility, what does that concern? >> i believe if we're going to authorize force of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that we're in. and so as you've heard me say over the last number of months, i'm not sure that the strategy that's been outline will accomplish the mission the president sets out to pressure. and his point, the president's point is he wants to dismantle and destroy isis. i haven't seen the strategy yet

that i think will accomplish that. >> when you hatched this plan on d.h.s. at the end of the year did you foresee this standoff or does this come as a surprise to you? >> it's working exactly the way i envisioned. the house did its job. we won the fight to fund the department of homeland security and to stop the president's unconstitutional actions. now it's time for the senate to do their work. you know, in a gift shop out here they got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. the house has done its job. why don't you ask the senate democrats when they're going to get off their ass and do something other than to vote no? >> your party controls the chamber there. >> the house has done its job. >> this is the kind of coordination you envision between you and mcconnell and the senate republicans? >> listen, the issue here is not senate republicans. the issue here is senate democrats.

seven of whom criticized the president's executive overreach on immigration and yet they continue to block consideration of the bill. >> mcconnell says it's up to you. >> i love mitch. [laughter] >> he has a tough job to do and so do i. >> what specifically in president obama's aumf request does not -- you said you want comprehensive military strategy, doesn't meet the standard. what in there doesn't meet a comprehensive military strategy? >> look, this is the beginning of the process. i want to make sure the president has all the tools available in order to win this fight. and as we go through this process, we'll have a better understanding of exactly what all those words mean. >> limitation of ground troops a problem for you, though, when he says he wants no one -- >> i'm not going to get into any of the specifics. i said this is the beginning of a legislative process, not the end. >> last question. >> mr. speaker, you said that senate democrats need to get

off their ass. if they don't -- [laughter] >> do you plan on throwing mitch mcconnell a lifeline at some point or is it appropriate for the standoff to go beyond february 27? >> the house has done its job. it's time for the senate to do theirs. >> and when they don't? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> house republican leaders following their conference meeting within the hour, talking a bit there about the authorization for the use of military force which came up to the hill from the white house today officially titled by the administration to limit the force against the islamic state of iraq and the levant. the president will speak about his request this afternoon at the white house 3:30 eastern, we'll have that live on c-span3 and c-span.org. speaking of c-span.org, we have

linked to the president's request right there. if you go to the top of the page, you'll find that link. you can read it for yourself. democrats also wrapping up their weekly caucus meeting within the hour and held a news conference and talked about the aumf as well as other issues. >> how's everybody doing today? everyone's ready? yeah good. we set? ok. thank you for being here this morning. javier becerra, chairman of the house democratic caucus, joined by our leader, nancy pelosi, and our vice chairman, joe crowley. we just finished a session where obviously we discussed the legislative calendar's activities for this week. we also had an opportunity to hear from the president's counsel on the proposal that has been submitted by the white house and the president to congress for authorization to use military force. as we try to dismantle and

destroy isil. and so we spent a lot of time discussing that with him. clearly it's an important issue we're going to be taking up over the next several days, along with other important matters. we still have to make sure that our homeland security is protected by making sure we fund all those who take care of us here at home and we're hoping that our republican colleagues will put forward a proposal that can become law so we don't find a shutdown of the most important agency when it comes to protecting our security here at home. and so there are a number of things we have to deal with. we're hoping that our colleagues on the republican side will -- here in the house and also in the senate will take action soon because it's time for us to govern. whether it's the pressing issues in the middle east or the pressing issues here at home, we have things to do. americans expect us to get to work because they still want to see us get back to the job of building more jobs for americans throughout the country. with that let me yield now to our leader, nancy pelosi.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman and vice chairman crowley. as you mentioned, the homeland security appropriation is an important matter that has not been sufficiently dealt with in the house of representatives. we take an oath to support and protect the american people, the constitution of the united states. homeland security is that vehicle. homeland security department is that vehicle. we have 17 days until the expiration of this -- what was it called -- the cronibus, the short-term funding of homeland security legislation. only six of those days are legislative days. we have the leader on the republican side saying, why do we have to do anything when mitch mcconnell in the senate says it's up to the house? but still house republicans refuse to acknowledge the fact that we must pass an appropriations bill to fund

homeland security. as i said to you before, we should have passed this in december. and remove all doubt that we can move forward in a very strong way to protect the american people. republican leadership, the speaker at that time said, well, let's just do it after the new congress comes in. that was december. the new congress comes in in january. in january everybody in the world was concerned about homeland security in each person's country, certainly ours. everybody except the chamber of the house of representatives where there still is a refusal to accept the fact that we must fund homeland security department in order to protect the american people in the best possible way. and why are they doing this? they're doing this because they object to the president exercising his constitutional authority to protect immigrants in our country.

ronald reagan did so. george herbert walker bush did so. president clinton did so. president george w. bush did so. that was ok. but when president obama moved to use executive action to protect people in our country they said no, and not only no but we're not going to pass homeland security. they're holding homeland security -- the protection and safety of the american people hostage to their opposition to any action the president may take on immigration. . we find ourselves in a situation where we have to make sure the american people understand what's at risk here, even the republicans in the senate are saying it's up to the house. the house refuses to assume its responsibility. as our chairman said we also this morning thought in the interest of our national security talked about the authorization for the use of

military force. that will be an ongoing debate as our members express their views. we are pleased the administration put forth a resolution and we'll see what comments come from that. we hope to have bipartisan support for something that would limit the power of the president but not nonetheless protect the american people in a very strong way. with that i'm pleased to yield to our vice chair, mr. crowley. mr. crowley: thank you, madam leader. as the leader said leader mccarthy has said why do we have to do anything? the reason you have to do something is when you're with the majority you are in charge of the house of representatives. it's your responsibility to put forth legislation to protect the home lan. without this legislation -- homeland. without this legislation set to expire tend of this month, leaves in jeopardy the security of our nation. that alone is reason enough for them to have to act. it's their responsibility to act

to protect the american people. at 9/11, after the threats that we have sustained over the last decade and a half since 9/11 we know there have been many, it's the responsibility of homeland security, department of homeland security, to protect the american people here in the united states. and the suspension of that -- again, the false or these made up deadlines -- leading the american people once again to the drink is something the american people are tired of. they don't want to see the safety threatened or questioned because of political gamesmanship. if the republicans don't like what the president had to do in terms of executive order, they had the opportunity to continue -- continue to have the opportunity to bring up their own bill on immigration. if they fail to do that once again, an abrogation of their own authority they fail to act on. on the aumf i'm also pleased the president has brought forth a proposal. it's now up to the congress to

deliberate and to discuss this issue further. and i think there's some healthy skepticism within our caucus. i think it's also pleased that the president has brought this limiting aumf before us. it's the first time in the history that i have been here in the house we actually have a president who has asked for limitation on their ability to conduct operations overseas. i look forward to this debate within our caucus. and further in a bipartisan way on floort of the house of representatives and ask the senate and house to move forward on this issue. with that i yield back. >> questions?

[no audio] >> i hope not. i hope the scenario you described is just anecdotal because it's very dangerous. the fact is the president of the united states. isil opposes the threat to security in that region and it must be stopped. and middle east and beyond. and must be stopped. the president is asking for a limitation on the power that the president does have under article 2. and in the authorizations that have gone forth he's saying let's limit this. let's limit in terms of time and

scope. so i would hope that we could have a thoughtful conversation about what is right for the american people without them getting into their we don't trust the president mode. i don't know who they are referencing. but it's irresponsible whoever it may be. our members of our caucus have questions as do i about what does this language actually mean because we are seeing it for the first time now. and i think that's a healthy debate. and i hope that there can be common ground that is found in a very bipartisan way about the most important responsibility we have to protect and defend the american people. that's our responsibility. i hope that they don't play politics with that because this is deadly serious. i do think that in the country there is no appetite for any boots on the ground except in

limited circumstances, and that is -- that scope is the diet debate that we will be engaged in. -- is the debate that we will be engaged in. [inaudible] >> many of my colleagues in our caucus have been through this before. not particularly to the administration, but we have gone through two aumf's. some have support from the caucus. some have not enjoyed that support. i think in terms of listening to the president about what the leader has said is probably the most serious issue we could ever discuss within our caucus, and that is the lives of americans going overseas to protect our interest overseas. what limitations will be there and in effect what ramifications, limitations is something our colleagues want to

talk about. i think as the leader has said and chairman, we'll have an opportunity over the next few weeks to talk about it. have a healthy debate. getting to a point on a piece of legislation that will help our country move forward in furtherance of the protection of the united states. >> language about enduring -- [inaudible] can you talk about the role house democrats might play in terms of trying to influence the debate. trying to unite in favor of certain components you'd like to see attached to the language? can you address the concern this would be a three-year authorization that would lead to the next president. how much concern -- the next president will do. >> starting with that i would

hope that the timing of this legislation will be much longer than it takes to deal with isil. we'll deal with them for three years and see how we deal with them after that. no, let's get this job done and do it in a way that supports -- for example, the jordanians and others who are at ground zero there. so that it's not a calling upon our troops on the ground as called upon before. nonetheless in certain circumstances that there would be boots on the ground, whether it's rescue. whether it's the defense of our embassy. the length of time in terms of another president, i'm more optimistic than that. i hope we can have success as we try to defeat isil. in terms of the first parts of

it remember this. the 2001 authorization was an attempt to limit the power of the president because when attacked our country, all the war powers act was off. the president had any and all authority. it triggered all of the powers of the commander in chief. that was very broad. so that resolution was intended to narrow. it is still very broad and still very broad. i would think that one consideration might be is when this three year sunset is is -- is there that sun set 01 as well. i could support repealing the 2002 authorization. it was gotten under false premise. nonetheless, it should go and it should go now. the fact you put it on this

other authorization, that's just another complication. let's do one, let's do the other. let's make sure we do them both. but this is a deadly serious -- it's deadly serious and we have to make sure that we do right by our men and women in uniform. as you know congressional signing and tomorrow there will be a presidential signing of the clay hunt legislation. just another manifestation of the serious harm that came to our young people who fought to protect our country. that's one of the considerations that i don't think we have considered enough when president bush led us into war in iraq. over 10 years later here we are. people were burned by that experience. burned individually in our country, burned legislatively -- congressionally here.

and all of us concerned about it as we review what comes next. frl knuble -- [inaudible] >> we take on those responsibilities in a bipartisan way. the issues that relate to our national security and foreign policy, which is part of our national security of course, are issues that we have to find common ground on. the ukraine issue is, as you sawle with chancellor merkel there are decisions to be made. and we have people with a lot of

experience and knowledge of the subjects over a period of time who can be useful in that discussion. i have always found that -- when it comes to foreign policy certificate vuss other issues congress is like -- policy versus other issues, congress is like a kaleidoscope. when it comes to policy turn the dial and different people come together to form a design which is how we would go forward to protect. and based on -- it's based on so many things. of course values, knowledge, how we -- what plan we think will work, and responding to concerns from our constituents about their knowledge of the ukraine or other issues. when it comes to iran, the president has us on a course. i commend the administration for bringing together the p-5 permanent five members of the scarke -- security council plus one, germany, to stay together

in this negotiation. i think the sanction that is we have had so far and the multilateral sanction that is are there have helped keep iran at the table. i think -- i'm pleased that the senate has said they are not going to do any more sanctions to upset that deli cat balance. i believe -- delicate balance. everything is on the table. but for everything to be on the table, diplomacy seen to its full course has to be on the table as well. that's the path we are on and i commend the administration for that. we are eager to see if there can be a good agreement. if there can't, then we go to the next step. i think that there's a real understanding of the seriousness. stopping weapons of mass destruction is a pillar of our security and our foreign policy and it's as serious an issue as we deal with.

thank you very much. house democratic leaders following their caucus meeting this morning. the house returns at noon eastern today. they will take up -- they will begin work on the approving the keystone x.l. oil pipeline. live coverage of the house here on c-span at noon eastern. and you heard some comments, questions there about the authorization for the use of military force against the islamic state or isis. the president will be speaking about that at 3:30 eastern. you can watch that live on c-span3 and read the authorization request online at c-span.org. word this morning there may be a house foreign affairs committee hearing about that tomorrow. we'll keep you posted on any coverage plans. we can tell you we are taking live now to the house veterans' affairs committee. they are hearing from the v.a. about the 2016 budget request. live coverage here on c-span. >> transition to make it

seamless and the bumps in the road. i just met a veteran who has been out two years and only 10% disability but the point is, he can't get his paperwork from d.o.d. what are we doing? we have asked this question for years. >> it's a great question. i have to say that secretary hagel and i are totally aligned that we want to have a seamless handoff from the department of defense to v.a. that's why we have instituted programs like tap while the person's on ackive duty. >> congresswoman brown good news to report on this front. although it didn't help that particular veteran. we are actively engaged now in the mandatory tap program for all of our separating service members, including national guard and reserve, for which there are now nearly a million who qualify for benefits that --

did not previously. another thing that's starting right now is the mandatory separation health assessment. if you are going to make a claim to v.a. for anything, the v.a. will do a complete separation assessment on and talk about it before you leave service so we capture everything service connected right there on the spot. the next thing i will tell you is we have moved substantially forward with d.o.d. on the new system where they give us the complete service treatment record. all the parts and pieces we talked about before that we called the gold standard. they are now for a while there the numbers were -- late ones were high but they have come down to about 21% are overdue. they are getting better and we are getting them faster and built all the i.t. connections now such that we simply note that we have got a claim.

the system tells the d.o.d. system we are asking for the records. and the records come back automatically come back and instantly loaded up for the aiders to do it. that's helped. last thing i'll share is we have refused substantially and those folks waiting and now are getting much better in our timeliness and can i tell you also that the benefits of discharge program, the backlog has been reduced by a significant amount. there's only about 5% or 10% of those who are now over 125 days. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: >> mr. secretary, i want to read a text that i just got from a friend of mine said, had a reason to deal with the v.a. in jacksonville this morning on a home we justished for a veteran a guy famed x handled my request and was very efficient and friendly. i left the conversation warm and

complete. very good experience. never had that before. thank you. >> may i get a name so i can send a note of recognition? i'm serious. do i that. >> it's unsolicited. it came in while i'm sitting here. a i have given out my cell phone number publicly and nationally and i get about 120 contacts a day. right now i'd say 30%, 35% are positive. that's not enough. all of us sitting here at this table want 100% of those to be positive and we are working on it. a i'll be glad to provide you his name. >> mr. chairman, you did say jacksonville? >> yeah, i did. maybe that's why they never had a good experience. mr. lamborn. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here, secretary mcdonald. i'm pleased to see that you have focused a portion of your budget on construction efforts.

can you tell me the status of the southern colorado national cemetery project and when you anticipate they'll begin accepting early burials? i'm very concerned that this project stays on track. >> we are as well. we are in the design phase right now, and we think that design phase will take about a year, year and a half. >> congressman lamborn as you know we have made progress, significant progress on establishing the cementtary in southern colorado. we inquired -- acquired the 374 acres at rolling hill ranch in el paso county. we do have sufficient funds in the budget right now to complete the design. complete it through construction documents. the final phase of design. once that is completed, we'll begin the solicitation phase for construction.

of phase one. assuming construction funds are provided in the next budget cycle, and that is -- yet to be determined, we would expect the first burials to occur sometime in calendar year 2018. >> i'm disappointed that the timeline seems to be slipping. i'll do everything i can to make sure those funds are in the budget. i'll work with other folks to try to achieve that. it sounds like there's been some slipping to the right and that is disappointing. >> we are going through a complete review right now of our construction management process as you know. the deputy secretary is leading that. we have asked the corps of engineers' help. we've got to find a way to shorten these timelines that we face. so we'll be looking at that. obviously any work we can do to

accelerate it, we would like to do. a i'll work with you if any amendments are necessary or any other legislative action to help you have the authority to make faster progress in the future. on this or other projects. changing subjects secretary mcdonald, you mentioned there are five versus proposed regions as opposed to 21 vizzins. -- visns. does that mean that you will fewer personnel doing the same job as before? which to me is the hallmark -- a result of more efficiency. >> as i said in my remarks, this organization is focused on productivity improvement. we don't feel like we can come to you and ask for more money unless we are demonstrating that we are saving money at the same time. that's why we have identified the buildings that are empty that cost us money every year. think of nine different geographic maps. each one for a different line of business, whether it's insurance

or disability -- >> i have one other question, if you could just summarize. >> it goes to five regions and we haven't yet determined how many visns we will have but they have to fit those five regions. we have a team of directors looking at that now. everybody's trying to fit into that structure. the point is there will be more efficiency at the middle management level. >> i hope that means fewer people doing the same job which means less budget dollars going to -- >> we are trying to put every budget dollar we can against the veteran experience. making the veteran experience better. >> lastly, i know we touched on this, but the transition between d.o.d. and v.a. i have 100,000 veterans in my district, and almost that many dependents and other family members. and the military compensation and moderate -- retirement modernization committee just

came out with recommendations. they said there needs to be better transition. you've mentioned some things that you're working on that's good to hear, but what can be done in the future, what could be improved to make that transition better? >> when we met with that committee throughout their work, i think they have done some excellent work, some of the ideas that allison mentioned are brand new. before that committee wrote its report. in fact, when they gave us the report, we mentioned some of these things and they missed the report. the report was already in printing. but this idea of the medical examine before the service member leaves the service, that's the biggest idea. i think the problems we have had in the past will be able -- we'll be able to resolve with that. and also with the way we strengthen the tap program. i think we are getting better, but we are going to continue to look and see if there are other things to do. >> thank you so much. >> ms. titus. >> mr. chairman.

thank you, mr. secretary, it's nice to see you again. we appreciate you being here. before i ask my general question i'm going to bring up what i always bring up and that's the reno office. we have been without a permanent director for about two years. we are on our second interim. i understand they haven't started to recruit yet, but if you moved it to las vegas, it would be a lot easier to recruit a person to come and take that position. that's my first point. second the hospital built in las vegas was too small by the time it was completed because they didn't anticipate the increase usage. we heard deputy secretary sloan say they were going to move some resources to help with the hospital that's out from denver i believe it is. i want to be sure you're not moving any resources from the las vegas hospital to fix the problem in aurora. if we could just follow up with that. now, my general questions for the last couple of years we have focused on the backlog fixing

that problem and also problems with our hospitals. i'd like to see us as we move into the next two years look at other areas of benefits and make the v.a. morel vant to our 21st century veterans. i appreciate the things you mentioned in your testimony. one is women. second is lgbt veterans. third is the issue of medical marijuana. these are all big issues during these times. you talked about how many more women veterans we expect to have. but really what we don't know is what we don't know. and the women's veterans task force recommended two positions that are data gathering positions. we can get a better handle on this performance an alse and demographic and research analyst. so i'd like to note the v.a. is making those two position as priority and if we have your commitment those would be positions that would be funded and utilized.

second, i would ask you, mr. secretary, if you would commit to whether you think the law needs to be changed that prevents the v.a. from giving the lgbt veterans the same benefits that other veterans get. they earned them they deserve them they just happen to live in the wrong state. i don't think that's fair. third, with medical marijuana as more and more states are legalizing medical marijuana v.a. doctors aren't able to make any kind of recommendations concerning that. i wonder how v.a. policy might be moving to address that issue. >> thank you for the questions. first on women, i took down a painting in my office, probably been on the wall since omar bradley was the administrator of v.a. and put up a poster that says women in the military. and has a picture of a woman in service in each branch of the military. i did that on purpose, because this is going to be a defining issue for those of us leading

the v.a. right now. you already heard that our buildings are old. we need space to be ablele to create the women's clinic. we just opened the women's clinic here in washington, d.c. i encourage you to see t it's a beautiful clinic but it's different than where the men would want to go. the care is different because we have gynecologists and other kinds of care. so this is a very important issue for us and we are working very hard to identify where can we put women's clinics with women care? we just got a building from d.o.d. in fort mcpherson, georgia, where we have set up a women's clinic. this is a very big issue for us. we are going to stay after t relative to lgbt, we are following the law. if the couple is married in a given state, we will give them benefits. we need a new interpretation of the law or change in the law.

we are following the law. there is an exception to that. in the national cemeteries if we are able because of the legal authority i have to be able to bury partners together when they so choose. and in every case that we have done that, we have looked at the relationship and we have granted that. >> if i may interrupt i appreciate that, but in state cemeteries it still remains a problem as i understand t >> yes ma'am. i don't control those. >> they get funding from the v.a. >> some. on the medical marijuana, let me ask dr. clancy to comment. >> a fair number of our clinicians have veterans who use marijuana, i'll put it medically, in quotes. they live in areas where this is legally possible. it is very, very early days for us to have medical policies, but there are active discussions going on now and trying to learn from what we know about treating

it for different conditions, which by the way are not necessarily identical with those conditions for which veterans believe that they are helpful. i actually think there is an incredible opportunity for us to learn from some of those experiences, but i think that we have to be careful given the legal issues. but we would be happy to provide more detail for the records. >> thank you. >> i yield to ms. brown for 30 seconds. >> on the area of medical marijuana, we have constantly passed the bill saying that the v.a. doctors should not administer even if the state in the area says it's legal. and they could be charged with a felon. it passed last year on the floor. i didn't vote for it. it is an issue for congress. so if you feel strongly about it then i think maybe you should introduce a bill. as we speak, it is illegal for a

v.a. doctor to administer marijuana. >> that is correct, representative brown. i was not clear enough on that point. that said, again, trying to be responsive to veterans' experiences and what they are telling us. we are trying to learn from that and understand and anticipate what a different future might look like. >> absolutely. there are all kinds of additional kind of therapies. as we speak now, it is illegal for a physician to administer it. am i correct? last year, we passed a bill on the floor saying it was illegal for a v.a. physician -- i yield back. >> mr. bilirakis. >> thank you. first of all i want to thank you , mr. secretary, first of all for taking the position. and being so accessible to us. but more importantly to our veterans.

you have made a great deal of progress. we want to help you make more progress. thank you for your cooperation. we are here for you. first of all i want to talk about the -- i have some questions with regard to lease authorizations. first of all i want to thank you for working with me to ensure veterans and community stakeholders in my area are being engaged during the consolidation located in central florida. to assure the success of its utilization, it is important that their opinions on potential locations and what specialty services should be offered are considered. i know you agree. i'm pleased to hear there will be a potential site visit. can you give me an idea when that might be? >> our staffs are meeting -- they met this morning. so i don't know the outcome of that meeting, but i think it should be imminent. tomorrow or the next day. >> thank you. again is there something we can work with you on to expedite the

activation of these leases? in general. the leases in general. not talking about the 27 leases. >> as i said, our deputy secretary is going through a process right now to understand how we can speed up our ability to design, lease construct. as we go through that, if it looks like there's an opportunity for legislation, we'll come back to you and ask you for your help. right now we are not ready for that, but we are taking a close look at it. >> my next question has to do with the future lease authorizations. i understand there is an issue between v.a. and g.s.a. with future lease authorizations, not the 27 who were authorized last year. can you discuss what options are being considered and if there is enough requested in the budget should fund for the full extent of the lease be required? that's so very important that we blan ahead. >> i'll start -- plan ahead.

>> i'll start and maybe helen can help. at one time over a year ago now we had a blanket lease authorization which would allow us to enter into -- from g.s.a. which would allow us to enter into leases quickly, easily with our authority. that has been revoked and it requires us to go to g.s.a. for them to study our leases. in some cases if the cost of the lease exceeds i think it's 2.85 million, they actually have to take it to a committee which takes even more time. they have been very helpful. we have been working with them to speed up the process. but we are also trying to see if there's a totally different way we can do it. we are applying technological to see if there is a way to improve the process more. >> g.s.a. has been working very cooperatively with us. we are working on getting those processes right and making sure that we all are working under

the same standards for scoring. so i think that is progressing well right now. >> anyone else? thank you very much. i do want to discuss with you in the fewure -- future, mr. secretary, expanding dental health care for our veterans within the v.a. and some of the clinics. i yield back at this time. >> be happy to do that. >> ms. kuster you're recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to start by commending you, secretary mcdonald, for the efforts that your team has done to settle the lawsuit out in west los angeles. we had a hearing yesterday in the oversight and investigation committee and we had a discussion about the steps that will be taken. a couple of things in follow-up and i'll be working with our subcommittee chair, mr. coffman but one is we want to stay in

very close touch with your team about the plan for the west l.a. facility. particularly addressing homelessness of veterans in west l.a., and then we had suggested to have a follow-up hearing next fall when you come back with your report so that we can stay closely engaged with that. >> we would love to do that. i think what we demonstrated in west l.a. more than anything else is this is a team sport and we all need to play together on the same team. and it's just silly to think that we have a national issue with veterans being homeless. and in the city with perhaps the largest homeless population in the country, we had a lawsuit going for four years that prohibited us from making progress. >> the representative from the american legion said it had been 30 years that they have been working on this problem, which obviously goes to a number of administrations. >> we got the land in 1888.

>> i wanted to go to the opposite end of the country to my district in new hampshire and talk briefly about the veterans choice program. my colleagues in the senate, senator identify yot and shaheen -- ayotte and shaheen have introduced a bill to make sure the veterans choice program, whatever happens elsewhere, will continue in the states that do not have a full service v.a. hospital. this is critical for us because we've got folks that -- they don't travel the distances that my colleague's constituents travel, but with weather and such, particularly of late that's important. can i ask about how the veterans choice act is working in those states, and you mentioned briefly about hiring new physicians and medical personnel for filling the gap. i'm particularly interested in

mental health provider shortage. if you could comment on that it would be very helpful. >> first of all i want to make sure that we are clear that the leadership of v.a. believes that the system of the future will be a network of both v.a. and outside care. already we in the last year, we did about 550 million appointments in outside care. that was up 48% above a year ago. that's even before the choice program. so we are believers in that because that's the way our veterans will get served the best. it was misinformation. there was never an intent to either gut the choice program or somehow eliminate the choice program. it was simply i was asking for recognition that we have 70 line items of budget that we can't move money from. imagine your household, you have a checking account for gasoline.

you have a checking account for groceries. the price of gasoline goes down by half. you're hungry, but you can't move the money from the gasoline account to the food account. that's the situation i face. i'm trying to serve veterans and i don't have the flexibility to do that. i ran a relatively large business. i have never -- it's very hard to achieve custom-er satisfaction when you have all these restrictions on how you can take care ever customers. that is the only point i was making. the choice program is a good program. it's very early days. as i said we have had nearly half a -- 500,000 calls and about 24,000 appointments. we are going to be watching it very closely every single day. and we'll let you know. >> again, that's something that i would assume the oversight committee would want to stay. >> we invited over and i'll make this invitation to everyone, we invited over congresswoman

brown, congressman -- chairman miller they came over, they went through our daily -- we have something we call daily stand up. it's a technique, we review the data from that day and make changes to the next day. deputy secretary gibson leads it. i would invite any member to come over and watch us do that. i would argue it might give you confidence in the data that we are giving to you. and you can also see the trendlines. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. >> mr. coffman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned secretary in the budget submission for the office of general counsel you listed recent accomplishments, and this is a quote. defending against complex litigation such as the construction projects in orlando in denver, end quote.

how is that a success? you lost that case on every single point. for the hospital in my district. that is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. and the only way the construction could continue was that the general contractor demanded that will the v.a. construction management personnel be kicked off the project and that the army corps of engineers come in and take over the project. you know, i think that that's just characteristic of your glossing over the extraordinary problems confronted by your department. this is a department mired in bureaucratic incompetence and corruption. i got to tell you, i think the public relations is great today, but there is no substance. there is no substance. >> i'm highly offended by your comment, mr. coffman. >> i fundamentally believe that

as unfortunate as it is, that at the end of the day, at the end of this president's term, that you will not have made a difference in changing the culture of this organization. by virtue of the fact that you continue to claus over its problems. >> i'm offended by your comment. actually i have been here six months. you have been here longer than i have. if there is a problem in denver i think you own it more than i do. i found it ironic that when i went out to l.a. to solve a 4-year-old lawsuit, you were busy calling for a hearing to discover what happened five years ago. i'm working on the future, sir and i'm going to correct the past, but i'm working on the future because that's what our veterans want. >> for you to say that you're going to the army corps of engineers to advise you as to how to correct the extraordinary problems -- let me tell you, i think what you need to do is

focus on providing the health care benefits, the other benefits the veterans have earned and get out of that construction management business and cede it to the army corps of engineers. >> that's your point of view. >> each major construction project is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. that's a problem. >> i think we work very closely with the corps of engineers. general boswick is a good friend. host told us he does not want total responsibility for all of v.a.'s construction. we are going to work with him. we are going to find out the right balance of that. we are doing it in denver as you know. and we appreciate your help to get that building finished and get it finished for a good value for taxpayers. >> i hope you can make a difference. >> maybe if you want i'll give you my cell phone tonight and you can answer some of the calls and see film' making a difference for vetance and see

what they say. -- veterans and see what they say. or go on the website and see what the veterans are saying. ask the v.s.o.'s in the next group. i run a large company, sir. >> is for this organization to reflect your values and i'm not sure that that's going to happen. i hope that it does. >> i want your help to do that. i need your help. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. o'rourke. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, let me begin by thanking you for your service. i have only been in congress a little over two years. but in that short time i really feel that you personally have said -- have set a new bar for leadership and accountability and responsibility for the problems you encountered. you are turning around and facing a future so we build a better v.a. and do better for the veterans whom we serve.

case in point, two days after the tragic murder of dr. bobbing in el paso, texas. you were there on the ground leading with the v.a. leadership. the incredible staff that works under mr. dancey. you ensured we had mr. dancey there to begin with. you replaced leadership. ensured we had someone there who could be transformational and that's what we need right now. i want to thank you for that. i also want to thank you for your willingness work with us to do better in el paso. again no need to focus on the past. we are not a top tier performer. we want to be and i want to figure out how we are going to do that. to some of the points that mr. coffman just raised $600 million or $800 million now projected to be $1.1 million or $1.4 in the high end, we can't

do that anymore. in el paso we have partners likes text tech and the medical school there university medical certainty, public hospital, private providers, all of whom are desperate to work with us. i would like your commitment that we are going to, in the short time we know that you have within this add -- administration, 22 months, put together a plan and get it to a point where it is unstoppable so that should we be lucky enough to have you as secretary the next administration or your successor will be able to work with us to implement that. can i have your commitment to work with me on that? >> enough to as you and i talked and we were there and went to the texas tech site what, we want to do in el paso is what we did in los angeles by is we got everybody together, we looked at all the options, and we are going to make the decision together. we are going to work together to get this done. this is a team support. we can't do it by ourselves. we know that. and -- so i look forward to working with texas tech.

i look forward to talking with the department of army. currently our facility is connected to beaumont but beaumont is closing. yes, we will work together to develop a plan for el paso. >> thank you. i also want to thank you for the presentation you made at the outset of this meeting. i think you placed our current problems in context. not all of them, some of them originate in the v.a. but the wars that we choose to engage in, you mentioned that hopefully we are at the conclusion of our commitment in afghanistan and iraq and we are going to peak in terms of commitments to those veterans in 2055, i would argue the point we are still at war in afghanistan. we have 10,000 service members there whose lives are on the line. the nato commander says expect more u.s. casualties. we are about to consider an authorization for the use of military force in iraq and syria. we are and have been in a state of perpetual war. there is a cost to that beyond sending the service member over,

funding the assets that follow him or her. it's a cost to care for them and their family and their children when they return. i just hope that we are all keeping that in mind as we go forward. a much larger cost than the immediate one that we consider. the veterans choice act passed this august included a component to assess v.a. health care processes. it was supposed to be an independent assessment. what you have in this 2016 budget that would fund implementing the findings from those assessments, if any. don't know when that assessment is supposed to conclude. >> thank you, representative o'rourke. as you said the choice act to actual -- actually has required a number of assessments which frankly, we think are an incredible gift. i last weekend spoke to a blue

ribbon panel that they have assembled who will take a look across all of the he assessments. they'll be finished with their work by this august and are working very, very hard. weekends, evenings whatever they need, to make sure that that happens. and they are looking at all aspects of our operations. >> you have dollars in this budget to implement the recommendations that are made? >> i don't think we have explicit dollars. i think what we have is we expect this will be a core part of management and how we do business. we are providing them with all of the data that they need to actually make the recommendations as actionable and relevant to the v.a. as possible. so we are looking very much looking forward to those. >> my time has expired but i would love to follow up with you on that to find out what that might cost. thank you. >> dr. wenstrup. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i'm going to go back to something i was touched on briefly the last time we met. that's what we actually spend

for the care that's delivered. i'd asked about knowing the number of how many r.v. use per year does the v.a. generate with their caregivers, the relative value units. that's a common term used both in private sector and the v.a. then what the total cost is. by total cost i don't mean just what the doctor is getting paid, but you are including everything. administration physical plant. it sounded like mr. gibson said we are a long way from coming up with that number. my question is, how do you come up with bauth if you can't say what that number is today? how much did we spend on everything to do with health care per r.v.u. that was generated? i'm sureous why we can't come up with that number, for one. because i wonder since i was looking at choice, are we really determining is it more cost-effective and patient benefit in some regions to refer out remember than build out?

because the cost per r.v.u. to the outside doc is easily defined. you know what you paid that doctor. but that doctor is then paying for their physical plant and staff and malpractice and all those other expenditures. that's pretty well-defined. we are not being realistic if we don't look at the overall picture of what we are spending per r.v.u. if you could comment to those issues. >> that's a system we have to develop. we are in the process of doing that. it's not perfected yet. the numbers aren't as valuable yet. the department has had a history of working to a budget. it's not worked to a demand or to a customer focus. as a result of that, congress would provide a budget and that's what the department would work hard. that budget would be allocated throughout the department. so we are actually contrary to what congressman coffman thinks, we are actually making some relatively large changes here to

focus on the organization on the customer and be able to get that data. dr. clancy can talk about the process of doing that, but this is a big undertaking. >> if we know what the budget is for all the health administration costs, and what that is, can't that give us something to start with? in other words i feel like we need a base line, we can look at that more closely at different facilities as we project out. i'm looking down the road. i'm here for the same reason i think you are to make a difference and make good decisions, but we've got to come up with those numbers because you can't decide if choice is working better or worse. especially when it comes to the dollars. >> thank you. that's parts of the independent assessments that we'll be getting as well. one of the wild cards here that i'm sure you're quite familiar with in terms of comparing how efficient and productive we are cost per r.v.u. versus the private sector, there is a big difference in terms of fixed

costs versus variable costs. if you've got a building that -- where you have to keep a cafeteria running and all that stuff, that's the point that was in the overall opening statement from secretary mcdonald. in the private sector they have a lot more flexibility. we'll be looking at that very, very hard, because as we look to a future where as secretary mcdonald said a few minutes ago it's going to be both about what we provide in v.a. as well as what we send out to community partners through nonv.a. and choice. or something like that. possibly with a different name. we've got to be very, very smart and strategy as -- strategic as possible about make or buy decisions. >> i look forward to seeing those types of numbers because that's got to be our guide as we try to decide what's best for the veteran and the v.a. itself as we go down the road. >> absolutely. those answers are probably going to be different in some communities than others depending on local capacity. >> i think you do have to

evaluate locally. can you start with what it is in the big picture and then take a look locally. every place is going to have a little different demand based on v.a. population, etc. i look forward to working with you on that. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mcnerney. >> -- >> mr. mcnerney. >> i'm glad to be back on the committee. i was here for three terms starting with 110th congress. it's a pleasure to be back. i want to thank you, mr. secretary, and the undersecretary for your dedication. this is an enormous challenge as you pointed out in your opening remarks. a lot more service is required. a lot more veterans seeking help and so on. i think we are making progress, but there's still a long way to go. my first question will go to ms. hickey who i had dealings with in the past. give a brief update on the backlog, focusing on some of the california r.o.s that had such a

problem. >> let me just for all of you the backlog is down nationally 62%. and we are on target to hit our 2015 goal. our productivity is up 25% per f.t.e. we have -- we are producing now claims perspective 47% more than we did before we started this transformation effort. 101% from a medical issues perspective. our quality, we have not traded for. in fact it's up eight percentage points. claim level, 91%. medical issue level now up to 96%. we have not put off nonrating. we have a lot of it. it's volume, it's need. when we do more regular -- first time claims, it opens the door to more follow-on nonrating opportunity for our veterans. so by example, when we did record breaking never done in our history before, 1.32 million claims last year, as you saw on the chart the disability level

is now on average at 47.7%. you have a wider opportunity for many more veterans to get that additional benefit as well. oakland, since we last saw you here in the room, glad to have you back congressman, doing phenomenally much better. their backlog is down 67.3%. their quality is up at 90% on issue basis, and they are doing much better than they were. they also have done much better on the male issues which we are doing nationally. i think this whole committee both now which you have invested in centralized mail. we see the benefit of that. moving it down from 32 days down to eight days. that's a phenomenal savings to our veteran in getting that mail associated with that claim. >> president reagan had a saying, trust but verify. i'm glad to hear these numbers. you know we are going to be looking into them.

>> absolutely. >> the next question goes to mr. secretary, following up on mr. bilirakis' questioning. i'd like you to comment a little bit on meeting construction challenges. you said almost a quote that the v.a.'s not ready for legislative help on this issue. i'd like to see if you think public-private partnerships would be beneficial in moving forward with the construction backlog or -- where do you stand on that issue? >> first of all, as i said in my lee marks -- remarks on my v.a., strategic partnerships is one of the five planks. this is a big deal. historically v.a. has not had as many strategic partnerships as have been possible. one of the first things i found as secretary is a lot of people willing to offer help that we did not accept. so we set up an office of strategic partnerships. we have somebody leading it. they came from the private

sector. we are hoping to make good progress there. secondly relative to construction, a lot of changes have been made over the years. probably since the last time you were on the committee. number one originally, a lot of times the design was done by architects. engineers have now been added to the design committee. and there's a whole design committee now that reviews it. many of the structures we are building now frankly, as an engineer, i would not have built because they are architect's dreams but they are very expensive and expensive to operate. secondly we have looked at that entire process. we are training -- doing weighter job training the project managers. we are implementing g.a.o. recommendations about how to make the process more efficient. there's a number of steps being taken. as congressman coffman said, we are working with the corps of engineers and asked them to do a

complete revie for us from a to z of our process and see if we can improve it, as well as what part of the process they could help us in. >> on a parochial issue, the french camp project, there's been temporary structures put up, but some of the basic requirements such as disability accessible bathrooms have not been met yet, even though it's been up there for more than a year. can i get your commitment to take strong action to make sure those basic requirements are met? >> we'll get to that. >> dr. abraham. >> mr. secretary, first thank you for your effort and attitude, that of your staff for trying to help our veterans as great as they are. two quick questions. one on the -- we hit this before on some electronic self-record issues. v.a. budget states and i quote this, in addition to improvements, the v.h.a. 2000

investments supports our commitment to achieve interopprabblet with department of defense electronic health record and providers, including those participating in the new veterans choice program. my question is this with 136% increase in this stuff fund interested fiscal year 2015 to 2016 and given your stated emphasis on making seamless transition possible, can we now expect to see third party administrators -- >> you can see more of this hearing online at c-span.org. we'll leave this now as the u.s. house is gaveling in for legislative work. today they will take up a measure including one that will award the congressional gold medal to those who marched in the selma protest in 1965. and also today the house taking up the senate passed version of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill. the white house has issued a veto threat against that. let's take you live now to the house floor here on c-span.