the speaker pro tempore:

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 181, the nays are 241, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any usef csecaptioned covera of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly pribited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 270, the nays are 152. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion by the gentleman from michigan to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 431, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 431, a bill to award a congressional gold medal to the followed soldiers to participated in bloody sunday or the turn-around tuesday in march, 1965, which served as the

catalyst for the voting rights act of 1965. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of represenve any u othcled-captioned covera of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly pribited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 420. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does -- >> mr. speaker, i seek one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. walden: mr. speaker, i rise on behalf of the entire oregon delegation with me to inform the house of the passing of our colleague wes cooly. he was born in los angeles in 1932. he graduated from the university of southern california, served the army, raced motorcycles and among other business ventures, he owned a vitamin supplement company. he was prompted ran to the oregon senate before being elected to the u.s. house of representatives in 1994 where he served one term. he worked hard and cared deeply about the rural west in the country. he passed away after a long illness. our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, rosemary and

their family during this difficult time of loss. mr. speaker, on behalf of the oregon delegation, i ask that the house observe a moment of silence in memory of former house member cooly. -- cooley. mr. walden: thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today mr. speaker, to recognize the passing of my friend, larry silverton. how do i describe larry? a lot of words apply. businessman, lawyer, father,

friend, democrat mench. he was generous, funny enduring and a lil' zaney. he met me for breakfast in burbank and looked a little disheveled. i said what happened? how did you get here? on your bicycle? motorcycle. he was in his 70's at the time. he was equally at home on horseback or in the middle of discussion of the keystone pipeway. he was a wonderfully good man and if watching here today he would probably say a tribute on the floor of the house, not too shabby. mr. schiff: goodbye larry. you were my very good friend and you will be missed. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> well, mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about an

important issue for millions of americans and that's protecting access to speech generating devices. for those living with a.l.s. and other neurological and degenerative diseases, these devices give them the ability to communicate with their friends and loved ones, something we all take for granted. mr. paulsen: unfortunately a government agency is limiting access to speech generating devices causing hardship for those living with a.l.s. or other disabilities. that's why i've helped author h.r. 628, the steve gleenson act, to ensure that medicare's most vulnerable patients have access to the communication technology they deserve during the most challenging points in their lives. the bill's named after nfl pro steve gleenson who championed the needs of the a.l.s. community. mr. speaker passage of this important legislation will make a world of difference for those that are suffering from degenerative disabilities and their families and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i rise with a heavy heart to mourn the loss and honor the life of my friend, coach jerry sarkanian, who passed away this morning. a leader and a role model both on and off the court the shark was not only a collegiate men's basketball coach but a pillar in the las vegas community. as coach at unlv he led the running rebels to a 509-101 record over 19 seasons, four final four appearances and ncaa championship in 1990. in 2013 he was inin ducted into the naismith basketball hall of fame and a statue of him was placed outside the unlv basketball court center bearing his name. he was known for giving young players a second chance. he supported numerous charities and programs that helped build

character, life skills and talent that fostered success in later life. my thoughts go out to his wife and family and i'm sure the coach is looking down and chewing on that famous towel now in heaven. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: last friday and saturday, i visited and walked with united steel workers who are on strike for health and safety issues. their jobs are very dangerous. they produce refined products and chemicals that our nation needs. we have lost lives in the industry, men and women working 10-plus days and 10-hour shifts.

they work hard in a dangerous occupation and should not have to go on strike for safety. safety is important to employees and companies. let's settle this strike so that no family has to worry that their loved one will not come home from work. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> today i rise in my continuing recognition of black history month to honor freedom righters jerome big buck smith. he earned his nickname because there is a line of children going behind him. from a young age, big duck was not intimidated by the racial norms. he removed as a screen that had

black and white passengers on a new orleans street car. and black women took him off the car and told him never ever stop and they proud of him. this will light a fire within him to fight for racial justice. jerome smith would become part of the freedom righters, a group to desegregate bus discrimination and found the new orleans chapter of equality organization. he is the head of a youth organization that engages young people on the civil rights movement, leadership and the importance of political engagement. his work for the civil rights movement and youth throughout the city is an inspiration to me and the entire region. he struggles for justice and equality of opportunity. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: over the last 24 hours we heard that a wonderful young woman from arizona whose family is now mourning lost her life somewhere in syria at the hands of a violent and barbaric group by the name of isis. i hope it brings all americans together around the importance of eliminating this group and to begin to look inwardly to make sure that we attack this cancer at its beginning and to be able to stop the radicalization that comes about through the internet and many of the young people in this country. i introduced earlier this year the no-fly foreign soldiers act,

those who leave this country and attempt to fly back are detected. there are many things we can do on the end of passing laws, but we must also respond that we attack any religion for just its beliefs and educate people about the values of many different religions. that's what this young american sought to do. she went to save the vulnerable. we must isolate isis as it is and stand with those who recognize the greatness of america and the diversity of our religion and diversity of our people. i offer my sympathies to the muslims that were killed at the university of north carolina, chapel hill. we must fight those who are attempting to do harm and emphasize that we live and can live in harmony. but isis is our target and with that, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the designee of the majority leader. mr. loudermilk: i ask that members have five legislative days to incrude extraneous material on the topic of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. loudermilk: i would like to yield a portion of my initial time to the gentleman from virginia mr. brat. mr. brat: thank you, mr. speaker. on november 4 the american people spoke loudly and clearly on illegal immigration and president obama's repeated overreaches of his authority. yet, within weeks of the election, the president tried to

single hand he hadly rewrite america's immigration laws by granting amnesty by executive decree to five million illegal aliens already in this country. it was a move that he previously said he had no constitutional authority to execute. he also acknowledged that only congress could rewrite the laws but he did it any way. in response, the house took a firm stand last month to pass a bill to stop the president's illegal and unconstitutional decree that grants amnesty, work permits and federal benefits to illegal aliens. a bill fully funds the department of homeland security for the rest of the year, but it also prohibits the department from carrying out the president's illegal act. let me repeat that last line. this bill fully fund the department of homeland security. it just says that in order to get that funding, the department cannot break the law. that's just common sense.

the american people don't want the federal government breaking the law and it's up to congress to make sure that no federal funds are used illegally. yet today senate democrats are currently united in opposing this bill. recent polling shows that americans are opposed to the president's executive actions 58-36. i call on my senate colleagues to support the constitution and the rule of law and pass h.r. 240 as it was passed in the house. the president's amnesty scheme is not only illegal, but patently unconstitutional and creates a future precedent where future presidents can ignore laws they don't agree with and expand power threatening the very liberty of the american people. our constitutionally guaranteed liberties, our rule of law and our economic opportunities are precisely the things that immigrants come to america to

experience. and our constitution rule of law and economic prosperity are precisely the things that we will be giving up if we allow the president to break our laws to give amnesty and work permits to those who are here illegally. i thank you and yield back my time. mr. loudermilk: i would like to yield a portion of my time to the fine the gentleman from florida mr. desantis. mr. desantis: members stood on the house floor and raised our hands to support and defend the constitution. it's the same oath that the members in the other body and the senate take. and i think that's an oath that means something. it's not just window dressing. we have a responsibility to conform the actions of this body and to counteract actions of other branches of government if those actions are not consistent with the constitution. and so here we have an instance

in which the president is on record 22 different times saying he does not have the authority to grant work permits unilaterally, five million of them, to people in the country illegally. he can't give social security numbers or benefits without an act of congress. and yet after losing the election, he did it. when he did it, a number of members in his own party in the senate said they were concerned with what he did and didn't think it could be done by executive fiat and changes in immigration law had to be done by congress. we are in a situation because the house has passed a bill to funt the department of homeland security, but to constrain the president from acting illegally because the government has to follow the law just like any other citizen. and you have a situation in the senate in which the democrats including those seven senators who said this was problematic they are blocking even having a

debate on the bill. forget about being opposed to the bill in its final form or do not get the amendment, they will not let it come up to the floor so this can be debated. to me this is the most important type of debate when it goes to the central purpose of our oath to support and defend the constitution. they need to go on record about why they think this is constitutional, what limits are there for the president in temperatures of exercising this executive power, can he legislate lower tax rates or in environmental law or work safety law that the congress doesn't support? i think what you're saying is a dereliction of duty by those senators who are unwilling to have a discussion and unwilling to debate. they are working at protecting the political interests of a president and their own party over their duty to support and defend the constitution of the united states.

if you were right on the issues and you knew that what he did was constitutional, then you should have no problem going to the floor and making that case to the american people. the fact that they are unwilling to do that, i believe, is proof positive that they know that case cannot be made and in fact they would not be able to make it. so i appreciate my friend from georgia reserving this time. i think this is something that absolutely needs to have a thorough debate and the american people overwhelmingly are opposed to what the president did. so let's debate it. if you don't like what we did. offer your suggestion. the idea that you can run and hide is something that is not consistent with our duties or other oath of office. with that, i yield back. mr. loudermilk: i appreciate the fine remarks from my friend and colleague from florida. i yield a portion of my time to

the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. rothfus. mr. rothfus: three weeks ago this house passed a bill to fund the lawful operations of the department of homeland security. our bill provides nearly $40 billion for the protection of our nation with $100 million increase for border security and $600 million for immigrations and customs enforcement. democrats in the senate now refuse to fund these important programs, because they are insisting on funding president obama's unlawful amnesty. the dollars should not be used to fund any unlawful order

including president obama's unlawful amnesty order. how do we know it is unlawful? i remember what the president said repeatedly. for example, in 2011, the president said this with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. for me, the president continued, to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. funding for the department of homeland security runs out in 16 days. the house acted 21 days ago. it is time for the senate to act. and i thank my colleague. and i yield back. mr. loudermilk: thank you for that, mr. speaker. i yield a portion of my time to the gentleman from from the neighboring state of alabama, mr. brooks.

mr. brooks: i would like to thank my colleague from georgia for the leadership he has shown inputting this event together, where we on the house floor can try to help explain to the american people what is at stake here with the president's executive amnesty. in that vein, i rise in opposition to president obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal aliens. why? because i was elected by americans to represent americans in washington, d.c. while wheerl protecting the united states constitution is the number one reason to fight president obama's illegal and unconstitutional conduct, a close second reason is the economic welfare of american families searching for jobs that will empower them to take care of their own families. in that vein, a report by the

center for immigration studies is very instructtive. the center did report based on federal government data, it was collected from the bureau of labor statistics rgs the department of homeland security and the census bureau, and this is what they found. from the first quarter of the year 2000 to the first quarter of the year 2014, a 14-year period, with respect to people who are in america that are ages 16-65 and i repeat that, ages 16-65, which is far and away the largest block by age of working americans. the american economy for that 16-65 age group created 5.6 million net new jobs. some would say that is pretty good. 5.6 million net new jobs.

do you know how many went to american-born citizens? do you know the answer to that question? well i would submit to you that every american citizen should and they ought to be outraged by the answer. of those 5.6 million net jobs created over a 14-year period in the united states of america for people ages 16 to 65 american-born citizens had a net loss of 127,000 jobs. and you wonder why the polling data shows that the american people believe they're still in a recession. the answer is american-born citizens are still in a recession. well, who got those jobs? well, according to the center for immigration study's report 5.7 million net job gains were by two groups. illegal aliens plus lawful

immigrants. so look at the priorities of our federal government over the last 14 years. look at the priorities established by president obama's executive amnesty. the priorities do not lie with american citizens. rather they lie with people of all kinds other than american citizens. and we had 127,000 net job losses, but that doesn't really tell the whole picture. we also had population growth in the 16 to 65 age bracket for american-born citizens for that period of time. so do you know how many more americans are unemployed today jobless, in the 16 to 65 age bracket because of america's faulty, porous immigration policy? 17 million. and you wonder why our youth are derespondent. you wonder why they're de--

despondant, you wonder why they're not able to make it with the wages that are being paid. it's because so many people in the white house, on k street to lobby congress to increase the labor supply by bringing in illegal aliens and lawful immigrants to suppress wages and to take jobs from american families. that's wrong. now you've heard the argument often raised, well, americans won't do those jobs. let me tell you about those jobs for a moment. we've got two categories, illegal aliens and lawful immigrants. well, you can make the argument that illegal aliens are seeking the blue-collar jobs and that perhaps americans won't do them at the suppressed wages now being paid. with respect to lawful immigrants it's a different picture. over those 14 years in that 16 to 65 age bracket,

american-born citizens lost jobs while lawful immigrants gained jobs in these fields -- engineering architecture, health care, sales, office staff. those are good-paying jobs that when i was growing up american citizens used to be able to compete for and get. but which are now being denied because of our immigration policies. those are sobering numbers. those are startling numbers. so sobering so depressing that i challenge my staff. i said, this report can't be right so my congressional staff went to the raw data from the census burrow the burrow of -- bureau, the bureau of labor statistics and they confirmed that center for immigration study's data was correct. which brings us back to president obama's executive amnesty that does so much

damage to american citizens. the house has done its job. we have passed legislation to defund executive amnesty, to prevent the president to do what he's been doing. the problem in the last four years i've been in the united states congress and hopefully not the next two years lies with the united states senate. media reports say we are at an impasse, that the democrats are standing with illegal aliens and shunning american families in filibuster and the leadership is professing we don't have the firepower, we don't have the 60 votes, that we're stymied we can't end this filibuster. well, mr. speaker, there's another option. let's think back for a moment and let's look at harry reid when he was senate majority leader and the power that he wielded, and what do he do? he said, i'm not going to let

the filibuster stop me from achieving my political goals and he exercised the nuclear option and now under harry reid you did not need 60 votes for appointments of barack obama submitted appointees. rather, a mere majority would work. well, if harry reid and the democrats can do that, if they can stand up for those beliefs, however wrong those beliefs may be, then where is our republican senate leadership and why aren't they doing the same thing? we have 54 republican senators, mitch mcconnell, last time i checked is the senate republican majority leader. all of our senators have said they object to executive amnesty. why don't they do the same thing and respect the bills we have to pass to prevent government shutdowns, bills dealing with spending matters, say only 51 votes is needed?

no longer can a majority with a filibuster shut down the united states government. and so with that mr. speaker i would submit that it's time for the united states senate to change their rules, to reflect the will of the american people and certainly if those rules can be changed from mere appointments by a president, they can also be changed to protect the united states constitution and the separation of powers. mr. speaker, i can't speak for any senators or for that matter any elected officials in washington, d.c., but i can speak for me and i can speak for the people of the tennessee valley of the state of alabama. i vote to put the jobs and wage interests of struggling american families over the interests of illegal aliens. i encourage all senators of both parties to do the same. respect the wishes of the american people, act on behalf of the american people and if

you do that, america will continue to prosper and the rule of law in america will continue to prevail. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. loudermilk: i thank the gentleman from alabama for those passionate words. and mr. speaker, i'd now like to yield a portion of my time to my freshman colleague from west virginia, mr. mooney. mr. mooney: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my colleagues congressman jim jordan and congressman bill loudermilk for addressing this special issue before our nation. senator harry reid and the president are currently risking the full funding of our national security to protect the president's unilateral and unconstitutional executive action on amnesty. on 22 occasions president obama himself said he did not have the authority to grant

executive amnesty before flipping and denying the will of the american people and taking unilateral action anyway. this attitude follows a pattern of unilateral action, executive action, including the president's war on coal and it must be stopped. now, senator reid and his allies continue to block any consideration of the bill passed by the house to fund the department of homeland security. this obstruction is intended to protect the president's unconstitutional executive amnesty. sadly, no one is surprised that this president would use this unlawful, unilateral action to pursue his own radical agenda. but now senator reid and the president are edging closer to putting the american people in danger to protect that agenda. the constitution clearly gives the power of the purse to the united states house of representatives. this chamber right here.

and the american people said clearly last year that they expect us to do our -- to use our authority over spending to keep government operating in a responsible manner. i call upon senator reid, president obama and their democrat allies to end this political gamesmanship. instead, bring up the bill to fund homeland security for consideration and passage. i yield back my time. mr. loudermilk: i thank my friend and colleague from west virginia. and mr. speaker, as you can tell, we have people from all over this great union that have risen here today to speak, not just from the south but also i'd like to recognize now -- share a portion of my time -- yield a portion of my time to my good friend from the state of new jersey mr. garrett. mr. garrett: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman leading tonight's discussion on the floor. and as we do so, we think about the people back at home and

across this nation. you know, mr. speaker americans are hurting. americans are hurting because they're out of work. americans are hurting because they lost jobs. they find they can't find new jobs. families are hurting because of this. families, mr. speaker are also hurting because they're waiting for other fellow family members to be able to join them here in this country through the legal immigration process. they're patiently going through all the processes that we have set up in this country to process it and they're hurting as they wait for their family members to join them. we come here to the floor today as members of congress, we understand that this government has to ensure that everyone plays by the rules, including this administration. as members of congress, we're obligated to uphold the constitution and that is exactly what this house has done by defunding the president's unconstitutional actions in which he granted amnesty and in in which he

added to that he -- and in which he added to that he provided working permits to over five million illegal immigrants thereby creating additional problems for those americans that are out of work and creating additional problems for those americans that are waiting for their family members to come to this country through the legal immigration process. you see mr. speaker, the house has done its job. we have acted. we have fully funded -- this is important. we have fully funded the department of homeland security while at the same time undoing the damage the president's unprecedented executive amnesty is having on our republic and more important on our american families. the president's actions to grant de facto amnesty, you see, has broad-reaching consequences for many of my constituents and the constituents all across the united states as well. see, it is unfair -- it's not only unfair it's irresponsible to divert resources away from

legal applications of those who have asry said before, patiently -- as i said before, patiently waiting and going through the legal process of immigration to give it to those who have broken the law. it is also reckless to reward those who have blatantly broken the law with work permits, allowing them to complete -- compete directly with those americans and those american families who are hurting because they're out of work today and are finding themselves in a hard position to find work. so because of this, mr. speaker i call on our senators who are blocking a vote on the bill. do not, do not turn your backs on the millions of americans who are struggling to find work. do not turn your back on those who have immigrated here legally and do not turn your back on those who are still waiting to try to immigrate into this country legally as well. it is time, mr. speaker, for the senate to act. it is time for the senate to end its obstruction. it is time to move this bill. thank you.

with that i yold back and i thank the gentleman. -- i yield back and i thank the gentleman. mr. loudermilk: i thank my friend from new jersey for those appropriate words. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield a portion of my time to my good friend and freshman colleague from north carolina, mr. walker. mr. walker: thank you, mr. speaker. . we are rapidly approaching the crossroads of the president's actions that provide de facto amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. on february 27, the appropriations for the department of homeland security runs out. here's the facts. the house has done exactly what the american people have asked. we have passed a bill that fully funds the department of homeland security, including broadly supported amendments that will defund the president's illegal executive orders. now the time has come for the senate to engage. sadly, they are not even debating the issue. senate democrats are now

blocking consideration of the bill. i strongly urge the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, to hold the line and work diligently. the president's overreach needs to be stopped. this is a constitutional issue, not an immigration one. are we not outraged at such abuse? the president has violated his own words. attempting to enforce authoritative actions, he repeatedly said he did not have. in fact 22 times he has said he did not have constitutional privilege to do so. this administration's opinion on other issues may continue to evolve or change. but may i remind him the constitution has not changed. i'm calling on not only my constituents but our fellow citizens across this land to let your voices be heard, demand results from your leaders. i'd like to thank my colleague from georgia for organizing this meeting, to allow our

voices to conduct in a very loud matter. with that i yield back. thank you. loud loud -- mr. loudermilk: mr. speaker, i appreciate all the comments that have been made here today and as you can tell this is not a party issue this is not about republicans or democrats or conservatives. this is about our constitution. this is about an american principle, the rule of law but more importantly, it's about fairness. it's about the american dream. it's about those who are working hard every day. it's about the children and our future. at this time mr. speaker, i would like to yield a portion of my time to a gentleman from the beautiful state of arizona, mr. franks. mr. franks: i certainly thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i have the cherished privilege to chair the subcommittee on the constitution in this body. throughout the obama administration i have been

bewildered many times by in the's man -- by this president's many casual dismissals of the constitutional principles and the respect of rule of law itself in america. however, i now believe that the president's recent actions related to illegal immigration constitute a fundamental and -- fundamental be a rogea -- be a row gation to his oath to the constitution. if left unchallenged, this could create a precedent that could threaten to place a permanent crack in the very foundations of this republic. consequently, the issue before us now is about far more than illegal immigration. it is about protecting the constitution of the united states of america. so now it is both the prerogative and the responsibility, the solemn

responsibility, of this house and the u.s. senate to uphold our own collective oath to the constitution. through the constitutional power of the purse, we must stand with and for the american people and refuse to fund this unconstitutional action by this president. we must call upon the senate to continue to hold multiple cloture so this nation can understand who it is that prevents us from doing our constitutional duty. mr. speaker, failing that we must now call upon the united states senate to subordinate its own cloture rules to the united states constitution. and to use their rules to change their rules for that purpose. mr. speaker, daniel webster said, old on, my friends, to the constitution and the republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster and

this may never happen again. so hold on to the constitution, for if the american constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world. mr. speaker, our duty is clear. i yield whack. -- back. mr. loudermilk: i thank my friend. no truer words have ever been spoken. mr. speaker, many of us sat in this very room back in january and we listened to the president as he gave his state of the union address. and he outlined a complete program from cradle to the grave of what government would do, take over the rights of individuals, many of us heard from citizens across the nation that they were opposed to that. mr. speaker, if we allow this president to continue on and legislate from the oval office, i would submit there's nothing standing in the way for him to implement every one of his plans. with, that mr. speaker, ilede like to yield a portion of my

time conscious i'd like to yield a portion of my time now to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. pearce pearce i thank the gentleman for yield -- mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this key issue to us on the floor tonight. in november, the voters sent a very loud message to washington, d.c. now they elected a lot of republicans, but i tell my republican friends that they weren't affirming our principles so much as they were desperate for a check and a balance against the president whose policies were frightening to them, but also whose actions lay outside the bounds of the laws that he was constrained by and constitutional restrainlts on his actions also -- restrainlts on his actions also, he himself admitted that maybe more than 20 times saying, don't have the right to do it, as his own party chastised him and tried to force him into these executive actions which he ultimately took. he said at one point, i'm not

the emperor. are we now to believe that he declares himself to be such? that's the basic question that faces us now. you know, the people of america want this institution called congress, the house and senate together they want this institution to operate properly . i think as much as anything else, the voters were expressing discontent that 380-plus bills from this house were stalled on the other side of the capitol, never making their way in any form to the floor of the senate. the people expect to see the issues up here rangeled about. they want the tension between the two parties, different ideological points of view pulling at the fabric of the ideas in front of us. they're not so much concerned about the next bill they're concerned about our vision for america and where we would take it. and they were frightened at a president who would take on

himself actions which they knew were contrary to the good of the future of the country and certainly outside the boundaries of the laws which restrain even the president. because this country believes that not even the president is above the law. so the questions before us are very critical. there are some who are saying you all in the house have passed a d.h.s. bill, and it's all your way or no way. i beg to differ. we sent our version of a keystone pipeline bill to the senate. the senate made significant changes. they sent that back and just today we sent the bill with the changes, the changes that were brought by democrats in the senate, the senate democrats allowed the bill to come up for debate, they amended the bill, more amendments in this one bill than have been heard the previous year total, so the system is working properly. we just sent that bill to the president. we're going to ask him to sign it or turn it down.

the people will have an opinion now about the outcome of whether the president signs or doesn't sign. but look in contrast to what is happening with the d.h.s. bill. the senate democrats, under harry reid, are saying, no, we're going to block it again. there's no more debate, there's no more discussion, there's no more ideas going to come in front of this senate. i think that the american people are going to have the same opinion that they have about mr. reid blocking all of the bills that came from the house before. i think that to be the case. at any rate, we in the house have passed our bill. the senate should either obstruct or move forward. there are many fashions to do both. the american people are looking and judging because they desperately want an institution that functions. they're not really significantly interested if it functions for democrat rule or republican rule. i think what they want is a system that is passing

commonsense legislation guaranteeing that the future of this country will be solid and sound, that we can build a healthy economy where everyone has opportunity for -- opportunity, where everyone has a chance to succeed based on the merits of their work. that's not what this president is putting in line and that is the question before the house now. as the senate twice has rejected or maybe even three times has rejected the opportunity to debate the issue . so i just calmly tell the american people that we're here prepared to do the work you senlt us to do. we'll continue to do it. all you have to do is express your opinions into this body. i yield back. mr. loudermilk: mr. speaker, we have heard from representatives of the people of this nation from all across the country. so far i've yielded time to representatives from florida alabama, west virginia new

jersey north carolina, arizona, new mexico. now i'd like to recognize a good friend and patriot from the state that has seen and participated in creating so much of the history of this nation, i'd like to yield a portion of my time to the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. perry. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. loudermilk for putting this together this evening. i was thinking about the situation we're in, and it came to my mind that there's a reason that the legislature is supposed to make the laws. there's a reason that we have the debate and we discuss all the different facets. because what also came to mind is the fact that the folks that have been legalized by the president's unconstitutional action will now get a social security number and with that they can qualify for the earned income tax credit. as well, many will qualify for the child tax credit. now, the i.r.s. code, mr. speaker allows taxes to be amended back three years. and these folks that have just

now received this social security number will be able to receive this payment retroactively and i ask you mr. speaker, where is the fairness in that? i mean, what's fair about an illegal amnesty bonus? a bonus for breaking the law. what is fair about an immigrant standing in line, coming here legally, waiting through the process only to watch somebody come right around them get a social security number, and not only that, get paid for doing it, what is fair about some hardworking tax-paying american knowing that they can't get a break on their taxes because that money's got to go to somebody that came here expressly to break the law? what is fair about all the children of all these hardworking tax-paying americans being saddled with debt for the rest of their future, not only their children and their children's children, for the sake of an illegal amnesty bonus? it's a bonus for breaking the

law. what is fair about that, mr. speaker? now, it's in the senate and the senate is saying, maybe the house should send another bill. the house sent a bill. it's the will of the house. it is the senate's turn and with all due respect, there are folks that, you know, if you don't want to vote for the bill, we get that. vote no. you can explain that to your constituents. you can explain that to your voters. but it's more important to you to pay somebody, a bonus for coming here illegally. you can explain that. but the point is, they don't even want to have the vote. they're make sure there will be no vote. , so we're saying, give this -- so we're saying, give this bill its chance give it its day, if you have a better idea, a different idea that's great. that's wonderful. let's see it. pass your bill and send it over and we'll work together. to pass something along. i would say this to the leader of the senate it is time it is time, you make the rules, mr. leader if it's not now the

time to change those rules in favor of the constitution, when is the time? instead of being concerned about 40-some years of tradition and of the way that we run the senate, instead of being concerned about that, how about being concerned about hundreds of years in favor of the constitution? when president obama didn't like the rule, apparently even though he said 20 times or so that he had to abide by the constitution, he just changed it. he just disregarded it. and when harry reid didn't like the rule, right, a couple hundred years of votes in cloture and the nuclear rule in the senate, he just changed it. right? we're not asking to you change it all the time. but when it comes down to a constitutional crisis, when it comes down to a division of powers, do you want to stand up for a bonus for acting illegaly for breaking the law, or do you want to stand up for the constitution? if that is not the time to

change the rules for the president's unconstitutional executive action, if that's not the time to change the rules mr. mcconnell, when is the time? the time is now. pass a bill whatever your bill is have a vote. yes or no. send it to the house and we will work it out. but this legislation, this issue demands your attention. it demands a vote. it deserves a vote. the american people need to know, they deserve to know where their elected representative in the senate stands. not just to not vote on anything. they didn't send them there to just not vote. they sent them there to make a decision. yes or no. we get it. if you want to vote no, good for you. you explain. that you want to vote yes, great. but have the vote. there's no reason to not change the rule if it gets to a vote, if it gets us to a vote and upholds the constitution. as a matter of fact, if it takes changing the rules to uphold the constitution this is me as one representative of the fourth district of pennsylvania thinks it is worth

it. with that, mr. speaker, again, i ask you, what is fair? what is fair about giving this -- these bonuses to people that just received a social security card? that have been operating outside the law for years? they receive their social security card and they get a bonus. you try that. you try that. having worked here as a person that was born in this country, you try working under the table and then just apply and see if you'll get a bonus from the i.r.s. let me tell you what you get, mr. speaker, you get a visit from the i.r.s. but it won't be for a bonus. think about fairness mr. leader in the senate, change the rules, let's move this bill forward. i yield back. . mr. loudermilk: mr. speaker, as you can see this is a very passionate issue for many of us not just because of politics but because this is the heart of our nation, the bay sthirks foundation of our nation. i'd now like to yield a portion of my time to my good friend and freshman colleague from the great state of arkansas, mr.

hill. mr. hill: i thank my colleague for yielding and am pleased to have this time on the floor to talk about this important issue that faces our congress. on more than 22 occasions, president obama has told audiences that on advice of his council -- his counsel, his attorneys, he could in fact not do what he has just proposed to do last november of 2014. he stated that he did not have the statutory authority to defer deportation of over 5 million people who are in our country illegally, thereby granting them rights to driver's licenses work permits social security and health benefits. for example in 2013, the president stated that implementing immigration reform through executive action was difficult to defend legally and

not an option. he has repeatedly told the american people that he is a president, not a king. not an emperor. and mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record the 22 times that the president has uttered these words that says he does not have the authority to take executive action on immigration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hill: further, notwithstanding his statements to the contrary, they are arguing he is doing exactly what presidents reagan and bush 41 did. this is not true. presidents reagan and bush responded in a statutorily acceptable manner to an ambiguity in a specific law and did not seek to prevent

enforcement of the law as writtenism supported recent house legislative action to defund the president's executive actions based on the facts above. as well as my view that congress in fact must fix our broken immigration system, by legislation. the separation of powers argument here is clear. in article 1 of the u.s. constitution, congress is granted the enumerated power of setting uniform law for naturalizing our citizens. mr. obama's approach violates this provision in both exceeding his constitutional authority as well as his sworn obligation to faithfully execute the laws as passed by congress. while we're all familiar with executives' obligation to faithfully execute, we must focus on the cynical distrust that doing the opposite causes

among our citizens. james madison in federalist 51 discussed the need for each branch of government to guard against overreach by another. when such an overreach occurs madison stated ambition must be counteracted by ambition. and clearly our government works best when each branch stays within its prescribed boundaries. supreme court justice kennedy argued this in a recent separation of powers case before the court when he said liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers. as a matter of principle as a matter of our role in congress, i urge my colleagues in the senate to stand up for the proper separation of powers. and assert that the congress

alone can debate and enact such sweeping changes to our immigration system. mr. speaker, members seek regular form to our broken immigration system should support our efforts to rein in this tyranny of the executive. only then can congress work together to craft the proper lutions to -- solutions to fix our broken system. only then can congress come together and insist on a border that's secure and fully functioning as a cornerstone of our homeland security with a land sea, and air border that we know who and why people are entering our beloved nation and then we can turn our attention to those connecting many facets of our system. visa oversays. lack of a balanced, well staffed and functioning guest worker program. adequate, legal welcome for

those facing persecution. speedy adjudication for those alien whors detained. needed work opportunities for universities and professors in our university system. and help for those who remain outside our legal tax and societal system. i urge my colleagues in the senate, stand up for the first branch and our constitutional prerog ty. take action on our homeland security bill and send it back to the house. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. and i thank my colleague. mr. loudermilk: again mechanic you can see that representatives from all across the nation have stood here today and represented the people of this nation of how important this issue is. mr. speaker, we live in one of the most dangerous times in american history.

innocent american citizens are targeted by extremists -- by extremist islamic terrorists at home and around the world. on september 11 2001, even the sanctity of our homeland was proven to be vulnerable. now an organization considered too evil and too extreme by other terrorist organizations is calling for homegrown terrorists to carry out unspeakable acts of violence against other americans, acts we have witnessed in the past year. since 2001 there have been more than 60 coordinated terrorist plots against americans on american soil. these perpetrators of evil plan to execute their violence in the places where innocent civilians live, work, and play. they have targeted civilian aircraft, military installations, mass gatherings of citizens, sporting activities, restaurants and shopping malls.

the very places where americans should expect to feel safe and secure. however, the current administration continues to deny the ideology that motivates these acts of evil. when a known sympathizer to terrorist organizations chooses to carry off this action against co-workers, it's passed off as workplace violence. when the embassy in benghazi was attacked, it was spun as a violent response to a youtube video. when a military pilot of an allied country was murdered in the most horrific and painful way the president referred to the perpetrators as a culture of death not extremists. our citizens, military and first responders are in more dangers than ever before. we must be increasingly vigilant

to protect our citizens and our national interest. the government recognized that organized and well planned attacks required new and dedicated resources to protect american citizens. in response toe the department of homeland security was created and resources allocated by congress to protect our homeland from future devastating acts of terrorism. since the turn of the century terrorists have plotted over 60 attacks against our nation. 60 attacks. thankfully, more than 50 of these were thwarted by u.s. law enforcement and our intelligence community while others were stopped be the -- with the coordination of our allies. isis is one of the motion well understooded most well organized and most ruthless terrorist organizations in the world. even al qaeda, who planned and

executed the most devastating attack on american soil since the japanese attacks of pearl harbor pale in comparison to isis. recently isis has moved beyond the terrorist tactics used by other organizations engaged in an effective media and social media campaign to get people to join their ranks. they are purposely targeting our youth by using popular video games to appeal to thrill seekers. they're promising that these young people can live out the fantasy world that they experience in their games. today, we are experiencing what may be the largest convergence of terrorist activity in history. vument of the growth and recruitment of isis, foreign fighters are swarming to syria to join the ranks of the international jihad. while it is virtually impossible

to stop every act of terrorism against americans, i believe our military and law enforcement agencies have done an exceptional job. however, we are only days away from the current funding of the department of homeland security from expiring which even according to this administration could put us at grave risk. during the first week of this 114th congress, the house of representatives took quick and decisive action to ensure the department of homeland security will continue to function at full capacity. we passed a funding measure that would ensure that all public safety functions within the department are fully funded so that agency can fulfill its mission. unfortunately, a few senate democrats are filibustering this bill and keeping it from coming to the floor for consideration. the democrat party is putting our national security at risk through their insistence that the president be able to grant five million, five million

illegal aliens legal status so they can work -- preseve work permits tax refunds and public assistance. the president's recent executive order on amnesty places the safety of every citizen in jeopardy and eliminates job opportunities for hardworking americans. at a time when millions of americans are struggling simply to make ends meet, the president should be focused on providing american jobs not introducing millions of new laborers into the work force. since the president assumed office he's issued almost 5.5 million work permits to foreign laborers. the senate now has the opportunity protect the safe i have to all americans by approving house resolution 240 a bill that would defund the president's executive order on amnesty, yet they refuse to take up this common sense measure and do what's right, to what's right for the american people.

by not taking action, the senate is relinquishing control to the prth president to continue carry ought these actions without consent of congress. today my office and the office of every member of congress received a formal request from the white house to authorize the president to use military force to fight against isis. it's iron take on one hand the president is asking to send our young men and women overseas to fight against terrorism but on the other hand he and senate democrats are willing to put our security at risk at home so he can without constitutional authority saturate the american fork worst with foreign labor who have entered the couldn'tly ill cylely. instead of -- entered the country illegally. the president has vetoed -- threatened to veto the keystone pipeline a bill we passed here a couple of hours ago he

threatened he's going to veto this bill with one stroke of his pen a bill that would create more than 40,000 jobs. but with another he's willing to add five million illegal immigrants to an already struggling job market. mr. president, the american mr. president the american people are hurting. many people are spending countless hours around the kitchen table discussing how to pay bills and live within their means. these families should not have to compete for jobs with those who are not legal u.s. citizens. the american people should be calling on the democrats in the senate to stop their filibuster of house resolution 240. it's time for the president, mr. speaker, it's time for the president and members of the senate to put the american people first and help hardworking americans find jobs. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, -- the chair will remind members to address their remarks to the chair and refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i do appreciate the opportunity to utilize the time allotted to the democrats in the house to speak to the issue of trade. there are many who see this issue as an important issue. others are now beginning to understand some of the dynamics as they relate to free trade versus fair trade and just what the dynamics of some of the last decades were. the recent past history have indicated as they relate to american jobs and the american economy. this will be a good opportunity

for us to address in fuller terms the issues of trade that we believe need to be addressed significantly well before we go forward with these negotiated contracts that could cause undesirable results rather than those for which we all, i would believe, want to work. the opportunity to provide for individuals to tether the american dream, to be able to go forth with dignity, to assume jobs that allow them to express their skills and god-given talents and to be able to have that soulfulness of earning a paycheck. so we want to focus on those issues here this evening. there are many who would suggest that a fast track is of great concern. fast track is that circumventing of the responsibilities of congress, the ability of congress to get more in depth with the proposed

agreements, to understand fully what those impacts of the agreements might be. on their local economy, on their state economy and certainly on a national scene. so it's important for us, i believe to invest ourselves as a house. i would encourage those viewing this evening to ask their individual members of congress to where they are on the fast track. do you stand for the concept that goes back to the days of president nixon, that gave a more expedited process and perhaps more authority over to the executive branch, to get these contracts done, or do you stand for the scrutiny that should rest with the congress to make certain that no undue pressure is put on our local jobs and economy falsely so? i believe that we do have that responsibility and as we have seen in recent years we have

grown the trade deficit of this nation into the trillions of dollars and so the challenge exists here in the house in this congress, both houses being faced with the added pressures of understanding what the dynamics of our trade deals are all about. so the first step of which we express concern is that fast track concept. where we again do not allow for the fullest efforts of congress to be utilized, where we can amend, where we can adjust, where we can advise and simply a thumbs up, thumbs down doesn't quite cut it for the people we represent the working families, the great many of us dub the middle class of america. you know as i enter into this discussion, i'm reminded of the district that i represent in upstate new york. that basically witnesses the host, the confluence of the hudson river and mohawk river. those two valleys merge in the

district that i represent and they were the gateway designed as an erie canal barge canal system that produced not only a stronger economy for new york, developed a port out of a little town called new york city, and then gave birth to communities dubbed milltowns that became the encenters of invention and in-- epicenters of invention and innovation. it was there that many an immigrant tethered his or her dream, the american dream, at those factory sites. where they were able to climb that ladder of opportunity, where they were able to lift their families' potential, simply through the investment of hard work pouring forth somehow their ability to land those jobs and then to provide the creative genius oftentimes that developed new product lines or better product lines. that was a hay day of the american economy that again

started through these milltowns. they became those locations of hope and prosperity and then it led to a westward movement, an industrial revolution, where we were the king pin of the world economy. we know the world dynamics are different today. we know that we need to adjust and respond. but we do that thoughtfully. we do it mindfully. we do it in a way that is academically measured so that we don't introduce free trade but instead value fair trade. making certain that fair trade doesn't dispense unnecessarily of american jobs. that does not deflate our economy and finds us working on something competing on something the likes of an unleveled playing field. we need to have that level playing field be the result. so tonight we're talking about some of those trades -- trade

negotiations that will come forth. the most recent now is being viewed as a huge impact on the world's economy, a great percentage of the world economy will be impacted by the t.p.p., the trans-pacific partnership. so we have to make certain, excuse me, that it is done correctly, that it is done sensitively. that it keeps in mind that the american contribution to all of this should provide us an ample opportunity, an equal opportunity, to compete for jobs. what has happened is that we have had these trade negotiations develop well beyond the original dynamics of trade barriers and tariffs. they are incorporating far more information and dynamics than

just those barriers. we may reach to items like collective bargaining opportunities or environmental standards or guidelines for public health or requirements for public safety. and if we reling wish some of those -- relinquish some of those hard-fought battles in this country to make safer a workplace or to have a product be as safe as possible or where we have been sound stewards of the environment or we have offered dignity to workers to collectively bargain, to unite as an effort to score for better benefits and just renume ration for the work that they do -- newsroom -- renumb ration for the work that they do, we want to make certain that those standards are not dumbed down, that thorough not reduced that the world comply with those given opportunities for which decades' worth of sweat equity was poured forth, soketsy -- advocacy was echoed in the halls of government to make certain that these justified

outcomes were fought for and realized and made statter toly etched into -- statutorily etched into our government and our laws. so we do not take this lightly. we take this effort as a serious challenge, one that would address some of these hidden impacts that aren't often shared well enough with the general public that we serve. that are represented here in this chamber. it is important for us to understand one of those growing concerns happens to be currency manipulation. it is one of those sneak attacks that really provides for a grossly unlevel playing field. we're discussing a critical aspect of the global economy and trade policy that has been ignored for far too long.

this currency manipulation is causing a lot of concern on both sides of the aisle and is now pushing legislators to speak more forcefully. when countries manipulate their currencies, it makes foreign-produced goods all the cheaper. well, that should signal an alarm. and it doesn't end there. it also suggests or creates a situation where the united states exports are less competitive. and it doesn't end there because as we lose in that battle where we're less competitive, it then drains our economy. by contributing to the downward pressure on wages, in many sectors of our economy. so we have seen this tremendous impact in trade deficit that has been produced in this country because of failed

negotiated contracts and because of the impact of currency manipulation. i understand that currency manipulation is not something most people talk about. it's not easy to conceptualize how deval situation of china's -- deval situation -- devaluation of china's money can impact us. it puts american jobs in jeopardy. that's why we need to consider this issue much more seriously. we need to make certain that a structured response to this manipulation is part of the negotiations and part of statute from the federal perspective. millions of jobs i would suggest are at stake. if a country is going to cheat by deval waiting its --

devaluating its currency, that hurts america. for pain in claims to support -- so for anyone who claims to support this i urge you to engage in this issue. currency manipulation distorts markets. as long as it's allowed to continue, trade cannot be free, trade cannot be fair. now, there's a growing bipartisan consensus that strong and enforceable currency rules are needed. needed to ensure a level playing field for both the legislative perspective and as part of any new free trade agreement. we believe, many of us, that it should be pardon of -- part of statutory reform but indeed

included in those agreements that are struck. few actions by foreign governments do more to disrupt free trade and harm the united states' job market than currency manipulation. a wide array of economic think tanks including the laugher center at the pacific research institute, the peterson institute for international economics, the economic policy institute and the center for automotive research have all published what are extensive studies and commontary supporting a crackdown on currency manipulation. these groups hold varyying and diverse views on the benefits of free trade, so they may not all be coming from the same perspective. but all are united in their sense that trade cannot be free or fair if countries are

allowed to cheat by manipulating their currencies. the peterson institute has support indicated for currency as a chapter in the trans-pacific partnership. certainly the former economic advisor to the vice president halls supported including a currency -- has also supported including a currency chapter in the trans-pacific partnership. the peterson institute has estimated that america's trade deficit has averaged some $200 billion to $500 billion per year higher as a result of manipulation. that is happening from many angles. primarily from forces in china and japan. but let me repeat those stats. $200 billion to $500 billion

per year is the estimate for our trade deficit coming from some sound think tanks as a result of currency manipulation. the peterson institute also estimates that interventions in currency markets by foreign governments have cost united states workers as many as five million jobs over the last decade. . so i believe it speaks to us profoundly and should cause us to respond to the challenges of protecting jobs. american jobs. to the issues of fairness this is not asking for some unfair competitive advantage it's simply reminding the world that we understand what is happening out there as dynamics work against it and we're going to do what we can to inspire fairness

in the process. the e.p.i., economic policy institute, found that ending currency manipulation could reduce the united states trade deficit by as much as $500 billion within three years and create as many as 5.8 million -- 5.8 million -- american jobs. so these are statistics that should not be taken lightly. they are reports that should feed our senses and build our passion to do what is correct here, to make certain that we inspire the sort of reforms to this process and to federal law that would make for a much fairer outcome a more fair outcome for the american public. and certainly there's no greater issue that rests before congress

these days than creating the climate that allows for private sector job growth. government may not create jobs. that may not be our purpose, our prime purpose, but we certainly can do all within our power to create the sort of climate, the environment, that allows for job growth to be maximized. and as we move into this desire to have world trade work as powerfully as it can and fairly as it can for these -- for those of us in this country, we need to make certain that some of these reforms are embraced and embraced in as enthusiastic a manner and expeditious a process as possible. there was a report released last week by e.p.i. highlighting the negative impact that the transpacific partnership would

have on united states jobs if currency manipulation is not addressed that report dubbed currency manipulation and the 896000 united states jobs lost due to the united states-japan trade deficit contains estimates of job displacement for every congressional district. we're making certain that all our colleagues know of this information. these are data that are relevant to the people we represent. these are day that that challenge us. i know that the study found that over 46,000 jobs would be displaced in new york state, including 1,800 in the 20th congressional district of new york, my home district. that is due, again, to the massive trade deficit that this

nation endures with japan. a deficit that has been fueled primarily by currency manipulation. so how do we address currency manipulation? how does it work? to identify manipulation, we need first and foremost to look at three criteria criteria that are based on the i.m.f.'s, international monetary funds, -- fund's, definition. first, does the country of concern have large reserves of foreign currency. currency? does the country have sustained trade surpluss? and does the country continue to buy large amounts of foreign currency? worth repeating. does the country have large

reserves of foreign currency? does the country have sustained trade surpluses? and does the country continue to buy large amounts of foreign currency? undervalued exchange rates allow the manipulating country to boost exports of their products and then put imports from other countries that are not cheating at tremendous disadvantage. floating currency should be self-adjusting, based on trade deficits and surpluses. cheaper dollars will lead to more exports and a balancing of the deficit over time. it's an ebb and flow relationship. there's a natural tendency for that ebb and flow, but when enters into the greed factor can change those results and change them severely.

the natural trend is not allowed to occur when a country intervenes in that currency market. countries like china and japan have prevented this self-correcting process by buying united states currency. this artificially strengthens the dollar and keeps us importing relatively cheap goods produce aid broad. we already have a significant trade deficit with japan. and that's very much measured in the automobile industry. our trade deficit with japan is second only to our trade deficit with china. and the majority of that deficit is in the automotive sector. if you're taught -- if you've talked to any of our colleagues from michigan, they will tell you about the devastation that has been borne upon -- laid upon

that auto industry in their home state. they have shared with us some very painful statistics. well, the majority of that deficit, as i said is in the automotive sector as it relates to japan and china. japan, for instance, imports one american car for every 100 -- every 100 japanese cars imported into the united states each year. that's one car, one car imported from america into japan for every 100 cars japanese cars, that are imported into the united states each year. that pattern can't continue. that's an easily predictable devastating outcome. ford motor calculates that the weakened yen of japan added some

$6,000 in profit on average per car imported from japan in the years 2012 to 2013. so if you had that $6,000 advantage built into the sales price where do you think we're going? and it is allowing for such a devastating impact on the american worker. the auto worker of this country. it is unrealistic to have us as a nation to stand silently and not echo some order of concern. so what can the congress do? well, the house of representatives should pass the currency reform for fair trade act. and the administration should require strong and enforceable

currency manipulation provisions in the t.p.p. the transpacific partnership. bipartisan groups in the house and in the united states senate here in congress are introducing legislation which would use united states trade law to fight currency manipulation and provide consequences for countries that indeed do cheat. in the 113th congress, the currency reform for fair trade act of which i was co-sponsor, would have enabled the department of commerce to impose countervailing duties to offset the impact of currency manipulation. if you want to cheat, you pay. we're not going to stand for unfair trade. that bill had 157 bipartisan co-sponsors and identical legislation was passed with

bipartisan support back in 2010. the legislation is identical to the house bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2010. that bill is consistent with world trade organization and its rules. i think that this bill is written intelligently to conform to our trade agreement rules by considering currency devaluations as an illegal trade subsidy. we already have mechanisms for addressing other illegal subsidies. but a bill such as that one which is a way of addressing the problem will not end the practice of currency manipulation. we also need to include provisions in our trade agreements. those provisions included in those agreements would provide our trading partners with a strong deterrent for manipulating their currency in the first place.

we also have to make sure that our trade obligations explicitly allow this approach to targeting currency manipulation. so i believe there are efforts within our grasp that we can work to achieve chat -- that the changes and reforms that we can provide will enable us to breathe free and grow and enhance the opportunities of our manufacturing sector. now we think back to the booming economy we had in the 1950's and 1960's. we think of all the post world war ii growth of this nation. we think of the deathering of the american dream. we think of the passion of immigrants who had come here to climb those ladders of economic opportunity. we think of the generations that were strengthened by those who

made the journey. it was their dream to provide for a better life for them and their children and their grandchildren. and they saw it happening within these milltowns. those epicenters of which i spoke. epicenters of invention and innovation and creative genius that enabled us to be the best we could possibly be and where there was hope abounding in our communities. we can bring back that spirit. we can call for justice, social and economic justice, as it relates to workers, as it relates to a world scene where there is a thought for those in the middle income community, the middle class of america, the working families of america strengthened and empowered because we get it here in washington. where we speak to forces like

counterforces like currency manipulation, that don't give us a fair shot. that create an unlevel playing field. that will cost us dearly in jobs and in the growth of our economy. so there's much work to be done. we need to make certain that as stewards of these agreements we are insisting that our strength be heard at the table. that we make certain that we're informed about issues like child labor laws about the rights for collective bargaining, about environmental standards about the need for public health and public safety to be addressed. in the workplace and in the product line that's developed. these are standards that are uniquely american at times. that should lift the world along with the people of this great country. we don't abandon those

championing efforts that enabled us to be a stronger people, a safer people. building a stronger tomorrow. we don't abandon those principles. we build upon them. we share them with other nations of the world. as i mentioned to a group of labor individuals in my district recently, there are consequences galore if we continue down this path. we are selling short the american worker. we're offshoring jobs that we can ill afford to ship away. but it's beyond that. not only does the american worker lose her job, not only does the american worker lose his hope, we then find economies around the world accepting the fact that their citizens are working for 75 cents an hour.

where is the justice to any of the workers around the world? this is an impact that has a ripple effect that pours forth in painful measure. with insensitivity and gross, gross negative outcomes. we can do better than that. we can be a country that will stand tall and know from the growth and progress that we've achieved through our hall of -- halls of government to the efforts of labor and unionized forces that came through labor and said we are better than this we need to share in the wealth of our economy. we need to make certain that we respect our labor forces. and the unionized efforts gave us sound benefits and sound salaries and good working conditions, acceptable standards. we're not going to ship that allay -- we're not going to ship that away. we're not going to allow for

currency manipulation and the undoing of american ideals to be forsaken for the sake of, for the factor that's take then global economy and produced these outcomes that are grossly unfair. when we see a trade deficit in the trillions of dollars, when we understand that addressing currency manipulation can undo by hundreds of millions of dollars a deficit in a short order of three years, we can make a difference. we can be a force of change. we can be the voice of reason. we need to be that leader at the table. and congress needs to be involved, invested in this opportunity. we need to make certain that the academics guide us here that we pay attention to the data that are speaking to our senses. we're rejecting all for which we

fought. we're rejecting all for which labor painfully organized and achieved successful outcomes. . if there is not justice for all in this process, it will not work. the american standard, the american appeal the american hope that has been a beacon to people around the world should be that guide being -- should be that guiding force, should be the noble effort that allows all of us to understand that by committing to these issues of social and economic justice we will have strength in not only the american worker but workers around the world. an unlevel playing field simply does not work here. offshoring jobs is a painful

gross neglect of the american dream. the american dream was one that found people playing by the rules, rolling up their sleeves and expecting to taste success. we can still build that aura within the halls of government we can create those standards that determine a fair and just outcome. and we can speak soulfully that the people who are counting on us in the given communities they call home across this great expanse called the united states of america, we have always been that higher standard. we have always been the people in search of a better tomorrow. we have always been a society indebted to justice.

throughout our anals of history, stories replete of us making a difference by working our process called government, by making certain that it empowers the individuals and families of this nation in a way that simply speaks to what's right. we know what's right here. there have been a number of folks in this house championing the effort of fair trade. talking about inclusion of congress in a way that allows for amendments and improvements to agreements and certainly an outspoken force that speaks to holding fast to those standards that speak to the wisdom that guides us of being fair and respectful to those who labor, labor steadfastly, who ask only to be treated as an equal

partner in this process. it is an honor to represent those voices that speak so profoundly well in the workplace, asking for that dignity of work asking for just renume ration for the sweat equity they pour forth and wanting to have just that better step forward for their children and grandchildren as they grow to their tomorrows. filled with hope. we can provide hope. we can build change. and we can issue justice if we put our mind, heart and souls to theafert. i suggest we can do it -- to that effort. i suggest we can do it. it's within our grasp. with that mr. speaker i yield back and thank you for the opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the

chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, for 30 minutes. jolyol thank you, mr. speaker. i -- mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to -- the opportunity tonight to address the very important matter regarding the role of the congress and i would associate myself with the remarks of my colleague of the role this body plays in trade, but also the role that this body plays in foreign policy and matters of diplomacy. every american watches the news each day. we all see the same stories. be it isis, be it terror around the globe. we know that we as a nation are engaged against a threat if left unchecked could cause great harm to our homeland and to american interests abroad. we also know in recent news the conversation about the prime minister of israel addressing our nation.

we've seen the president's negotiations with cuba, the president's negotiations with iran. and it begs the question, what is thro ocore inll of these matrs? and these matters of foreign policy and foreign affairs. and so appreciate the opportunity tonight to discuss a view of our side of the aisle, many in this congress and i will be joined by my colleague from illinois, mr. davis shortly. to specifically talk about the role that congress provides in setting the direction of our nation's foreign policy. this body is a co-equal branch. we are established under article 1 of the constitution, just as the administration is established under article 2. we are co-equal branches. this body, most every american knows, has the authority to declare war. this body does. this congress does. we fund our diplomatic activities, we fund our military activities. we authorize the use of military force, as was affirmed by the president today in sending such a request to this body to ask for the constitutional affirmation of

this body of this congress. and we do so routinely. and so when we come across events where sometimes people question why congress would inject itself in the matters of national security and the matters of foreign affairs, let's revisit why and the important role the congress has served. this body this congress, rejected the president's negotiation of treaty of versailles. in 1919 and 1920. this body rejected the president's negotiation of comprehensive test ban treaty in 1999. this body did that, reflecting the will of our constituents, of this nation. this body very importantly investigated the iran contra affair. this body invested the intelligence activities related to 9/11. this body investigated the events of 2011 in libya. we have the authority of the purse as well, as spending originating in this body. we've used that authority to limit the transfer of detainees

at guantanamo. over the objection of the president. we have used the constitutional authority of this body in matters of foreign aid and at times withholding foreign aid. following the capture of saddam hussein and questions about pakistan's -- osama bin laden and questions about pakistan's role, this body put restrictions on their foreign aid and this body provides billions to israel as a matter of not only protecting the security of israel, but furthering our national security in the middle east. and so it is appropriate then to raise questions very respectfully and in a way that reflects our constitutional responsibility of the president's decisions at times. we are one nation. we are united in providing for the security of our country. but sometimes we have different ideas. and it's ok to raise questions of the president's decisions. consider the president's recent actions and concerns of this body, from the negotiations to

return boo bergdahl that releelsed five prisoners from guantanamo in contravention of a law passed by this congress and signed by the president. he provided no notice of that. we know that this president sent a secret letter to the supreme leader of iran during a time of critical negotiations that many of us have concerns about and during a time that many of us have asked for additional sanctions on iran not less sanctions. we know this body or this president has intended to negotiate with the castro regime to narmalize relations in cuba. we know -- normalize relations in cuba. we know that the president sent a message to putin just before his last election saying, if you just give me time and wait until after the election, i will have more flexibility. he delivered that message to the russian president. and so it's ok that those of us in this body raise those questions. the president has the authority to do most of what i just said.

although i object to his no notice in the beau bergdahl case. bewe -- but we also have the authority to insert our role in this. and so how do we do that? we do that in three or four areas that are very right now for conversation, for debate, and in a way that attracts the attention and the interest of our constituents, of the american people that send us here to represent them. we saw today the president's request for an authorization to use military force. i appreciate the president sending that request to this congress. i believe we should have done that last september. i was one of a few members of congress who signed my name onto an authorization to use military force that we introduced last congress prior to the president's sending his resolution to this body. i believe we had a constitutional responsibility to do that, as this body, to ask, are we a nation at war, and if so are we willing to

incur the sacrifice necessary to win that war? i'm encouraged the president today, during his press conference, said that by working with the congress and by negotiating on the language, that we could make this resolution even stronger and i think we will see that, i hope we will see that in the coming weeks and coming months. the language in the authorization to use military force that prohibits no enduring offensive ground troops i think causes much consternation for many in this body. are we really going to pass a resolution that restricts the tools of our own warfare when it comes to providing for the national security of the united states? the president will have his opportunity to make his case. this body will have our opportunity to make that case as well. limiting or sunsetting the authorization to three years i think is something that we

should begin to talk about. it's ok for us to have to revisit a responsible authorization to use milar force in reears so that we don't find ourselves with a president three years fr now relying on an authorization that can be 10, 11 or 12 years old. we need to have that debate in this body. and represent our view of how we respond to isis. because the president's view has created much concern. we saw the national prayer breakfast are we suggested that the foundation of our response to isis needed to start with our own humility. by looking at our own history. i appreciate the academic conversation the president would like to have on that. but that sentiment in itself compromises our own national security, in my opinion, because it suggests that we first must look inward before responding to what is a pending national security threat, a threat to our homeland, and a threat to our national interests. we need to have a debate whether or not we believe that an air campaign is sufficient. and for the president to suggest that no ground troops

will be required and somehow that is a way of providing for the safety of our men and women in uniform ignores the very risk of those who will be engaging in a dangerous air campaign and continue to do so every day. and what happens if we lose one of our pilots? what pap happs if one of our -- what happens if one of our pilots is captured like the jarodan pilot that was captured and we all saw the tragic end that he met? are we as a nation prepared to respond and rescue, are we going to put boots on the ground should we put boots on the ground? that is a debate we need to have. none of us are advocating for extended war. none of us are advocating for putting our men and women in harm's way. but if we are going to engage as a nation with our partners to defeat a threat to the united states, we need to have an honest debate about how we do that and not start the debate by restricting how we intend to do that. we also have a role in the future of guantanamo. i've introduced legislation, h.r. 654, which would prevent the president of the united states from handing over our

navy -- naval base at guantanamo to the cuban regime without congressional approval. this is very different than the debate over the future of the prison, very different than the debate over the transfer of detainees. this simply says we as the united states have a naval station 90 miles off our shore and when the raul castro demands that we return that to the cuban people and pay reparations to the cuban government, as terms of negotiation, my legislation says, no. mr. president, you may not do that without coming to this body to ask for authorization and certainly i would not lend my vote to that. i was pleased to hear testimony in the senate when the administration said, that is not a matter they would consider. but as we have seen, the president's negotiations in the past, it gives us reason to pause. my legislation would simply codify the restriction that says guantanamo navy station may not be returned to the cuban people without congressional approval. .

finally, we do have a role in inviting a foreign leader to address this body. prime minister netanyahu. it is fully appropriate as a co-equal branch of this government to invite prime minister netanyahu to address us about his vision of peace in the region, his visit of security and also his vision of the current negotiations with iran. no member of this body should shy away from receiving an address from the prime minister of israel. we should stand resolution, republican independents, an democrat, and be here for that address. not insult the prime minister and people of israel by turning it into a political game by boy votting the address of this eprime minister. we should be here for the people of israel and for the prime minister's leadership. this is appropriate.

we can disagree with the administration without being disagreeable. as we engage in oversight, it's important that we continue this dialogue and we do as the president very respectfully suggested and i want to thank him again for the tone of his remarks today when he says he hopes the aumf could be better by working with the congress. i would ask the same of the administration, when our speaker steps out and invites prime minister netanyahu because it represents the interest of this body when it comes to israel in the current negotiation with iran. i'm pleased to be joined this evening to discuss this further by a fine colleague of mine in this body, representative rodney davis of illinois. mr. davis: thank you to the gentleman from florida for actually putting this special order together tonight and inviting me to speak. you put together a number of

topics for tonight that matter whether you represent 800,000 constituents in florida or like me you represent 800,000 constituents in illinois. my son one of my sons, i was cleaning out his pocket in one of his jackets and i pulled out a copy of the constitution that he got at school. so i flipped through it, i reread article 1. article 2. article 3. to the bill of rights. you learn something new each time. but what you don't forget is that our forefathers who created this great institution understood that it took equal powers. it took equal branches of government to produce the freedoms that we here in america sometimes take for granted. and it's exactly what you said about let's work with each branch of government. we can disagree without being disagreeable.

you address sod many issues, i'd like to actually talk back and forth on some of those. but let's start with the invitation to prime minister netanyahu. we have a tremendous disagreement on whether or not the united states should unilaterally enter into negotiations with the terror state of iran. i worry. i worry what it means for america and what it means for our closest ally in the middle east, israel if iran finally was given access to a functional nuclear weapon. what would they do with that? who would they provide that technology to? it's something in the geopolitical sense we have to be concerned about and our position -- in our position as members of congress. these are issues we have to put a check and balance on the administration to ensure that we are working toward what is the common goal for our allies.

and i think that prime minister netanyahu, being invited here to address the united states congress, to address 435 members of this house and many others, to talk about how we are working together as allies, i don't think that's an insult. frankly, i say what took so long? why did it take the speaker of the house to put the invitation out? why did the administration continue to block this? these are the types of issues that we as an equal branch of government have to address in this body. and that's why we're happy to talk about many of the other issues. you mentioned guantanamo bay. i'm a proud co-sponsor of your bill that's going to ensure that this administration cannot negotiate away the united states' ownership of guantanamo bay regardless of whether or not the president is going to, which i think is a terrible policy regardless of whether or

not the president is going to clear out the terrorists in guantanamo bay who are there because they want to hurt americans. i think we need to ensure that there is a law of the land that does not allow this administration to negotiate away a very important base in cuba that protects americans. so these are the types of issues foreign policy issues isis is one i know we'll be able to discuss tonight and others, but i'm happy to yield back and begin discussion on whatever it is you think is most important when it comes to america's foreign policy and our ability to be that oversight branch that equal branch to the executive branch. mr. jolly: i thank my colleague. let's stay on the topic of prime minister netanyahu. one of the reasons we take to the floor is to make sure that

the voices are heard from all over the political spectrum and as the media and some in this body have gained the attention of the media, by suggesting the prime minister shouldn't attend it's important for us -- those of white house believe he should, take time to discuss whies that. most people know and understand, but some people don't, the significance of our partnership with israel. and what it means in one of the most volatile regions of the world. this is a nation that has committed to democracy peace, to freedom to representation, to security, and they are doing so in an incredibly volatile region. and all that they have asked of the united states over the years is that we stand with them in their own courage to promote peace and security and freedom of their own people.

and i would say as i mentioned earlier, for those who have chosen not to attend, i certainly respect that decision. but i think it sends a message that is wrong. to send not just to the people of israel but to the prime minister himself. not only is there a political message trying to be delivered by those who don't attend but there's also this notion that somehow those of us in this body better understand the internal politics in israel better than the elected leaders. why should we not trust that prime minister netanyahu understand what is is best for his nation? why should we try to suggest that we know better than prime minister netanyahu what is right for israel and the people of israel. to suggest otherwise is demeaning both to the prime minister as well as to the people of israel. so i look forward to the prime

minister's address and i thank this -- i think this body as we make decisions about iran sanctions but also about our aid to the people of israel, i think this body has an opportunity to learn from the prime minister. and to understand the issue better as we begin to make decisions. so i look forward to the prime minister's address to this body. >> like my colleague, i look -- mr. davis: like my colleague, i look forward to the prime. -- prime minister's address too. the sheer pettiness of the fact that the speaker of the house invited the prime minister and many decided to say they're going to boycott this. you know what? boycott it. if that is your idea of your freedom of speech, go ahead. we'll fill the seats. we'll make sure that prime minister netanyahu understands

that america stands with him and his nation as our greatest allies in the middle east. and when that happens, he will come here, he will be received with a reception that's worthy of the prime minister of israel and i am just honored to be able to sit in this room, to hear why our bilateral relationship is of the utmost importance. i wish we didn't have this pettiness here in this congress. i think the american people are sick and tired of the infighting. they're wanting us to govern together. this is just one more example that goes out to the american people that tells them that people in washington in this institution can't get along. and i hate to say it but they're wrong on many issues because we do get along. but on this one, it's so important we show respect to our greatest ally. i notice we've been joined by our colleague from california mr. valadao, who i think wants to participate in this discussion on prime minister

netanyahu also. mr. jolly: i yield the gentleman as much time as he might consume. mr. valadao: i had the opportunity to visit israel and spend time with prime minister netanyahu. that was for me probably one of the most enlightening -- enlightening trips i have been on to see our important our relationship is to the folks here in israel. and also to us here in the u.s. we learn so much from the technology they use to protect their borders and protect themselves from terrorists. we see the situation they've got going on with isis now today. we need that relationship more than ever. something that can truly make a difference because we truly are under attack at all times. you've got people out around this world and now we're hearing today in committee and tv it was mentioned there were a lot of people within our own borders today. it was a scary time. to have someone with the experience that netanyahu has

and to see what he's seen over the years and to bring that and share that with us here, in our chambers, where we pass the laws, where we're sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and the people here and that's our number one priority to have the opportunity for him to speak to us is an honor. i'm looking forward to that opportunity. i think it's something that will help all of us here in congress truly understand what we're up against and what needs to be done. i think it's something that most of us are smart enough to attend. there are a few that choose not to but i think that's going to be a very small group of people. so again, mr. jolly, i appreciate the opportunity and i yield back. mr. jolly: i appreciate the gentleman's comments. it can't be lost in this conversation about the pending address from the prime minister. as we mention the security of israel and a very volatile region. it is a region that is the center of much of the presence

of isis. and as we often see the political debate, the tv commentary, the radio commentary about how we define isis the fact is if we're not willing to define our enemy, we will never defeat our enemy. we know that we face a threat, an organization, that has declared war on us. and we don't get to choose the threats we face as a nation. we certainly wish we could. we only get to choose how we respond to those threats. and so the president's submital of an aumf request today is the right one. this body, i think, can have a very respectful debate about the terms of how we confront isis, about the authority, the authorization that we want to provide this administration for how he engages. the most critical thing we can

do though is not tie the hands of our men and women in uniform and the leadership of our department of defense as they make decisions how to execute our campaign against this radical organization. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i am again, i'm so proud to be joined by my colleague from florida and my colleague from california, when we talk about isis, this is a true threat to americans abroad. i have never in my lifetime seen such a savage organization who finds it entertaining to show the death of innocent civilians. let us also recognize that most of the civilians that have been killed by isis have been fellow muslims. so it's not a -- it's not something that we here in america with our freedoms that we enjoy can comprehend. and i think we have to do

everything we can to eradicate them, to destroy them and ensure they never get a foothold anywhere in any type of nation state whatsoever. because their plans will be to do one thing. that's to kill americans. part of our job as americans is to come here and make tough decisions. these are decisions that none of us when we stood up and raised our hand to get sworn in in this institution thought we'd have to make. but they're decisions the american people demand we make. we are being demanded to ensure that america remains safe. here in the homeland and americans should remain safe abroad. . the president talks about a trajectory of peace. i don't know what he's looking at. it looks like a flat line of destruction to me. we've got an opportunity now to put forth an authorization for the use of military force, something i never wished that we would ever vote on here in this house.

but we're forced to by the failures of the foreign policy coming out of this administration in dealing with isis. i stood on this floor and i said, i'm willing to stand with the president who told me this strategy of using air superiority and working with our allies on the ground was going to work. it's clearly not working. the last thing i wanted to do was stand here and offer up an opportunity for american special forces and ground forces to partner with allies, to go in and defeat isis. but it may be the only chance we have. and this authorization for the use of military force, i like the fact that it may expire in three years. let it be re-authorized. but the fact of the matter is we need the president to stand up and be the commander in chief. we can put any piece of paper in front of him and his administration that we want. but if he's not willing to do the job and be the commander in chief to destroy, defeat and ensure that america remains safe here and abroad then he's

not doing the job that he was elected to do. we will do our job. we will pass an authorization for the use of military force. and we will give the president the opportunity to fight eye sills. -- isis. but we have to make sure that our men and women in the military are the ones who are put at the forefront of what matters most and the only thing that we should consider is that these -- the american military, our soldiers, our men and women who fight for our freedoms should be given the opportunity to do what they're trained to do. let's not play politics with destroying eye sills. let's actually allow -- isis. let's actually allow our member and women in uniform to do just that. they can do that. they've done it throughout history and that is exactly what we need to continue to do in this institution, let's work together, let's make this happen. i yield back. mr. jolly: i would associate myself with my colleague's remarks and simply close with this. it's important to revisit the context of how we brought this

up tonight. we are one nation. the president, the congress, we are united as americans, as elected officials of this country to protect the national security of the united states. the point of tonight's special order is that just as the president exercises his article two authority, this body -- article 2 authority, this body also has a responsibility to exercise our article 1 authority and that's ok. that is why we have the greatest republic that has ever been on the face of this earth. because we can have these debates and a constructive way -- debates a constructive way, the president and the congress and know every day that we as a nation, the president and this body, are resolved to to eradicate isis from the face of this earth. we will do that. and so as i mentioned, just as the president asks us too consider an authorization to

use military force, we must also ask the president to understand our interest and how this war to defeat isis is executed. on issues of iran, cuba and others, we will work together, we will have our differences, our disagreements. but we remain one united states, resolved to protect the security of our interests. i look forward to a very healthy debate on these issues in the coming months. with that i would be prepared to close unless mr. davis -- unless, mr. davis, you have any further comments. mr. davis: i thank the gentleman again for organizing this opportunity. i just want to remind all of our fellow colleagues, it is a privilege to serve in this great institution. these decisions that we will make will not be easy. but these decisions that we make will be judged in history as to what happens here and what the future holds. let's make sure that we make our forefathers and those who follow us proud to be members of congress. let's do the right thing.

thank you and i yield back. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona ms. mcsally, for 30 minutes. ms. mcsally: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. mcsally: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i come before this body today, again, to talk about a very important issue of border security. my district is arizona's second congressional district. i represent about 85 miles of the southern border. and we have border residents and ranchers who every day are dealing with transnational

criminal organizations that are trafficking drugs and people and weapons and money through their property, putting their lives at risk, often having them have to make difficult decisions potentially life and death decisions. and as we stand today, this administration has done nothing to secure our border. this is a national security threat, it's a public safety threat. and the people of southern arizona need to be heard. and that's why i'm organizing again some time to be able to address this issue. and i really appreciate one of my colleagues here, mr. valadao from california, like you're interested in joining this conversation. it's a very serious issue. we do have a bill out there, the secure our borders first act. i'm a co-sponsor of the bill and i believe this is a very important bill that should unite this body to move forward and address this issue. i don't want to play politics with it. so i yield some time to mr. valadao. mr. valadao: thank you, ms. mcsally, representative mcsally. i had the opportunity to actually go to your home state

a couple weeks ago and spend some time with you on the border. and i as many people probably already know, i spent quite a bit of time here in washington the last two years talking about immigration reform. do i believe that we have to fix the problem. we have to address it -- the situation we've got with immigration in general. but something that i learned a lot about on that trip, and i knew before, but until i really got to -- got to experience and see for myself didn't realize how bad the situation on the border was and what our border agents face on a day to day basis, with people coming in with tools that i happen to use in my shop when i'm building stuff, but saws torches, and different types of equipment just to get through the fence. things that you wouldn't expect folks to have on the border. but when you see the situation we've got with the type of drugs and the type of people crossing the border on a daily basis, it's truly a situation that has to be resolved and has to be looked at in a totally different way. chairman mccaul came up with a piece of legislation to address this and to go through the

whole border piece by piece -- in a piece by piece manner. it looks at each part of the border and how it needs to be addressed. it's something that from too thank tour and the time i spent there on the border, i got to see how important it was. from the california portion in san diego and how people are getting across the border and the type of tunnels they're digging to the type of aircraft that people are flying, the drones that you can buy for consume thousand bucks online. and even down to your part of the border, where we got to see people cutting through the fence and making ramps and driving over barriers that weren't able to be cut down to texas to the rio grande when we traveled the river and saw exactly what the situation is there with the places where people can hide and how narrow that area is, the bill that was introduced helps secure this because it looks at each portion of the border separately and individually and makes sure to address that as a problem in itself. it asks and it puts technology in those places where it could

actually, truly make a difference. that border with this legislation can actually be secured, as much as we possibly can. and then we can move on with the rest of what has to be done. obviously fixing our guest worker programs, fixing our visa programs, and the type of legal immigration that we obviously welcome in this country, because this country was built on immigrants. but we want to make sure that we do secure the border first and i'm thrilled to be here and help you out and spend some time with you this evening talking about such an important issue. so i appreciate the invitation and i yield back. ms. mcsally: thanks so much, mr. valadao, congressman valadao. really appreciate you coming to visit my district. 21 members of this body came to southern arizona to see what these border residents and ranchers are dealing with on a daily basis. to include our chairman, chairman mccaul, i really appreciated your willingness to come see firsthand and listen to the ranchers and border residents. we've got men and women in uniform in our communities what thank are doing the best they

can. but -- that are doing the best they can, but the strategy they've been given in our sector is just not working. they need better tools and need a better strategy so that we can use intelligence-driven operations we can use technology where it works, we have have barriers where they work. but ideally we need to be detecting the illegal activity of the cartels well south, so that we're able to then monitor and either deter the breaches or intercept them as soon as possible when they come over the border. so some of the additions that i added into the bill were to create a rapid reaction force so they can quickly intercept and directing the border patrol to be patrolling at border to the max extent possible. right now there's a multi-layering approach in these areas. it's called a defense in depth strategy. it relies on taking stimets what they say -- sometimes what they say hours to days to intercept the illegal activity. during those hours to days, these cartels are transiting

over private property. whereas in the past sometimes these ranchers, look they've always had a humanitarian heart, if they had seen other individuals that were coming over illegally to find work, they at least if they needed water they'd help them and call border security. but now they don't know who they are. because as the numbers have gone down, the cartel activity, the drug mules, the potential violence, the violent history of the individuals that are apprehended has gone up. so they don't know who it is that's croth crossing their property right now. rancher rob in 2010 went out to help somebody and that's the last we heard of him. he was murdered on his own property and they still don't know who did that. as he was out there responding. so we've got stories of individuals in my district that you've heard some of them. but we hear more every single day. where generally speaking they're on alert. they usually don't go out of their homes unless they're armed. and they often don't go out unless it's in daylight hours. so it's really impacting their

way of life. certainly impacting the ranchers' livelihood. they're constantly dealing with cut fences and loose cattle or killed cattle and all the implications that come with these cartels that are trafficking across their property and around their homes. break-ins and other things that come with that. i really appreciate your willing tons come down and see that firsthand -- willingness to come down and see that firsthand. for those listening and watching, i want to make sure you know, had call your congressman. this is a good bill. we've got to get this thing passed. if we can't unite this body around securing our border, what can we unite around? this is something we need to get done. it's what we've been asked to do. as republicans we always hear our colleagues say, secure the border first. this is an opportunity to do that. so i stand today to support that bill again and i want to invite mr. davis from illinois, my colleague, yield some time to you to join the conversation. mr. davis: i just want to thank one of my newest colleagues, congresswoman martha mcsally,

who's really shown true leadership on this issue. because it's personal. this is your district. just like many issues that we face in the midwest are issues that you and i will talk about, that congressman valadao and i will talk about, that you don't have to experience. and these are issues that you see and we hear about. you see in many cases where the border is not secure. where drug cartels coming through private property -- are coming through private property. we in illinois can't imagine somebody walking through our backyard hauling drugs. hauling criminals. these are things that we don't experience. but we have to experience as members of this institution. because every vote we take impacts every single citizen in this great country. i just am proud that you're willing to stand up and talk about the issues that matter most to this debate. and that is, how do we secure our boarders? once we do, we can fix we can

fix our broken immigration system. we can fix the process that we already have called the naturalization process and he sure, and ensure that we have a system that's going to work. my fear, though, is that many in this debate, they don't want to see this problem fixed because they want to use it as a political hammer. and i will tell you just a personal forry very quickly -- story very quickly. i can remember doing one of my public meetings and having an organization come in and talk to me about their view of how we make our border more security -- more secure. as i was going to another public meeting, this organization decided to send members to my house and send the same message to my then 12-year-old son. bullying tactics like that are not conducive to solving problems not just in this institution, but in this great country. and that's why i'm so proud to be able to stand here with both of you today to talk about the issues that are important and

the fact that we're willing to talk about it and find solutions and begin our address towards making those solutions real are the reason why we came to this institution. so with that i yield back, but thank you for your leadership, both of you, on many issues, especially this one and i hope someday i can follow in the footsteps of my colleague from california and visit your district and see the same things he did. . ms. mcsally: you can come down any time. the doors -- doors are open and we're ready to show anyone from this body what we're dealing with. i thank the gentleman for his comments and encouragement. we've got to find like-minded individuals to move this forward. that's what the american people are asking us to do. we were hosting the co-dell down at the ladd ranch, jack ladd and john ladd, wonderful americans,

hardworking people who give us their perspective along with other ranchers , one of the largers said, these mules are just trafficing thru our neighborhoods, but they're going to yours. so once they hit the highway and they're able to get around and -- they're moving on to phoenix, they're moving over to california, they're moving up to illinois, they are bringing their drugs to all over the united states. there's cartel presence in many of these states. this is a very sophisticated criminal organization. so even though it starts in my district it is impacting everyone in the country related to their presence in everybody's district. so it's -- look, this is the time. we've been talking about border security for a very long time. there have been efforts with putting up some of the additional barriers, we've seen the efforts and how that delayed activity for sure.

we've seen how the san diego sector has done a fantastic job in order to go from what was literally an open border to having much better control. but you know this is a sophisticated organization, these cartels and they adjust. they adjusted into my sector and even as we put up barriers, it funneled them into rural areas so these criminals were trafficking through the ranch -- ranches, neighborhoods and border residences. we were the highest sector from 1998 until last year as far as number of apprehensions but as we said on the trip, we don't know what the denominator is if all we're doing is measuring the numerator of how many traffickers are apprehended but border patrol doesn't have the about to see all the activity we don't know what the numbers are. we've got to have the political will now to address this important issue so we can bring

the promise home to the people who live in my community and then in the rest of the country. this is not hard. this is a good bill. and in our sector it provides additional resources, it provides additional technologies to increase situational awareness. it holds border patrol and senior appointees in homeland security accountable for securing the border and provides the information they need to gain situational operation. i've heard my colleagues say build a fence, build the fence. we've built fences in southern arizona. those fences and vehicle barriers are delaying activity for sure. but what we've seen is these sophisticated cartels, they've got scouts on hilltops, good communications dwilingses, incredible equipment, and they are across the fence either over it, through it, or under it. they do it in very fast time.

so a barrier is certainly one element of a strategy in order to slow down the activity but that is not the only answer. that is very costly, about $5 million a mile for some of this fencing. so where it's appropriate, it needs to be put up. but if we don't have actually border patrol actively monitoring where the fenceline is, using intelligence-driven operations and intercepting the activity, patrolling at the border on the south of john ladd's ranch, not the north side, we still won't be able to stop these breaches. for those who don't understand that, i welcome them to come to southern arizona and i yield again to the gentleman my colleague from california, mr. valadao. mr. valadao: i appreciate the opportunity again. that is something we hear about in the district. everybody says, build a fence. follow the existing law. but most people don't know that the technology out there, like you said, they have scouts, they've got people ever so

often, every so many yards, 100 yards or whatever the distance is spotting where the border patrol agents are. i heard a story that they had -- one of the people crossing the border had the names, addresses and tendency thoaches border agents if they chewed gum, chewed tobacco, how slow they drove from check point to check point. they knew everything about the person and how long they'd have the openings to get across. they knew how to dig a tunnel. there was a tunnel they found that was 90 feet underground, 700 yards long. only reason they found that, not because of technology because they don't have the technology to find that, but they found an informant that opened their mouth and told them where it was at and they were able to stop that it's amazing how much is out there anybody who believes just building a fence is going to work, they're going to go under it, buy those drones and go over it. i heard storieses of cannons that are literally firing bails

of -- bales of drugs over the top. there's so many opportunities out there. for anybody to believe that just enforcing the law the way it's written today -- it'll never work. it just won't. the technology is out there if you ask any police officer on the street or any parent out there you can't do everything the same you did 50 years ago because your children have better technology to do stuff. our prisoners have much more opportunity. and now these folks have unbelievable amounts of technology out there to get across or to bring their drugs across. like you mentioned earlier, the problem has changed. what the folks in your district mentioned to me was, 20 years ago 15rk years ago, it was a large number of people, fan -- it was families it was those we see typically working on farms who are out here working on -- looking for an opportunity. these today it's cartels, they're bringing drugs, bringing problems into the country. a lot of times, like one of your constituents, someone's life was

taken. it's a truly sad situation. but it has to be addressed in a way that solve ours problem. we don't just take vets here because of sending out a press release. we solve problems. legislation we introduce has to solve problems for the american people. that's what we're response to believe do and that's what we're going to do. i thank you for the opportunity and i yield back. ms. mcsally: thank you so much for your perspective. i agree, if anyone thinks if anyone in this body thinks let's just build the fence. i would invite you to please come to southern arizona and see the dogie doors that are cut -- 9/11 california, the doggy doors they call them that are cut out in less than 60 seconds system of those barriers are helpful but they're a speed bump. we are dealing with sophisticated organizations that are much more nimble than we are. they react when we come up with a different strategy. they're able to react much more

quickly. but we've got min and women in border patrol right now if they're able to detect any sort of activity they start tracking them. sometimes by themselves they're tracking them without any awareness of what they're tracking. are they armed or not armed? what is their intent? some of the things in this bill help provide them with the situational awareness that they need. some of it is bringing technologies back that we've used jeever seas so we can have motion sensing so we know what's moving and what's not moving so we don't have to bother lining agents up on the border. seems like, mr. davis, would you like to join us again and provide more comments? i yield to you. mr. davis: absolutely. it relates to the fact that sometimes the policy pus in place through administrative rules or by this body hinder our ability to achieve the goals that americans want us to achieve. we could build fencing. but you know there are many

times people will find a way around that fence. and that doesn't mean let's not do it but what it means is, let's also enact policies that will not hinder our border patrol agents from actually doing their job. one of my colleagues from illinois flies national guard duty over the southern border and talks about how different groups will overwhelm a single border patrol agent and understand that a majority of those who are trying to cross into america will get in, some won't but a majority will. and it's worth the risk to many. and frankly, if we weren't living in this great country, we would probably want to be here too. s that wonderful country that's the beacon of hope for so many throughout this globe. but we also have to take into consideration the impact that it has in this country and we need to make sure we put policies in

place that allow our border to be secure by making sure our border patrol agents have the tools and the ability to address the problem that both of you have addressed so well this evening. so thank you again for being here, thank you for being willing to stand up. it's not an easy issue to talk about. it's not an easy issue because it's become so politicized. i commend you for that until we have to stand up -- because we have to stand up and take courage. we have to stake courageous stances and we have to take courageous votes that may not make all our constituents happy. but these are opportunities to lead and that's exactly why we all came to congress. i yield back and i again thank you. >> thank you mr. davis, for your kind words and your support. and look, i come from a very diverse district and i won by 167 votes to get here. ms. mcsally: so we are very diverse and split district.

but i'll tell you this is a unifying issue even in my district. when i look at the things that are going to unify us, it's making sure we are safe and secure and have economic opportunity right. so throughout my district people agree, we need to secure the border. they also want to look for thoughtful solutions to modernize and revamp our legal immigration system so that those who want to come here to work and are going to contribute to our economy have a legal way to do that. we need to work on those challenges as well as we talk about it in southern arizona, we need a high fence and wide gate metaphorically. let's focus our border security on transnational criminal organizations and the public safety and national security threat but we also need to make sure we've got good economic development and opportunities for individuals to come here legally and also for commerce to be able to flow which is a separate issue. they often get lumped in together and oftentimes these issues get hijacked by others who have other intentions that are trying to politicize it.

but i think every american, democrat, independent, republican can agree that they want their families to be safe and secure from transnational criminal organizations. i can't find anyone who doesn't agree to that. so why is this not an issue that would yubefi this body? why is this not an issue that we couldn't work together within our party and then across the other side of the aisle to actually get the job done to use commonsense solutions, to give the situational awareness tools they need to hold homeland security accountable to secure our border once and for all, direct a better strategy sector by sector, provide that situational awareness and control. i appreciate the leadership of chairman mccaul, the -- my colleagues who have joined me here tonight and i want to urge those who are watching and listening to please call your congressman and tell them to support the secure our borders

first act and let's get this thing through the house through the senate, signed by the president. this is not time to play politics with border security. the residents and ranchers in my community cannot wait any longer in order to have that fear go away so that they can feel like they can sleep well at night and their lifelihood is not at stake and their families are not at risk. we owe it to them to take action. let's figure out how to unify, work through any sort of solutions we need to in order to get to a commonsense agreement and let's pass this bill. and mr. speaker with that i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona yields back her time. does the gentlewoman from arizona have a motion. ms. mcsally: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. >> the white house today sent to congress's authorization for the use of military is to combat isis.

the measure authorizes the military force for three years and says there will not be in during offensive combat operation. president obama formally asks congress today to authorized a three-year military campaign against the terrorist group isis. the resolution includes airpower and could include limited ground operations by u.s. forces to fight any leaders or rescue american personnel. you can see the white house resolution on your screen, and we have a link to it on our website. go to c-span.org. we will hear from the president next on c-span, followed by remarks from mitch mcconnell and senator tim kaine and congressman adamadam schiff.

later, a house homeland security hearing on domestic terrorism. >> good morning. good afternoon. today, as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations, including arab countries, our men and women in uniform continue to fight against iso-in iraq and in syria. more than 2000 coalition airstrikes of how did these terrorist, we are disrupting their command and controls, making it harder for them to move. we are destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure is a fun or operate. -- the fund or operate. in the iraq, some places have

pushed isoil back. it failed in its attack/ . we have seen reports of sinking morale among isil fighters. make no mistake, this is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time. it is going to take time to dislodge these terrorist's, especially from urban areas. our coalition is on the offensive. isil is on the defensive and they are going to lose. it is barbaric murder including american hostages, is a desperate and revolting attempt to strike the hearts of people and can never possibly win over, because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction.

with violent groups like this there is only one option -- with our allies and partners we are going to degrade and destroy this terrorist group. when i announced our fight in september i said we are strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together. today, my administration has committed a grand resolution to congress to authorized the use of force. i want to be clear about what it does and does not do. this resolution reflects our core objective to destroy isil. it supports the comprehensive strategy. a systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against isil support and training for local forces on the ground including the moderate syrian opposition preventing attacks in the region and beyond including by foreign terrorist fighters threatening our

country, regional and international inclusion of the iraqi government, humanitarian assistance for the innocent civilians of iraq and syria who are suffering so terribly. i want to thank ice president biden, secretary kerry and hagel and general marty density for their leadership. even as we meet this challenge in iraq we all agree that one of our weapons against terrorists, a critical part of our strategy, is that we live here at home. we are the best antidote to the hateful ideology that radicalized people to violent extremism. tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people. the resolution we have submitted today does not call for the

deployment of u.s. ground combat forces to iraq or syria. it is not reauthorize another ground rule. the 2600 american troops in iraq today serve on bases, but they do not have a combat mission. they are focused on training iraqi forces, including kurdish forces. i am convinced that the united states should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the middle east. that is not in our interest and it is not necessary or us to beat isil. local forces on their grown to know their country best our best positioned to take the fight to isil. at the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need.

if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of leaders, and our partners didn't have the strategy to get them i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action, because i will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven. we need flexibility but we also have to be careful. there is no heavier decision than allowing our men and women until risk their lives on our behalf. as commander-in-chief i will only send our troops into harm's way when it is absolutely nothing very for our national security. finally, this resolution repeals the 2002 authorization of force in the invasion of iraq and limits this new authorization to three years. i do not believe america's interests are served by endless war, or by remaining on a perpetual war setting. as a nation we need to ask the

difficult and necessary questions about when why, and how we use military. it is our troops who bear the costs of our decision, and we own them a clear strategy of what we need. this resolution will give our armed forces and coalition the continuity we need for the next three years. it is not a timetable. it is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given. period. it is saying that congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president's term. it is conceivable that the mission is completed earlier. it is conceivable that after deliberation into debate that there are additional tasks to be carried out. the people's representatives with a new president, should be able to have that discussion.

in closing, i want to say that enacting this resolution, we have to focus went and listened to both republican and democrat. we made a sincere effort to address their issues that we discussed together, and in the days and weeks ahead we will work closely with leaders on both sides of the aisle. i believe this resolution can grow even stronger with a dignified debate that it demands. i've optimistic it can win bipartisan support, and we can show our troops and the world that americans are united. today our men and women in uniform continue to fight against isil and we salute them for their courageous service. we pray for their safety. we stand with their families. weknow this -- our coalition is strong and our mission will succeed.

long after the terrorists we face are destroyed and forgotten, america will continue to stand free and tall and strong. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states. thank you very much, everybody. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell spoke about the president's request for the use of military force against isis. >> this morning we received the president's proposed authorization for the use of military force against isil and its affiliates. it is clear that a successful military campaign would require a multiyear effort, so it is

certainly in order for congress to debate an authorization like this. because congress must meet its responsibilities decide whether our military should use force the senate will review the request thoughtfully. we will listen closely to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy. because the demand for such serious consideration i want our members to have an early opportunity to discuss the request. later today, our conference will be for discussion led by senators corker and mccain. a yield the floor -- ideal for. >> this speech on president obama's military action request -- "any authorization for the use of military force must get our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our

people. while i believe an aumf against isil is important, i have concerns that the president's request does not meet the standard." "now we will begin hearings and rigorous oversight that lawmakers and the public can provide their input. the goal is to show the world that the united states is resolute." now to democrats weighing in on the president's new request to use military force against isis. senator tim kaine and adam schiff spoke to reporters for 35 minutes. >> the president submission to congress of the draft authorization today makes me basically have three things to tell you. .1, thank goodness -- poitnnt

one, three months into a war that is necessary, thousands of war airstrikes, death of service members long after any timeline under the war powers resolution of 1973 have asked expired, we will take seriously our most solemn obligation. the most somber and great responsibility congress have is having the debate and authorizing it. those who serve know they are serving with the support of america's political leadership. here we are today finally trying to put the horse before the cart. i am sad that it has taken us along but it is good we are here and i think the white house for sending this proposal to congress as the president indicated he would. point two, i see some things i

like. congressmen should and i both introduce resolutions in september shortly after the president spoke to the nation on the evening of september 10 proposing the authorization. my september resolution version of which was passed in december included a sunset -- that is a really important piece. we have learned an authorization that if you do something like this it can be used beyond what congress originally intended. i also really appreciate the president in this draft repealing the 2002 aumf. the sightings of the early aumf have seen way too much of a stretch and what they suggest is that authorizations that are not repealed can float around in space and being grabbed onto and

used in ways that are not within the contemplation of the congress. i think the repeal of the 2002 aumf is appropriate and i appreciate the president putting it in. i think the white house and i see some things i like but i also have some concerns. concerns that will be hashed out in the committee process. i am sure everybody has concerns and everybody has questions, some about the draft of the proposal. some words about the complicated nature of the mission. we will use the procedure and the floor debate to get to those concerns. i am concerned about the brick and vagueness -- the rbebreadth and vagueness. it suggests that all defensive ground combat operations --

allowing defensive actions without any additional explanation is pretty broad. enduring is also a term that is not defined. that raises some concerns for me the fact that the language is different than what he used on september 10. we just need to dig into why that is and ask questions and provide clarification. i think we will work to do that. second, this is a very complicated military mission. it is even more complicated on the serious side of the border. i think everybody knowledge is a. --everybody acknowledges it. we want to look at the different challenges. we will get into that. finally, just a concern about the mission -- what are the

roles that regional partners are playing in this? i returned recently from a visit with a number of senators, saudi arabia, qatar, and israel will dive into what our regional partners are doing. last week we had a really sad visit -- he just happened to be here on the day when the jordanian pilot was killed in such a horrible thing which demonstrated by isil is a threat. the king was very blunt. he said, this is not your fight, it is ours. it is a terrorism that was born and bred in this region, that is justified by people who are not practicing islam but who claim that as the mental. -- mantle. it is up to us to speak out strongly and defeat this terrorist threat.

if we are in it and then the u.s. should help and help vigorously. he said it is not primarily the united days's -- the united states's fight. they are not just saying they are part of a coalition but demonstrating to the most extensively can that they are going to battle this terrorist threat to defeated. -- to defeat it. is participating -- who is participating, and who should be asked. -- should be asked to do more. we cannot police a region that will not police itself. adam schiff is a longtime member of congress and the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. 's leadership on this in the house has been critical to getting to this day.

is offered me a lot of good advice and for that i andthank him. >> thank you very much. i share the mixed emotion. this is something i have been pushing for for a happy year and is long overdue but we are happy this moment has come. we are no longer in the wilderness but we still have a very hard job ahead. similarly i am grateful to the white house that they took this step to propose to us -- we were in this long dilemma where the leadership here in the congress wanted the president to go first and meanwhile our troops had already gone and congress was sitting on the sidelines. it is the congress that lost in that stalemate because it is our responsibility to declare war to authorize or not authorized warfare. the absence of congressional action we set a precedent for

future administration that they can move without congress. we are a historical anachronism. i'm hoping we can reassert ourselves. i similarly appreciate some of the language in the authorization which very much tracks with a senator and i have been working on in terms of the three-year statute of limitations that will take it beyond this presidency and give the next president a year. if we are, that will give the new administration they responsible. of time to determine what it wants to ask from the congress. on that, i think there is a significant omission from the draft -- there is no limitation, no statute of limitation, on the original 2001 authorization, and i think that is a key problem. in the absence of that, women do authorization expires three

years from now, the next president can simply fall back on reliance in the old authorization. in that respect, the new sunset date will have very little impact. the next president can rightly say i am going to ride on the 2001 it gives me every authority i need. i know that is not the intention. the intention was that this new authorization should serve not to broaden its authority that as a limiting force, that it is without a sunset and doesn't limit this administration or the next in any appreciable manner. i think that is a key issue in the democratic caucus in the house, judging from the conversation we had this morning. the other major issue is the language pertaining to ground troops which is very broad, very ambiguous. none of us know what and enduring offensive combat operation mean. deliberately drafted to be ambiguous. for one thing i guess the only thing we can safely assume is

that whenever mission might be authorized it won't be called enduring freedom or enduring anything but that is not much of a limitation. as a practical matter the president to decide 100,000 troops in syria for 18 months and claim this is not enduring. it doesn't put much constraint on the administration. one thing we need to keep in mind is that this authorization need not and won't be the end of the word in terms of the president's responsibility. if it turns out conditions change and -- one other issue is there is no geographic limit -- if we need to go after isil in libya or go after boko haram there is nothing saying he can come back to congress. i think there is more risk

associated with an overly broad authorization in one that is too narrow. these are the key issues. narrowing the language on ground forces, and i think the good news on that front is when the president and administration describes what they want the authority to do, we want to be able to do search and rescue, to provide intelligence, those are things i think the congress all support. if we are able to drafted in a way that provides the president with the or anyone spent doesn't open the door for doing things unintended than we can find the common ground we need. the last thing i would say is what puts this in context for us is how these old authorizations have been interpreted. they have been interpreted very broadly and i think many of us are very conscious of wanting to make sure this new authorization doesn't take on a life of its own the way the old ones have,

and that will guide a lot of our thinking in terms of the policy debate that follows. >> the authorization you crafted earlier did not have a re peal. could you support an authorization that does not repeal 2001, and subsequently take care of that? >> adam and i are in complete agreement that we need to work on a significant revision of the 2001 aumf. the version i introduced in september and the version i voted for -- it did not include a provision. the one i voted for in committee did include the provision. i strongly support the notion that we have got to do an additional reassignment. the president called for in may, 2013. there has been some consultation

on the senate about that, but we need to approach it with a sense of urgency. whether it is expressed by including it in the authorization, or whether it is expressed by ramping up the effort to revise that authorization, we need to do one of those things. >> as long as there is a commitment to focusing on this i think this is something the president should do. >> you said that -- how much time has been lost year, do you think, over the past six months of the realization of getting through this congress, when you are saying it is too broad and senator kaine says it ties his hands? how long of a debate do you think we are looking at here? is there a spirit of urgency that is needed?

>> i think there is now a spirit of urgency. more than speed, getting it right is important. i want to do it asap, but it is important to air concerns and find common ground. the good news is that the white househave an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. we need to be engaged in military action. i could recite the atrocities in reverse order since september -- it has become more apparent that we need to do it. we need to approach it with a sense of urgency but put a premium on getting it right. i regret that it has taken us this long. the right way to do this is for congress to have the debate upfront. absent an imminent threat, the right way to do it is for the president to presented to congress. this is not the first time this has happened -- we have seen

presidents overreach. i come down to -- it is not just constitutional, it is a value proposition. if we are going to ask people to risk their lives, we ought to do our job. to make people risk their lives and say -- there is a midterm coming up, it strikes me as the height of public immorality. >> just to add on that -- congress is the branch that has lost over the last six months. now that the president has been put before a specific proposal there is no excuse for congressional inaction. i hope we bring all urgency to this. we are talking weeks, and not months. but congress can no longer shirt

is responsibility -- shirk its responsibility. >> to that end, in terms of congress's responsibility, the political consequences are unmistakable. obama didn't vote for and hillary did. shockwaves even now. what is going to prevent your colleagues from doing what you don't want them to do -- shirk on a real policy when they are going to have political concerns if the war goes wrong? they have seen examples of what happens if they do. so many of your republican colleagues think this goes not far enough. they are concerned that there is not an aspect that confronts

assad. where is the consensus on that? >> there are still going to be members that we would rather not have to vote on this. these are the most consequential decisions we make but i think the pressure is too great for us to act. i am counting on the rest of our country holding our feet to the fire. it should be an issue for any officeholder not just on how they vote but whether they are willing to vote. i think the die is cast, all of us will have to live with that final language, which is why we are going to give it great care and why when it comes to issues like ground forces we are going to be very careful about what we are prepared to authorize. the only other point i would want to make on the language is that these are discrete issues -- discreet issues, but there is

an overlap to the issues in the sense that if you get a geographic limitation you might be more comfortable with a broader description of the ground forces, if you know that doesn't authorize ground forces and other nations, for example. if you get a limitation on some of the old aumf that they give you more comfort on some of the other issues. there are enough variables here where we should be able to get an agreement. i think the pressure is going to be too great on the congress. >> how do you manage the pressure from the administration to pass something like what they sent up today? considering what republicans are saying isg, that it doesn't go far enough, how do you manage

the pressure from what the administration wants? >> i am still new enough to have faith that the process is going to lead us into the right place. there is going to be all kinds of statements today obviously and people are going to talk about the things they don't like. when we get into these hearings -- i saw it when we had the syrian debate -- we really dig into it. we ask penetrating questions. we find our way to an outcome. in that instance it was a 1-0-8 vote and what we voted on was different than what the white house proposed. we did some adjustments and amendments, and i think they are expecting it. political pressure -- that is important but we have servicemen and women risking their lives

and i hope it is that pressure that is on our shoulders. >> it seems right now that we could be stuck for a while at least on the house side, between ultra-liberals and ultra libertarians. >> they are going to be very strange bedfellows. i think there are substantial more amount of libertarian republicans who will be uncomfortable with a broad authorization. i find it deeply ironic to begin with that some of these members who are so critical of the imperial president are ready to make human imperial president when it comes to warmaking. i do want to address one other point you make -- the argument that by defining when we would use ground forces we are somehow telling the enemy what we are prepared to do. the reality is we have already expressed what our strategy is

and what military operations we will take, what we want iraqi forces to do, what our goals are, in providing language doesn't change that. i would be more concerned about having either this president or the next embark on a campaign that has not achieved the buy-in of the american people through the congress using an authorization that was wholly unintended. that i think is the graver risk, than telling what our intentions are. >> it is very connected to my concern about the regional partners. if it ends up that we have to go out in tells me that the regional partners who have ground forces, who have equipment, is they are not in then we have to use ground troops and they are not standing up against the threat to narrow region.

that is something we need to be wary about taking on the burden for those who want to stand back. >> hi. i have a question regarding -- what is there to guarantee that, given how difficult it has been for congress to get anything done at all, now that we are talking about one of the greatest duties congress has what is there to guarantee that anything we passed, in particular since the white house has the fallback measure that they said they have been relying on all along. they don't actually need congress to back anything at all. why do you think the white house has left that in their? is it because it is a failsafe to congress not acting? >> there is no guarantee. the white house had the votes in september. the votes were there in this

body in september to authorize this military action. i know that because we did cast a vote on the hardest piece of it -- the serious side, in a resolution before the midterm recess. that is the toughest piece. it was wrapped up as part of a larger spending bill, so possibly people would say -- that didn't mean anything -- but i was watching people confront this in september. the bipartisan support was there. if anything, the events since september have demonstrated to all of us the danger of isil unchecked and the ability of the united states to make a difference. you made a difference with the airstrike campaign. there is no guarantee, but the votes were there and i think that those are still there. >> [speaking spanish]

>> [speaking spanish]

>> the one thing i can't do is translate. >> i wanted to follow-up on an earlier question. in your talks yesterday with the administration officials how much sense did you get that there is a give and take? how far as the administration willing to go when you talk about adding restrictions, adding parameters, adding conditions? >> i think there is a real willingness to negotiate. a strongly wanted authorization. i think the administration feels that it is important that congress have a buy-in, that the american people have a high through congress. i think they very much want an authorization and they are trying to gauge what can navigate through this process.

one thing i think the administration doesn't want, to to want an authorization that is so narrowly drawn that if they find it necessary to go outside the confines of the authorization and rely on the old authorization, they don't want to be perceived as acting unlawfully and i think that is a legitimate concern for the administration. they are going to want to be bound by what we come up to. i have a little less sympathy for where the white house -- i don't feel this is a constraining document as it is written. i think it is quite carte blanche in terms of geography. therefore i think we are going to have to have a lot of work on that. the other part is i think they want this to be broadly bipartisan. i don't think they would like to see a resolution that has overwhelmingly support from the

democrats and they are not likely to get the opposite if congress is controlled by the gop. >> you have been asked this for six months -- clearly the administration didn't come to this quickly. what did they tell you about what has changed now? what is different now? >> that is a question to ask the white house, but i do know this. i wrote my first op-ed about this in june, 2013, that isil was moving unchecked. i said, mr. president, you have all the authority in the. -- authority you need. that offended my sensibilities. i don't feel bound by an earlier

administration. i look at the words that congress passed, and i did not think either authorization justified this. i wrote and said, if you are going to do this and it looks like we will have to, come to us. as i look at why it took so long, i am frankly adamant -- i think more of the timing delay goes on congress postural or's. what i have liked it if they had had a draft authorization the morning after the president spoke to the nation on the 10th of september? absolutely. that they were definitely hearing from congressional leadership. that is the way it has been since 1787. james madison drafted this part of the constitution. the constitution is an array of provisions from the super specific to the super vague.

and the constitution, the war powers pieces on the specific side. congress declares war, congress funds war, the president is the commander-in-chief. we have ratings from others -- madison explained why they did it that way and what he said is the world today war is an executive function, for a king or a sultan or a monarch. we are altering the course of human history and making the beginning of war not for the monarch, but for the people's elected representatives. a debt that because madison knew that executives overreach. but madison was naive because he didn't also realize that legislatures -- there has been a symbiotic pathology of executive overreach and legislative edification since the ink was dry.

it is bipartisan -- the matter who was in president or who is in congress, it has been bipartisan. the right answer is not just the one that is constitutional. the constitutional allocation of powers was based on a value judgment that you don't send people to risk their lives unless there is a political consensus that the mission was worth it. even when the mission was worth it asking people to risk their lives a big ask. but when there isn't a debate isn't a discussion, it is the height of public immorality to put people in a situation where they have to risk their lives when there is an unclear can insist -- an unclear consensus. we haven't made that ask because we haven't been willing to have the debate and that has been viscerally upsetting to me about this lengthy delay. i have so appreciated people who

didn't just say, let us be bystanders see that takes care of itself -- we have to be in the middle of it. >> you like to talk about redlines -- where is your line on this? where with the administration lose your support for this? >> we haven't talked so much about this. syria is going to be a challenging issue in the committee, not because of the draft but because it is tough. in iraq, we have a government, that after the removal of maliki, is trying to be a government by and for all iraqis. it is nascent, it is early, we have to see how it develops. but there is a government that is intended to be a government for all iraqis. there is a well tested militia that fights on behalf of the kurds.

there are assets to work with. i think what you will see is that will be where the initial phases of this will likely concentrate. you have got a brutal civil war probably the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. you have that civil war, the iranian force and hezbollah al qaeda of other players -- that is going to make it more difficult to define what the mission is. the way i put it in my head is like this. we got into world war ii against germany and we didn't invade germany. who went to north africa, italy western europe -- and eventually we got to germany, but it was phased. the iraqi phase is where you will see the most action.

the serious phase will take some training. i think it is going to take more aggressive delivery, now that people are closing off their borders, we are going to have to do that in a vigorous way. all those things will take place against the backdrop of the civil war. you are going to see is engaging in a whole lot of tough question when we get into the culinary. -- into the queue&a. >> i don't know whether you were referring to the much broader issues in terms of the war itself or whether there are redlines in terms of the ohe authorization. i think there are a lot of movable pieces and i don't think any of us ought to start with a redline. in order to get this through when you have everything from the mccain and graham on the one

hand to those who don't want any authorization, there will have to be some compromise. for my own point of view that compromise will have to be more limited on ground forces and i feel very strongly about taking steps on the original authorization. i want to say how far we are from the ideal so we can put things in perspective. the ideal would be a sunset, but rather an authorization that dealt with both al qaeda and isil that repealed the old authorizations which described a different conflict, replaced with something new that pertains to both. i don't think there is an expectation we could accomplish that and if we can the next best thing is to do one that is focused on isil. >> take you very much.

>> following the president also authorization request to congress on the use of forced against isis, we will hear from the former u.s. ambassador to iraq, james jeffrey. r live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee starts tomorrow at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. nicholas -- will testify about u.s. counterterrorism efforts like that 2:30 eastern, also on c-span3. a top fbi officials said today at a counterterrorism hearing that the threat of american fighters is "not even close to

being under control." that is next on c-span. then, remarks from the iranian president on the anniversary of the islamic resolution. the house passed the keystone pipeline bill. you will hear from republicans later. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are 43 new republicans and 53 democrats in the house and 12 republicans and one new democrat in the senate. there are also 108 women in congress, and the first woman veteran. give track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. at has lots of useful information, including voting results and statistics about each session. , best acces>> officials from the

fbi homeland security department and the national counterterrorism enter testify about domestic counterterrorism efforts. the committee also talks about efforts to pass the department of homeland security funding bill in both chambers. michael mccaul of texas chairs this committee hearing. >> the committee on homeland security will come to order. committee is meeting today to hear testimony on violent islamist extremism, and the threat of foreign fighters and homegrown terror. i now recognize myself for an opening statement.

today at the first hearing of the house committee on homeland security in the 114th congress i'd like to take a moment of silence to remember all those who lost their lives at the hands of isis, especially americans james foley, steven sotloff, and most recently kayla mueller. these victims are the reason why we are here today. we must keep these barbaric terrorists out of the homeland to protect the american people. this hearing will also assess the urgent and growing threat of terrorist recruiting and inspiring americans. we need to accurately define the threat. and that is violent islamist extremism. and recognize that it is spreading like wildfire around the globe. these fanatics want nothing less than destruction of our way of

life, and now their ability to match words with deeds is growing at an astonishing rate. in recent years, their safe havens have proliferated and their ranks have swelled. in many ways, we are no longer talking about terrorist groups. we are talking about terrorist armies. isis now controls a territory the size of belgium, governs millions of people, draws on billions of dollars in revenue and commands tens of thousands of foot soldiers. and they are brutal. their latest act of barbarism was on full display with a horrific murder of the jordanian pilot. this evolving islamic terrorist landscape has given rise to the dual threats of foreign fighters, returning to the united states and home grown terrorism. the recent terror attack in paris and other attacks and plots in belgium, germany, the

uk, australia, canada, and here in the united states, are proof that the threat has surged and that the enemy is dead set on attacking the west. this map behind me shows a surge in isis linked terrorist plots over the last year alone. as mr. rasmussen notes in his testimony, more than 20,000 fighters from over 90 countries have made their way to the battlefield to join al qaeda isis and other extremist groups, making this the largest convergence of islamist terrorists in world history. that number continues to grow despite months of air strike ss. up to 5,000 of these fighters are westerners, many of whom are able to travel into the united states without obtaining a visa. and more than 150 american citizens have attempted to or

succeeded in getting to the battlefield, and we know that some of them have already returned to our shores. you can see this flow depicted in the graphic behind me. but extremists do not need to travel overseas in order to become a threat to our homeland. though hollywood-like prop gone today videos and social media and through that means islamist terror groups are inciting their followers and potential recruits to wage war at home. both isis, and yemen-based al qaeda in the arabian peninsula have called for westerners including americans, to wage individual jihad in their home countries, and it's working. isis social media also gives step by step instructions on how to get to the fight and how to return. following the attacks in paris

last month our european partners have been busy uncovering new terrorist cells and disrupting imminent plots. also just recently here at home, the fbi arrested an ohio-based isis sympathizer who was intending to attack the united states capitol with pipe bombs. i'm worried about our ability to combat this threat abroad, but also here at home. i wrote to the president recently, and raised concerns that we still have no lead agency in charge of countering domestic radicalization, and no line item for it in the budgets, in key departments and agencies. i'm also concerned that the few programs we do have in place are far too small to confront a threat that has grown so quickly. today i hope to hear how the administration assesses the danger posed by foreign fighters, particularly

westerners, and the threat of home-grown terrorism here in the united states. more importantly, i hope we will hear about how the administration is responding and how plans to ramp up its response to those challenges. this morning, i would like to welcome all of our witnesses but especially mr. rasmussen with the national counterterrorism center, in his first appearance before congress after being confirmed as director. and we look forward to his testimony. as part of our committee's focus on this critical national security issue, the ranking member and myself are establishing a task force on combatting terrorist and foreign fighter travel. the six-month task force will review u.s. government efforts focusing on dhs to disrupt terrorist travel into our country, and to combat the foreign fighter threat. it will ultimately provide recommendations to the committee on how we can improve u.s. security against these dangers.

i must say i'm very disappointed that the state department chose not to send a witness here today. the threats we are discussing are serious. and the state department plays a key role in combatting them. i recently sent a letter to the white house expressing my concerns over the department's desire to resettle tens of thousands of syrian refugees here in the united states. i am worried that isis could exploit this effort in order to deploy operatives to america via a federally funded jihadi pipeline. before closing, i'd like to again reiterate what i said at our organizational meeting last month, mr. thompson, we look forward to working with you to accomplish our shared goal of protecting the homeland. and with that the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for your comments, as well as

for holding today's hearing. i'd like to also welcome director rasmussen for his first appearance before this committee as the director of the national counterterrorism center. as well i'd also thank the rest of the panel for testifying about the federal government's effort to identify and deter foreign fighters and the government's efforts to counter violent extremism. i'd like to express my condolences at the beginning to the family of the 26-year-old kayla mueller, an american aid worker who was taken hostage by the islamic state of iraq. u.s. officials have confirmed she was killed by the terrorist group. mr. chairman, ms. mueller's death and other recent terrorist attacks across the world over the past few months have magnified the nature of the evolving threat from the terrorist groups and state actors. the heinous actions by isil, including the beheading of a

japanese journalist, and the terrorist group's burning of a jordanian pilot further illustrates the abhorrent nature of this terrorist group. last month, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff indicated that the radical ideology of isil is caused other terrorist groups to rebrand themselves and emulate isil. top u.s. officials have made public statements that foreign fighters linked to isil may pose a direct threat to this country. moreover, those inspired by the ideology of isil, al qaeda and other groups are of concern. as we look to these threats, we cannot take a myopic view. each attack from terrorist groups have reemphasized the global reach of terrorist activity. for instance, there was a crippling cyber attack in november on sony pictures entertainment network. in december, in sydney australia, we witnessed a

terrorist attack on a cafe where at the end of a 16-hour standoff, two innocent people lay dead. then in january in paris, there was a series of execution-style murders of 12 members "charlie hebdo's" creative team. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has taken credit for this attack. this serves as a reminder that the terrorist threats we face are evolving quickly. this committee's responsibility is to hold hearings, and receive classified information that lets us know the nature of the threats, and how the federal government is dealing with the threat. in spite of this, mr. chairman the republican majority continues to play political games with funding the department of homeland security. mr. chairman, i, too, feel that it is meaningless to have a strategy if the ends are not paired with the means to achieve them.

it is my hope that you will make the point to your colleagues and leadership, who are holding the funding for key agency and the federal government that americans look to to detect, deter and respond to a terrorist hostages. unfortunately, the department of homeland security is operating under the threat of a shutdown and it is only funded by a continuing resolution for the next 17 days. it is important that my republican colleagues act responsibly, stop playing politics, and pass a clean dhs funding bill. without a fully funded without a fully funded department of homeland security, some of our key methods of identifying terrorists and preventing terrorist travel will be at risk. are we really ready to stand before the american people? those who trust and value that we recognize their needs, and

declare for the sake of partisanship we're going to make our nation more vulnerable by not funding dhs. mr. chairman, i hope not. we have significant challenges before us. you've outlined in your testimony those challenges. but if we don't have a fully funded department, one that can't operate on continuing resolution, we put this country, its people, at risk. and so whatever it takes for us to deal with this threat, first of all, we have a department that has the resources to address the threat. so i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. but i also look forward to an effort where we can get the department of homeland security treated like every other department of government, having