that in that contest of ideas the women that are willing to enter the arena well equipped with a great measure by the support they get from emily's list can make their case and can be elected. when i think in my own life history i like so many of you across the room and in the country grandfather was a factory worker that started at the age of 11 and worked until he was 65 and got to retire. his son, my father went to college. he was a small businessman who worked really hard and made a good way for us. my mother had a terrible abusive childhood. have to leave at the age of 14 to go to

work and having been abandoned by both her parents and paternal grandparents never got to go to college but had a spark of resilience that kept her going and gave her the capacity to create a family filled with love and support. when i hear stories like hers and others i nodded my head and i saw a lot of others because just as she had another whose voice echoes in her head, so did i.. and how fortunate i was and how we want it to be the experience of all of our children along like this way

you get a chance to make millions of decisions. some of them are big like to you run for office? others are even bigger like the ones that are wonderful husband mark confronted like what do you do when a murderer a taxi that you survive how do you put that gift to work? she's one of the bravest women and men that i know and they are making such a difference. we have a lot to do in the next 20

months and we need to listen to the voices of those who set us on our own life journey into those that we still need with and encounter. when bill and i were at the hospital waiting for our granddaughter to make her grand entrance, one of the nurses said to me thank you for piety to be co- fighting for paid leave. and i looked at her and i thought here she is taking care of other people's babies and having to worry about what happens when her child gets sick and how she makes all of that work. her words stayed with me. i remember being a young mother

and having all of the balancing acts that we all have to do and i remember one morning getting ready to go to court and my pb center was sick and my daughter was sick and i was calling desperately to find somebody come and finally i found somebody that stayed but it made me so sick inside because i had to leave my daughter, and i rushed home after i finished in court and chelsea was fine sitting there with my friend and for the first time all day my heart stopped aching. it was one day for me but for so many moms and dads it is with them every day. that's what the nurse was talking about. that's what it's fundamentally about.

whatever you have done all those years ago or if you have just discovered emily's list and you are a first-time member that you will redouble your efforts in the next months don't you want to see more women running for school boards who will fight for better schools for our kids that don't you want to see more women running for mayor and governor who will put our families first, don't you want to see more women running for congress who will follow in the footsteps of barbara mikulski for equal pay and equal opportunity you don't you want

to see a woman president of the united states of america? ' all of these questions can only be answered by you. so please, be recommitted. do everything you can do help us organize. take up the challenge, spread the word, talk to each other three at what make this a movement and put the sure that we do all we can to fulfill the vision and ability men that have gotten out there in the arena of those who have one and those who have lost. you actually

learn more from losing. but stand with them and for them and be sure that it's not just an evening like tonight but a commitment from today because there is so much at stake. i'm so grateful that it's been there for 40 years and i'm so appreciative to all of you who have made that possible. now we just have to resolve that it probably will be even harder for american women and families in future. we are truly at a turning point that i'm absolutely convinced we can

wage these struggles and emerged victorious not just for the women who run that for all of those who will benefit from their commitment, their victories and make sure that we go from strength to strength. let's keep up our pressure and understand what we are facing. let's go forth and when somebody elections. you would see a combination. washington was a large

speaker boehner: members of congress, i have the distinct honor of introducing to you his excellency, the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. prime minister netanyahu: speaker of the house, john boehner, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and house majority leader mccarthy. i also want to acknowledge

senator and democratic leader harry reid. harry reid, it is good to see you back on your feet. it is true what they say to you cannot keep a good man down. i am deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. i want to thank you all for

being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive me being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you democrats and republicans for your common support for israel, year after year, decade after decade. i know no matter which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with israel.

the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics and it must always remain above politics. because america and israel, we share a common destiny, of a promised land, cherished freedom, and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents, from harry truman to barack obama. we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. some of that is widely known.

like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well-known. i called him in 2010 when we had the forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011, we had our embassy in cairo under siege and again, he provided vital assistance in crucial moments. support for more missile interceptors during the operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists.

in each of those moments, i called the president, and he was there. some of what the president has done for israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between american presidents and an israeli prime minister. but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. and israel is grateful to you, the american congress, for your support. for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile

defense, including iron dome. last summer, millions of israelis were protected from thousands of hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our iron dome. thank you, america. thank you for everything you have done for israel. my friends, i have come here today because, as prime minister of israel, i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my

people. iran's quest for nuclear weapons. we are an ancient people. in our nearly 4000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the jewish people. tomorrow night, on the jewish holiday, we read the book of esther. we will read of a powerful persian who plotted to destroy the jewish people from 2500 years ago. but a courageous jewish woman exposed the plot and gained for the jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. the plot was foiled. our people were saved. today, the jewish people face

another attempt by yet another persian to destroy us. iran's supreme leader, ayatollah khomenei spews the oldest hatred of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be annihilated. in iran, there is not exactly free internet but he tweets that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe iran threatens the jewish state but not the jewish people, listen to the leader of hezbollah iran's chief terrorist proxy.

he said, if all those jews gathered in israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. but iran's regime is not merely a jewish problem any more than the nazi regime was merely a jewish problem for the 6 million jews murdered by the nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in world war ii. iran's regime poses a great threat, not only to israel, but also to the peace of the entire world. to understand just how dangerous iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are a very talented people -- they are heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots who imposed

on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. that year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for iran. it directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime's founder exhorted his followers to export a revolution throughout the world. i am standing here in washington, d.c., and the difference is so stark. america's founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. as states are collapsing, iran is charging into the void to do just that. their goons in gaza, its lackeys in lebanon, it's

revolutionary guards in the golan heights, are threatening israel. backed by iran, assad is slaughtering syrians. shiite militias are rampaging. backed by iran, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the red sea. along with the straits of hormuz, that would give iran -- just last week, iran carried out a military exercise of blowing up a u.s. aircraft carrier. that is just last week. while they were having nuclear talks with the united states. unfortunately, for the last 36 years, iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock and the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans

hostage, murdered hundreds of american soldiers in beirut, and is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american servicemen and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle east, iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the jewish community center in buenos aires and helped al qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in africa. it even attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador right here in washington, d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals --baghdad, damascus, beirut, and sanaa. if iran's aggression is left unchecked, more is certain to follow. at a time when many hope iran will join the community of nations, iran is easy gobbling up the nations.

we must all stand together to stop iran's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. stop iran's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. [applause] two years ago, we were told to give president rouhani and the foreign minister zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. wrouhani's government hangs

gays, persecute christians, and executes even more prisoners than before. last year, the same zarif who charms western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of the terrorist mastermind who spilled more american blood than any other terrorist besides osama bin laden. i would like to see someone ask him a question about that. iran's regime is as radical as ever. it cries death to america, as the same america caught -- called the great satan as loud as ever. this should not be surprising because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. that is why this regime will always he an enemy of america.

do not be fooled. the battle between iran and isis does not turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. one calls itself the islamic republic and the other calls itself the islamic state but both want to impose a militant islamic empire, first on the region and then on the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for america or israel, no peace for christians, jews, or muslims who do not share the islamist medieval creed. no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. when it comes to iran and isis

the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [applause] the difference is that isis is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons, and youtube, whereas iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember, i will say it one more time, the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. we cannot let that happen. [applause]

but that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it will all but guarantee iran gets those weapons -- lots of them. let me explain why. while the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. you do not need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran.

the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. because iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's breakout time would be very short, about a year by u.s. assessment and even shorter by israel's. if iran's work on advanced centrifuges is not stopped, the breakout time could still be a lot shorter. true, certain restrictions would

be imposed on iran's nuclear program and iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. here is the problem. inspectors document violations. they do not stop them. inspectors knew when north korea broke to the bomb, but that did not stop them. north korea turned off the camera. kicked out the inspectors. within a few years, it got the bomb. now, we are warned that within five years, north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. like north korea, iran has defied international inspectors on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. like north korea, iran broke the locks, shut off the camera. this is not going to come as a

shock, but iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a good game of hide-and-cheat with them. the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog agency the iaea, said yesterday iran refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was caught twice operating secret nuclear facilities, facilities that inspectors did not know existed. right now iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we do not know about, the u.s. and israel. as the former head of inspections for the iaea said in 2013, if there is no undeclared installation today in iran, it will be the first time in 20 years it doesn't have one. iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. that is why the first major

concession is a source of great concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. the second concession creates a greater danger. that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. virtually all of the restrictions on iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. a decade may seem like a long time in political life. it is the blink of an eye in the life of a nation, a blink of an eye in the life of our children. we have the responsibility to consider will happen when the

nuclear capabilities are unrestricted and all sanctions will have been lifted. iran would be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many nuclear bombs. the supreme leader says that openly, that iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges. not 6000, or even the 19,000 that they have today, but 10 times that amount, 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. with this massive capacity, iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal, and this in a matter of weeks. my longtime friend john kerry confirmed last week that iran could legitimately possess that centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. i want you to think about that.

the foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, and this with full international legitimacy. iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program is not part of the deal, and so far iran refuses to put it on the negotiating table, iran could have the means to deliver that arsenal to the far corners of the earth, including every part of the united states. so you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions. one leaving iran with a vast nuclear program and lifting the restrictions in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to

the bomb, but paves their way to the bomb. why would anyone make this deal? they hope iran will change for the better in the coming years or they believe the alternative is worse. i disagree. i do not believe iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years. its voracious appetite for aggression grows yaer after year. -- year after year. this deal would only whet iran's appetite for more. will iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and the economy is stronger? if iran is gobbling up four

countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will they devour when sanctions are lifted? will they fund less terrorism? why should the regime change for the better when they can enjoy the best of both worlds? aggression abroad and prosperity at home. this is a question that everyone asks in our region. israel's neighbors, iran's neighbors know that iran will sponsor more terrorism when it's economy is unshackled and it has been given a clear path to the bomb. many neighbors say they will respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. this deal won't change iran for tehe better, it will only

change the middle east for the worse. a deal that is supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation will spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal will not create a farewell to arms, but a farewell to arms control. the middle east will soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. a region where small skirmishes can turn into big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. when we get down that road, we will face a much more dangerous iran, a middle east littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen, i have come to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our

future and our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and the world. [applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. first, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [applause] second -- [applause]

second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [applause] thank you. if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, they should insist that iran change its

behavior before a deal expires. [applause] if iran changes its behavior the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change his behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [applause] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [applause] my friends, what about the argument that there is no alternative to this deal, that iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased. that the nuclear program is so

advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do. nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure does not get you very much. a race car driver without a car cannot drive. a pilot without a plane cannot fly. without thousands of centrifuges tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, iran cannot make nuclear weapons. [applause] iran's nuclear program can be rolled back beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. [applause] if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often

happens in a persian bazaar call their bluff. they will be back. because they need the deal more than you do. [applause] and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business with iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. my friends, for over a year, we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. this is a bad deal. it is a very bad deal. we are better off without it. [applause]

now we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [applause] a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time. a deal that keeps the restrictions on the nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. [applause] a better deal that will not give iran an easy path to a bomb.

a better deal that israel and its neighbors may not like but with which we could live literally. and no country has a greater stake than israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us in a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. one path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for a while. but it will lead to a nuclear ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us in a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two armed iran whose aggression will inevitably lead to war. the second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear armed iran nuclearized middle east, and the

consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know, you have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the middle east, and the peace we all desire. [applause] standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is.

with us today is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner elie wiesel. [applause]

elie, your life and work inspires us to give meaning to the words "never again." [applause] and i wish i could promise you elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [applause] not to sacrifice the future for the present. not to ignore aggression in hopes of gaining an illusory peace. but i can guarantee you this,

the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. [applause] we are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. we have restored our sovereignty and our ancient home. the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. for the first time in 100 generations, we can defend ourselves. [applause]

this is why as prime minister of israel, i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [applause] but i know that israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel.

you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors. [applause] facing me in the gallery overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promised land. before the people of israel

entered the land of israel moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. [speaking hebrew] "be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them." my friends, may israel and america always stand together, strong and resolute. may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. may we face the future with confidence, strength, and hope. may god bless israel and may god bless the united states of america. [applause]

thank you very much. [applause] thank you, all. you are wonderful. thank you, america. thank you. thank you.

thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> more than 50 democrats refused to attend prime minister's netanyahu speech. after the speech, a group of democrats responded to the prime minister and criticized it as political fear.

this is 45 minutes. >> you don't pay attention to him any way. i think i will go ahead. >> thank you all for being here, i'm john yarmouth of kentucky. gathered with me are colleagues, all of whom opposed the appearance of prime minister netanyahu today. some who attended the event and and some who didn't, but all of whom have something to say about his appearance. first of all, these remarks only -- are only attributable to me. first, i would like to congratulate speaker boehner and prime minister netanyahu on a bit of political theater and the prime minister can go home to his campaign and say he lectured the american people on things we apparently didn't know.

i think the speech validated all of the reasons i said i was opposed to the speech. i expected the prime minister to speculate on and mischaracterize the negotiations and a potential deal. for instance, he continually said that the deal ends in a certain period of time and there are no restrictions -- would be no restrictions on iran's nuclear program after the deal expired. that is not the case, as we have been advised by the white house. but, again, this is part of the strategy that he used. i resented the condescending tone that he used that basically indicated that he didn't think anybody in congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear weaponized iran poses to his country and to the region and to the world. i think the president has made it very clear. we understand that threat. i don't think there's any doubt

that everyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region, that it has sponsored terrorism and has done things that we would like to see changed. we all know that. it's nice of him to remind us , and i also resent the act how he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and their representatives have been at this for two years now. with the cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. this speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook. this was fear mongering at its ultimate. phrases like saying, "nuclear war is inevitable if a deal were to be accepted. oh phrases like this would pay the way -- pave the way for iran having a nuclear bomb. these are things that i think are part what dick cheney would have done and did. this has been the prime minister's pattern.

he has gone to the u.n. and done the same thing. and i understand and all of us do, all of us who support israel and care very deeply about israeli security that israel perceives its threat differently than we might. but i don't think there is any question that the administration and all of us understand that threat and trying our best to thwart it. the only -- my final comment -- prime minister netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable deal was a perfect deal or an ideal deal. it's like the child who says, "i want to go to disneyland every day, he ice cream every day and drink coca-cola and not go to school." this would be a nice life for child, but this is very serious business and being conducted in a very, very real world. idealism is fine as william f

buckley once said, but when it approaches reality, the cost becomes prohibitive. insisting on the ideal deal in a real world where things constantly change and reality change is something where the cost would be prohibitive and that cost would be a lost opportunity to put an end to iran's nuclear program. and with that, i would like to introduce david price of north carolina. >> thank you, john, and good morning. as john said, the members here individually made our decisions about attending the speech. but what we're united in is our determination to learn from this controversy, the controversy that surrounded the speech and to move on to reinforce the u.s.-israel security relationship and protect the world against a nuclear armed iran. speaker boehner should have never extended this invitation at this time given the proximity

to israel's national elections and the fact that delicate international negotiations which the prime minister clearly wants to upend are hanging in the balance at this moment. and prime minister netanyahu shouldn't have accepted this invitation which was extended without the bipartisan leadership or consultation with the president. for these reasons, the invitation the speech sent a dangerous precedent where one can invite a foreign politician oppose the policies of the sitting presence the -- president on the house floor. and in doing so, we not only tarnish the grand tradition, but we run the risk of politicizing relationships in this case, a very special relationship dedicated to israel security and prosperity. but the speech has happened. now we have to determine the best way forward. we must give new consideration to what the prime minister has

said. this is not dependent on the form in which he said it. we must also subject his charges and claims to intense scrutiny. for example, the notion that everything has to be solved in terms of our bilateral issues before anything can be solved. for example, the description of the deal which makes an agreement seemingly, totally out of reach. we must redouble our efforts to protect israel, the region and the world from a nuclear-armed iran. these are tough negotiations. of course, they are tough. but there are no good alternatives to bring a comprehensive, strong, and forcible agreement to fruition. it is extremely important for us and for the international community to stay on that course. through all of this, a commitment to a safe and secure israel must remain firm and open dialogue is critical to that

process. i and all of us stand ready to engage with israeli leaders from across the political spectrum. this speech today wasn't about whether we agreed or disagreed , it was about the circumstances of this invitation and the lasting damage it could do. but it's our job now to get past this controversy to focus on the task at hand, securing the relationship with israel and securing an international enforceable agreement that will prevent a nuclear-armed iran. >> next, i would like to introduce one of the icons of congress, john lewis of georgia. >> thank you very much. in this congress, i take a back seat to no one in my commitment and support of israel and the american jewish community. on many occasions, we have worked side-by-side to strengthen artist -- our

democracy and fight for equality and justice in this country. the commitment will not change. we are consistently throughout -- i worked consistently throughout my career for long-term peace in the middle east, a secured jewish state and a fight against anti-semitism and hate on american shores and abroad. however, this nation is currently involved in ongoing negotiations with iran. election in israel is about two weeks away on march 17. the speaker of the house of representatives would allow the floor of this chamber to be used to undercut the negotiations of the president of the united states is partisan and not right. several ambassadors as well as the leader of jewish organizations called upon the prime minister to cancel his speech.

the speakers action is an affront to the president of the united states, to the democratic leadership of congress, and the department of state. it is meant to purposely undermine the work of our elected an appropriate -- and appointed representatives who are the ones responsible to protect the interests of the american people. the floor of the house is a centerpiece of public debate in our democracy. it should not be used as a partisan tool. and i'm saddened that the speaker would threaten this is stored position, bipartisan support of our israeli brothers and sisters by this action. it is for this reason that i chose not to attend this morning's address and it is my hope that today's partisan political low will never, ever

be repeated again on the house floor. thank you. >> next up is jan schakowsky of illinois. >> thank you very much. i agree very much with the goal that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the president could not be clearer and that has been the point of the negotiations with five other major powers in order to make sure that happens. i agree with the prime minister that the united states is israel's best friend. sometimes, as in -- as often before the united stations israel's only friends. and i agree with the prime minister when he said, "we have to learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes of

the past ." and so, i want to account for you some of the words of the prime minister when he was a public citizen not an elected official in israel. in 2002, when he made a major address, actually, it was testimony before dan burton's committee. and he said, "if you take out saddam, saddam's regime, i guarantee you that it will have a enormous positive impact -- reverberations on the region." and he went on the say, "i think people sitting right next door in iran, young people and many others, will say the times of such regimes, such despots is gone." well, it didn't quite turn out that way. in fact, the big winner of the iraq war was iran. and then -- just last year, the

prime minister said -- on the bottom -- yeah, anyway, the prime minister said last year that the joint plan of action -- here it is, that we have had for the last year, he said, that -- this is about the jp 08 that we enacted last year "it has not made the world is safer place like the agreement with north korea in 2005 this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place. in fact, the joint plan of action has made the world safer by freezing iran's nuclear weapons plans and has been abided by iran." and so, it seems to me with where we are face right now is a speech that as congressman

yarmouth pointed out, had many falsehoods about it. but one is that the intelligence and security agencies of this country and our allies do not support the idea that iran can somehow unlearn to build centrifuges and have a nuclear infrastructure. and that the kind of proposals that the prime minister were suggesting are absolutely impossible, even destroying the current infrastructure of iran and its centrifuges and its nuclear capacity would not do the job. the only thing that will do the job is the kind of negotiated carefully negotiated agreement that has bigger is oversight, intrusive inspections , and monitoring.

that is where we are going and we should continue to lock down and rollback in a very verifiable way iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon. that is the goal. we cannot achieve it netanyahu's way. >> next up is g.k. butterfield of north carolina. >> thank you mr. yarmouth. good afternoon to all of you. i'm congressman butterfield and represent the 1st district of north carolina, chief deputy whip of the house democratic caucus and chairman of the congressional black caucus. but today, i speak in my individual capacity as one of 435 members of the house. you know -- my first reaction was to come to this press conference this afternoon and simply remains silent and just keep my personal opinions personal. but that is contrary to my personality, and so, i will simply just lay out some facts

that supported my conclusion. i was a judge for 15 years in north carolina, and 15 years before that, i was a lawyer. in the first thing we would always do would be to establish the facts and then we would draw upon the facts and reach our conclusion. fact number 1 -- emma kratz, in my opinion and i know most of them, if not all of them, support the right of israel to exist, free from the threat of annihilation from iran or other states. that is a fact. fact number 2 -- i personally support the right of israel to exist free from the threat of annihilation any country. the state of israel has the absolute right to feel threatened by iran's conduct of assembly a nuclear arsenal. i support president obama to negotiate an agreement with iran short of imposing additional sanctions. the president is a strong negotiation.

and in my opinion, he is a very strong negotiator. secretary kerry is a very strong negotiator. ambassador rice is a strong negotiator. and we need not inhibit their ability to protect the state of israel and the world. it is the protocol of international diplomacy and heads of state have standing to invites other heads of state for the diplomatic events in speeches to the parliamentary assembly. in this case, the speaker of the house extended an invitation to the prime minister with full knowledge that the invitation would be viewed as an insult and rebuke to the president and vice president and secretary of state. the speaker, in my opinion based on my knowledge, did not consult with the executive branch. i think that is acknowledged now. that is a matter of record. the speaker did not consult with the executive branch, which is unprecedented, and i believe it was intentional. i have received numerous calls

from strong allies around the country come ending the -- amending -- commending me on my personal decision not to attend the joint session. they understand, as i hope you understand, that i have the ability, i'm an intelligent 67-year-old man, i have the ability to separate my support for israel from my disdain of the protocol used by the speaker for the joint session. i received a delightful call a few days from the ambassador reassuring me that the prime minister continues to want and need the support of the congressional black caucus. during that telephone conversation, i pleaded with the ambassador to seek a postponement of the joint session, but he dismissed that idea. notwithstanding, i pledge to israel my continued personal support and explained that israel has many friends in the congressional black caucus and do not think that speaker

boehner's conduct will interfere with our relationship. based on all of these facts, my personal decision was to watch the joint session on television and i watched every word of it and not attend, because i believe it was a politically motivated invitation. the speech made a convincing case for continued u.s. support and made clear that which we already knew -- that the conduct voter and -- of iran is threatening and it is unacceptable. i thank you. thank you, mr. yarmouth. >> next is jim mcdermott of washington. >> thank you and good morning. i concur in the remarks of most of my colleagues. but i want to take a somewhat different point to talk about so as not to repeat. the president of the united states's responsibility is to protect the people of the united

states. that's his first and foremost responsibility. and in so doing, he has to deal with all kinds of things. when he came into office, we were at war in afghanistan. we were at war in iraq and he has gradually tried to bring those situations down to a situation where we can withdraw and let the forces in those countries begin their evolution of whatever kind of government they want. in the case of iran, we have had the president leading a negotiated effort, consistently pushing forward in spite of a constant barrage of efforts to undermine, even before it got off the ground, and here we are again today seeing that same thing. what you are witnessing today

was a very old concept -- if you can make the people afraid, you can make them do anything. and that is what prime minister netanyahu was doing. he was trying to make people afraid and somehow saying that the president wasn't doing his job. there's no evidence whatsoever that the president does not have our safety first and foremost in his negotiation and his thinking about the future. in that sense, this was a very sad display of political activity being brought into the house of representatives to demean what the president has been doing under great stress for the last month years, 6, 8 months directly, but even before that, how do you get things on a safe position with

iran? the president deserves our support and did not need this today. john boehner ought to be ashamed of himself for having brought it on him. >> lloyd doggett of texas. >> thank you, john. surely, the prime minister strong speech satisfied his political objectives to attempt to survive in a very desperate election here in the next couple of weeks. i certainly do agree with him that we all stand with israel. it is no more anti-israel to stand here and criticize benjamin netanyahu that it is for an american to criticize and challenge dick cheney. if you look at what happened today, it's the first time in american history that as many as 60 members of the congress deliberately chose not to participate in this campaign pep rally, and for more than that,

or questioning the approach that the prime minister is insisting upon. what do we know today that we did not know before he gave the speech. i think there's really only one thing. he is a rejectionists. there is no agreement that this administration could achieve with iran that would be good enough for him. he wants to resolve all of the many wrong things that all of us have opposed with iran and that iran has been a part of and as a part of to gay in one agreement that should be focusing only on nuclear issues. -- and is part of today in one agreement that should be focusing only on nuclear issues. i believe the prime minister thinks that inspectors, no matter how intrusive and how careful they are may not be able to locate all of the nuclear facilities that iran has under way. well, if the inspectors can't locate them, how can he bomb all of them? because the only alternative

that he offers really in declining and saying that war is not the option, is complete and total surrender by iran that is not going to happen. i believe we need to continue to pursue verifiable, firm, intrusive inspections and that we cannot give mr. netanyahu a veto power over what will protect both american and israeli families. the prime minister was wrong about iraq. he was wrong in the united nations about an iranian breakout. he was wrong about the interim agreement that has made our families safer and he was wrong today. i do not trust war as the best way to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. the only approach that will work for the safety of our families is a verifiable agreement that this administration has worked so hard to achieve. the iranians may prevent it, but we need to make every effort to achieve it. thank you. >> earl blumenauer of oregon.

>> thank you. i was -- six week ago i made it clear that i was not going to dignify what i think is a political charade and be part of netanyahu's next campaign commercial, like his last appearance was. nothing that i heard as i watch the speech on television suggests that the majority of the israeli people who thought it was a mistake for him to come or the majority of americans who think it was a mistake to go through this exercise. i saw nothing to suggest that they were wrong. and i think that is our friends in the news media do the deeper dive, i suggested i jammed, by lloyd, i listened to congress 19 years. back when he first came.

i listen to his alarmist predictions. and i listen to him cheerlead to the single greatest blunder in our history -- the iraq war that cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and the extent to which he is accurate that somehow iran controls now for countries. i think there's some question about that. but the extent to which they have outside influence, it is a direct result of that disaster and his flawed judgment. he suggests that there is no alternative. listen carefully to that speech and go back and listen. he gave no alternative path forward, just having a series of demands. nothing that suggests that it would have any greater success. i think people ought to challenge his assumption that iranians and americans will always be enemies.

think about that. all of my friends who had visited iran as private citizens are struck by how friendly and outgoing iranians are. all of us represent people from iran who are here in the united states and who are not necessarily friends of the regime. but they reject that category that there cannot be warmer relations between our countries. service tell us that iran is the only country in the middle east with the majority of people -- average, normal people, still have positive feelings toward the united states. and we have a rich history of cooperation with the iranian people dating back well over a century. but i was struck that the prime minister took all of this time to come all this way, all the pop and circumstance, and i listened very carefully.

there was not one word from the prime minister about how he would deal with his failure to move his country forward with a peace process with the palestinians. some of us work in israel recently. the majority of israelis favor a negotiated settlement and moving things forward. prime minister netanyahu repeatedly has failed in that objective and had not one word about what he would do any differently. he is lecturing us about how we ought to conduct ourselves in the future when we have unparalleled progress with the potential of negotiations with five major countries aligned with us. and who thinks they are going to continue to be with us if we take his hard-line and tried to go it alone? i respectfully suggest that this

was a mistake and i respectfully suggest that congress ought to take a deep breath, exhale, and allow the administration to see if they can bring this agreement across the finish line. then, they can always go forward with more extreme sanctions or war if they wish. nothing is lost by tempting to make diplomacy work. -- i attempting to make -- by attempting to make diplomacy work. >> steve cohen of tennessee. >> thank you. i chose earlier not to be in favor of the speech and asked that it be put off because i thought it would be political theater, and indeed, it was political theater. where the oven oscar. -- worthy of an oscar. this republican leadership team has used the gallery and the house to advance political agendas and give little favors to folks who come to washington. early -- i think it was in

january, they had a pro-life crowd, p on the anniversary of roe v wade. they schedule a 20 week fetal pain bill to give them something to vote on and say, look how good we are, and how much we love you, and how we's -- we's bandwidth the pro-life crowd. speaker boehner was successful in submitting his and the relationship with apac and wealthy donors who were behind this entire speech who are active in the republican party and oppose the president and democrats and i believe the prime minister was successful in and probably getting reelected. i'm sure this will play well in israel. as far as how to fix the world in reality i think it is harmful because the game is in geneva, not in washington or on television. it would have been better if he took his concerns directly to the president and the state

department behind-the-scenes and try to get a better deal. instead, he has to have an himself in this country for the way, and i agree with the 200 israeli generals officials who felt this would hurt israel because it will make israel weaker in the eyes of the united states administration, the relationship with the president, and embolden iran to be tougher at the bargaining table. it will make it unlikely that there is an agreement that is less than sufficient for israel. the world game of peace was lost today. i had misgivings at times listening to the speech as a jewish american. whatever -- whenever the holocaust is brought up, threats to the jewish people, i am concerned. but i feel that everybody is trying to do the same thing and be on israel's side and support israel, and the president has israel's best interest as hard

as well. there was not an alternative except for more sanctions. everybody pretty much agreed -- i watched on television with aipac folks from memphis. we agree this regime is bizarre in its ambitions, most of its ambitions, but with that as a given, i do not think additional sanctions and lack of agreement would drive them to their knees. it would embolden them and make the world less safe. >> peter welch of vermont. >> thank you very much. i attended the speech. i have a strong relationship in support of israel, a strong opposition for the conduct of iran. i voted five times to condemn the government of iran for its human rights violations. i signed letters, have done everything i can to support a strong israel and to challenge a

belligerent iran. i also went because i was hoping that i would hear from the prime minister something that would justify why he came in the first place to give the speech two weeks before his election, and why he arranged it behind the back of the white house with speaker boehner, and why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach toward israel and turned it into a partisan battlefield. i came away from the speech disappointed. a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, "just trust but verify." no deal is better than a bad deal. when we heard from the prime minister was that no deal is better than any deal. i did not hear from him plan b

what will happen as an alternative if we have no negotiations. does that mean a military strike, and who is involved the echo does it mean we follow the advice with respect to iran with respect to iraq? the biggest long-term mistake that i think the prime minister made was in embracing a john boehner-led effort while he snubbed directly the president of the united states. why would a friend of america act this way toward the president, whose record itself is one of enormous support for israel? under president obama, israel --

and with our support, by the way -- israel has received over $20 billion since 2009. under president obama, the u.s. has provided israel with over $1.3 billion for the iron dome system alone. that was after gaza totaling $2.9 million after president obama. the prime minister -- prime minister netanyahu directly challenged the president, who has directly and steadfastly been the friend of israel, and he did not offer an alternative to negotiations, but repudiated them before we even know what the final deal may be. so this, i think, did not help. it is unfortunate the prime minister chose to make the speech at this time. thank you. >> last but tallest, jared

huffman of california. >> thank you, john. i attended the speech, but i might well have joined some of my colleagues in not attending it but for the fact that almost every day there is something outrageous going on on that floor upstairs. i get my stash i would get myself into a truancy problem quick if i started attending every time i had frustrations. i am pro-israel by any measure, consistently voting to support israel, the u.s.-israel relationship. i have family in israel. my eyes are wide open about iran and the current regime in iran. i do not want them to have nuclear weapons. i understand the threat they pose not just to israel but to broader security concerns that we care about. but i feel we have to give a diplomatic problem-solving track a chance. what happened today is we had prime minister netanyahu telling

us stop trying. do not even pursue a diplomatic track with this government. he did a great job of smacking down a strawman deal that does not exist, certainly not in the form he characterized. i think there is a danger when we say that we are not a going -- that we are not going to pursue diplomatic solutions anymore. to hear it from a foreign leader who has a real judgment problem, a real credibility problem on these issues makes it that much more troubling, whether it is the joint plan of action, this characterizations, whether it was last year when he wanted us to go to war in syria over chemical weapons or the original iraq war, we had a credibility judgment. when we hear that we must always be enemies of iran, it is too much for me to stomach. this was a step backward

unfortunately, in our relations with israel. it does not shake my support for israel, but it gives me one more reason to be concerned about the current government of israel and to hope that in the future whether it is prime minister netanyahu or another prime minister, we will have a prime minister who treats our president with respect. >> thanks to everyone. questions for everybody? >> what do you achieve with not attending the speech echoed what did you all achieve without being there? >> i was not part of the charade. i was not part of it either. i thought it was political theater and a wrong use of the congressional chamber, and i got to share it with a dozen or more aipac members and have an interchange. >> the house of representatives is the most prestigious venue in

the world. to use it for political purposes was something i did not want to be part of. >> let me underscore, this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker. we have all been to speeches by foreign leaders that we have all agreed or disagreed with, including prime minister netanyahu's speeches. this is a matter of abstaining from a speech which should never have occurred. that is what is different about it. >> make no mistake. occasionally, the house of representatives is involved in political theatrics. this was unusual in terms of how it was undercutting our own government. >> could i just say this? i had an executive session with myself. that is what i did. i listened to every word of the

speech, the 25 members of aipac from atlanta and talked with them. i think i did the right thing. >> when the prime minister said israel will stand -- can i get your take from a few people? >> he made the same argument over the iraq war, that it was time for the united states to not pay attention to any world opinion, but to go it alone. what i heard today felt to me like an effort to stampede the united states into war once again. that we should break from the p5 plus one, that we should break with them and i believe that it was to consider war.

>> let me just say that he apparently tried that once before, and in one of the only foreign-policy decisions of the bush administration i agree with, the bush administration said no in 2008, according to reports. we need to be clear that is not an acceptable approach, and the israeli will decide this election if they think it is an acceptable approach. >> i think that is delusional. they have nuclear weapons. netanyahu presumably, could unleash dozens of nuclear weapons. israelis know they cannot go it alone. that is why all of us have voted repeatedly for money and assistance, sometimes when they do things that give us heartburn -- like a reckless settlement

policy. but the notion somehow that he thinks that israel can just bowl through this on their own again but -- against the world, i think, based on my limited experience in israel, israelis do not believe that. that is why i think a majority of israelis think their country is on the wrong path, regardless of how their math works out in the final election. >> you have your disagreements with what was said, but this is a powerful stage that he had today. [inaudible] >> this was in our body and in our house. none of us supported that activity. but i do think that what you will see in the coming days is a white house that is committed to pursuing these negotiations, and

i do not think -- my guess is they will not strike them from that. i think they will just move on and let their actions be the response. >> let me just say, i think that the very least -- i think at the very least, the hope of the prime minister was to then force the administration to make its case in favor of diplomacy, to raise the kinds of questions now that the white house is going to have to devote itself to trying to explain or tampa down. i thought that susan rice -- trying to explain or tamp down. i thought susan rice did a great job yesterday of laying that down. i think that right now, with the

secretary of state in geneva, that the white house will have to respond now in some way that would not have happened, had the prime minister not made the speech. >> i think the white house needs to keep its eye on the ball. this diplomatic effort was going to be tough anyway. the white house has told us it is an uphill fight to get to yes with iran. so to allow this to be a distraction, to set us back further from what is already a tough mission would be unfortunate, but i think they will move forward. this is a prime minister who has said it is a war -- if there is any possibility it can we need to stay focused and give it a shot. >> you mentioned earlier the

prime minister's -- [inaudible] what did you think about the decision to use that tragedy? >> i think it is an overreach, by far. i think he knew that. i was thinking about -- and maybe it is a given and everybody sees it, but in political theater, what you had today, especially joe biden not sitting behind him, was everything that the state of the union is -- a packed house, all the congressman representatives, give or take, and he took -- it was putting him on the equal level with the president of the united states and washington d.c., in the congress. that was wrong, and that is why i did not attend. >> thank you.

>> john, great. >> the supreme court is set to hear oral arguments host: in king versus burwell, a case challenging federal subsidies for health care, the affordable care act area on the next "washington journal," just brave and -- jess bravin from "the wall street journal" is here. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern today we will be outside the supreme court for the sights and sounds as justices hear the oral arguments for the king versus burwell case

. the arguments will be released on friday but will have -- but we will have reaction from attorneys on both sides and reaction from the crowd, live on c-span3. >> you would see what we used to call a mutt and jeff combination, or a stickball set. washington was a large man over six feet, very robust, a terrific natural athlete. and madison is a skinny little guy. >> this sunday on "q&a," david o stewart on coming father james madison and the partnerships he made that aided in the success of our fledgling nation. >> i write about his ability to form remarkable partnerships with the great people of his era

. it also alludes to his gift to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night on c-span's "q&a." the u.s. house passed a bill tuesday to fund the department of homeland security through the end of the fiscal year without language to block the president's executive orders on immigration. the bill passed. this debate from the house floor is 35 minutes. each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise today with a motion that will move us forward to ensure the security of our nation by keeping the department of homeland security funded until the end of the fiscal year. funding for the department of homeland security will expire this week. to allow a shut down of these critical functions would be an

abdication of one of our primary duties as member of congress. it is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the federal government. all of the federal government. and this should be without threat of shutdowns or uncertainty of continuing resolutions. the house acted in january to fund d.h.s. for the year. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be if order. the gentleman may continue. mr. simpson: the house acted in january to fund d.h.s. for the year and has exed short-term funding several times. in order to maintain the critical security activities that keep our nation safe. the senate has now done all it can do given their unique procedural constraints. it is clear that the legislation before us will not exactly what the house wanted is the only path forward to avoid a potentially devastating shutdown and provide stable, continuous funding for the agencies and

programs tasked with defending the home turf. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. semson: let us remember that the underlying legislation, and this is important, is a great bill. the security of our homeland is one of our highest priorities and this bill provides $39ings 7 billion for that purpose. it will assure we can key fend our nation against threats of terrorism and at that the men and women on our frontline remain well equipped and trained. we are now nearly halfway into the fiscal year and it is imperative that we get this bill enacted. at the same time, congress must continue the fight -- to fight the president's actions on immigration that i do not support and the american people do not support. we must continue this fight but we must also allow funding for critical security functions to move forward. these two priorities are not

mutually exclusive. we can and should do both. for now the president's executive actions has been stopped in court. this is where we must focus our efforts and continue the battle against this unconstitutional overreach. mr. speaker, it is high time to act to provide responsible, adequate funding for the department of homeland security to protect the people who elected us and to defend this great nation. i urge an aye vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to proceed and concur and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i am opposed to the motion to concur and at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. morgan griffith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen i have to tell you that the only reason we are here is because of the

unique procedural posture that the senate finds itself in. and that unique posture is a perversion of the democratic principles upon which our republic was based. we would not be here if it weren't for the modern filibuster and cloture rule which requires 60 votes to do anything. last week harry reid made it clear that he would not support a going to conference. jefferson was very clear when he set up the procedures for this place. each house makes an independent decision. then you get together in conference and work out your differences. but because of the unique position of the senate's processes, that cannot happen in these circumstances. we should not reward the senate for their bad behavior. we should reject this motion and force a new discussion on this issue. and so, mr. chairman i submit that if all we are doing is rewarding the senate for having bad rules and bad process, and i

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. desantos -- desantis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized tore two minutes. mr. desantis: i hear we need to let the courts work their will to defend the constitution. as if we don't have an independent obligation to do that. we took the oath that we would support it. we didn't say we would be in congress pass bills, and let the courts support and defend the constitution. here's the problem beyond just that basic insight. if i were representing the department of justice in front of the fifth circuit to get this injunction overturned the first sentence in my brief would be, that the united states congress has voted knowing this program was in existence to fully fund all operations. court, you should step out of this dispute. it's between the political branches and they have settled it. so it's not just waiting for the

courts. and in fact the action today if this bill were to pass i believe it would actually harm the case in the courts. i think it makes it more difficult for those states to make the case that what the president did was unconstitutional. if the one branch whose powers were invaded decided that they were not going to bite back effectively. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. salmon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this is a very, very sad day when we have to make a hobson's choice of either funding our national security or standing for the constitution. we actually took an oath just a few short weeks ago to defend this constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. that's our role, that's our responsibility. if not now then when?

it's never going to be easy. it's never going to be easy. it's never been easy to stand up for freedom. i heard some people say, you republicans, you need to learn how to govern. if it was just about governing, then i think that the american people can just close shop and let the president just run everything. but we actually have a constitution that we have to adhere to. despots all over the world, they govern. they keep the trains running on time. but we stand for something different. we stand for a constitutional republic where we have three co-equal branches. all have an equal say. the founding fathers gave us a tool to deal with the time just like this. it's called the power of the purse. if we relegate that responsibility and drop kick it to the courts, as mr. desantis just said, they have nothing else to assume, then we just basically folded to the pressure. i believe this is a sad day for america. i believe america deserves better. if we are not going to fight

now, when are we going to fight? i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. mr. simpson: i yield to mr. dent for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the privileged resolution and encourage my colleagues to concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 240 in order to pass the fiscal year 2015 department of homeland security appropriations bill. it's time for us to move forward and demonstrate our tasked with the arduous work of defending our borders protecting our communities and manning the front lines when confronted by natural disasters and acts of terrorism. i had the distinct privilege and pleasure on working on the underlying appropriations bill as a member of the house

homeland security appropriations subcommittee and i can ensure my colleagues this is a good bill. it's a darn good bill. it's a bipartisan bill. among the bill's many highlights it would support the largest operational force of the border patrol agents and c.b.p. officers in history. if you -- it fully funds everify. if you're concerned about illegal immigration and interior, vote for this bill. it provides an increase of almost $700 million for immigration and customs enforcement. 34,000 detention beds and an increase of family detention beds by 3,732 beds. again, if you're worried about illegal immigration, vote for this bill. fully funds fema disaster relief programs and the first responder grant programs that are critical to many state and local departments. it takes important steps toward the implementation of a biometric entry and exit data system, critical to maintaining interior enforcement in this

country. the bill helps us thwart cyberattacks and, of course, it helps maintain our coast guard. mr. speaker, it is time for the house to move past the corrosive pattern of self-imposed cliffs and shutdowns and get to the work that american people expect us to address, issues like tax reform trade, transportation and infrastructure, things that are going to help create american jobs and improve our economy. it's time to move forward and stop playing these silly games. these times of -- may i have an additional -- mr. simpson, may i have an additional 30 seconds. mr. simpson: i yield 130ekds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 130ekds. dentdent at these times of global uncertainty and brutal acts of terrorism it is imperative that we maintain -- mr. dent: at these times of global uncertainty and brutal acts of terrorism, it is imperative that we maintain our homeland. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. it's a bill we supported last summer.

it would -- with strong overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. it deserves that same kind of support here today. let's prove the american people we're serious about protecting this homeland and that we have the capacity to govern. these cliffs are disastrous for all of us. time to move on. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanry serves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. clawson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. clawson: this is america. everybody matters in america. i grew up with somebody who seemed to have bad luck from day one. where i seem to catch breaks he couldn't get none. and recently mid last year

because of a move, he needed to find a job. he went months without funding full-time employment. never got benefits. never got stability that he looked for for him and his wife and i love him very much. when the president made his edict he called me on the phone. he said curt, i don't understand what y'all are doing in washington. i want to know what's going on right now is going to help me get a job or not. and i said, unfortunately you got a lot of new competitors in the labor force. i say this is america and everybody matters. i say the unemployed folks, the 18 million underemployed and unemployed, they haven't been a part of this conversation like they needed to be. i say that unilateral actions by a leader that doesn't take all stakeholders into account

makes those that aren't taken into account not matter. i say we need to have to do this conversation again. this is america. everybody matters. not just those that came over the border illegally but those that have been here looking for jobs for long periods of time. i say we can do better. i say we can have a broader conversation. i say everybody matters. you all know these people that are unemployed. they're in your family. they're your close friends. they are the people you see every day doing the jobs that some of us wouldn't want to do. i say those people matter. i say, mr. president, before you do a cramdown of the law for the benefit of one group of our society, i say all the groups of our society, particularly the unemployed also matter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clawson: and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair.

the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. you know, last week ms. brown from florida she said, why are we here? she got all upset. let me tell you why we're here. the president of the united states violated the constitutional separation of powers. regardless of how you feel about immigration or immigration reform or even amnesty, surely you believe in the united states constitution that you swore an oath to. surely you believe in this institution that we're debating in today. he said 22 times he did not have the power to unilaterally make law or change the law, but yet that's in fact what he did. that's why this debate is so important today. it really has nothing to do with d.h.s. funding, amnesty or immigration. that's the vehicle we're using, sure but it has everything to do with the united states constitution and that sacred separation of powers says the executive branch executes the laws, we make the law in this chamber we have the only

constitutional authority to do that and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. remember why we're here. 22 times the president said he couldn't do what he turned around and did. something legal scholars have said is unconstitutional. more importantly, something a federal judge said is wrong. six weeks ago we sent a bill to the united states senate to fund d.h.s. at the levels the democrats agreed to. we just said, don't have any money be used for something unconstitutional and the federal judges ruled it wrong. we can't debate it, amend it. then at the last hour, 11th hour on the last day they bring it up, debate it, amend it and sent it back. without the language stopping the unconstitutional activity and something the only court to rule on has said is wrong. this is unconstitutional. we all know it. this is the wrong way to go.

fund d.h.s., don't let this wrong act the president took in november something he couldn't do stand. more importantly or more importantly is the unfair nature of the action. it's unfair to taxpayers that illegal noncitizens are going to be able to get tax refunds. it's unfair to seniors that illegal noncitizens will be able to participate in our social security system. it's unfair to voters as our secretary of state testified that now they will have the documents that will make it potentially much easier for four million to five million people to participate in our election process. and most importantly, mr. speaker, it's unfair to legal immigrants who did it the right way, who followed the law, who came here, want to be part of this great country, the greatest nation in the world as we just heard from mr. netanyahu talking about how great this country is, it's unfair to legal immigration. legal immigrants. mr. speaker this is unconstitutionally wrong. most importantly, it's unfair. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: as i inquire as to

the balance of my time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. massie: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i would now yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i share the outrage of my friends over the president's actions because i don't think there's any question that's why we're here. the president did something that many of us on our side of the aisle most of us, i think, on our side of the aisle believe was unconstitutional illegal and ill-advised. second i share my friends' anger at the united states senate. you know, i think it is reprehensible not to pick up a bill, act on it, not to go to conference. that's exactly the way we're designed to work. we know that frankly the democratic now minority,

thankfully, in the senate has operated that way for four years. i'm not surprised having operated that in the way in the majority they continue to operate that way in the minority. but every now and then you need to take a step back and recognize we're not the only place where these issues get thrashed out and we're not the only players in this drama. indeed, we've been very fortunate on our side in this debate. we've been joined by 26 state attorney generals who hold exactly the same view we do and have taken the president of the united states, the administration to court and have prevailed in the first court case. as my friends have pointed out. in addition, they have won an injunction so that the president cannot do the very things my friends are concerned about that he wants to do. so we not only have it -- have the court at least to this point on our side, we have it in a venue where you can actually win in the end. we're not likely to be able to do that in the congress given the democratic control of the filibuster in the other body and the presidential veto at the end of the process.

in the courts you can actually win. it's a constitutional issue. it ought to be settled constitutionally through a judicial process. since we stopped the president, since we're prevailing in court, it seems to me the logical thing to do is what my friend, mr. dent suggested and look at a bipartisan compromised bill that protects the american people from real and physical harm and danger at the moment that we're sorting out our constitutional and political differences in the appropriate format. that's all this bill is about. it was agreed to in a bipartisan fashion. it was agreed to in a bicameral fashion. the reasons why we were concerned about it or used it have now been addressed by the courts, so i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's set aside our differences. they will be resolved in a appropriate way, in the appropriate fashion and in the right forum and let's do the right thing for the american people, pass this legislation and make sure that our fellow citizens stay secure. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania who spoke earlier was absolutely right, people back home want us to do things. so i think the important thing to do now is why we can't do anything and i lay the blame firmly at the feet of the seven democrats in the senate who have said to their voters they thought what the president did was wrong yet, they have voted time and again to continue the filibuster. that's wrong and those are the people who are preventing the country from moving forward. beyond that to the extent those seven senate democrats continue to want to abuse the rules, it is incumbent upon our conservative republican colleagues in the senate to change the rules.

conservative republicans, mr. chairman, who have been very quick to try and tell the house what to do, should now be over there making the case that if the senate democrats are going to use a rule to undermine the constitution, then the rule needs to change. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. look last december we were told that the best way to approach, despite some of our thinking on the contrary, was to fund everything but d.h.s. we were told this is the play. well, some of us were afraid if we did that that we would come to this point and totally cave and would allow at least a congressional statement that we're not going to defund illegal unconstitutional amnesty.

i stand with those veterans who believe that they should get health care before people who came illegally, that they should get a hot line to call before those who came illegally. i stand with the seniors that believe they deserve the social security they paid into rather than people that have come illegally and are even going to get tax refunds that they didn't put any taxes in. and i stand with the speaker of the house of representatives, at least where he was last week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. the issue before us today is in fact security. as a member of congress from the fifth congressional district of new jersey, my constituents in new jersey like most americans, understand the devastating impact of a

lack of security in certain areas. we live in the shadow of the twin towers and understand when security is not a paramount interest of this government. . with that said an equal responsibility of this congress and government is the security as being a nation of laws and abiding by the fundamental law of this country which is the constitution. we can achieve both of those. be a security nation by funding homeland security, which this house has done twice now. and we can also become a nation by following the rule of law and following the constitution which this body has done twice now by sending full funding of homeland security to the senate. and simply asking them to do what all americans want washington to do today. is to conference on this -- these issues, discuss these issues, and come to a resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: where the constitution is upheld. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. garrett: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: i thank my friend. constitutional attorney turley once said since roosevelt we have made the executive branch stronger and stronger and stronger. but they have actually had a dance partner and that's us. that's us, the legislative branch, both the house and senate. when are we going to stand up for the rule of law? how do i go back to arizona where they define the rule of law? where we allow anybody go past go, collect $200, and go to the front of line. how do we accomplish that without standing up for something? this is that time. this is the time to stand up and not leave everything to the courts. i yield that back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: e gentnes. the gentleman from aho is recognized. mr. simpson: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky ready to close? mr. massie: mr. speaker, i have more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. speaker. there was a comment about this, this is about governing. it is it's about governing actually. we are not three separate but equal branches of the government. the abuse of the exec testify order has diminished congress and the abuse of the senate rules has diminished this house. we are now reduced to passing what the senate will allow us to pass. and we are -- and the senate's reduced to passing what the senate will not veto. this is about the constitution. we have three more days in which we can consider legislation that upholds the rule of law, that restores the balance of powers.

we should take those three days. ladies and gentlemen this is a day that we will remember for the rest of our lives, that the country is looking to us right now to make a decision whether or not we will uphold our oath of office. i call upon every member of this house to be an oath keeper. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for two minutes. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you gentleman from kentucky. this fight today is not about emgration. this fight today is about the -- immigration. this fight today is about the separation of powers. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to cede some of our power to the executive. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to allow the president to make decisions like this on taxation, on e.p.a., on any other agency that

this president decides he has the executive authority to take over the powers of the congress. today we all sat here and i think every republican stood up when netanyahu talked about leadership. when he talked about what it was important for a leader to do, he said we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal, speaking about the deal on iran is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is just a better deal. every one ever our republicans stood up when he said that. but today we are being told by our leadership that the only alternative to this bad deal is a government shutdown. that is not true. the alternative to this bad deal today is a better deal. it is to force the senate to actually go to conference so both the house and senate can speak the will of the american people. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. brat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wrath: -- mr. brat: thank you very much. i think everyone in this body knows what it means to run for office. we each represent 700,000 people. we each take that job very seriously. and so it's a sad day today -- everybody in this body has fought very hard to try to come to agreement. unfortunately members in the other body have not allowed us to do that. the fault lies in the u.s. senate. we have asked and we have trusted our leadership to come up with a strong fight, strong messaging. whatever we can do to solve this constitutional problem for the last two months. and at the last minute of the day, the senate has delayed and delayed and delayed and so what is really going on is they are not standing up and representing their people at home.

we in this body owe it to the american people to represent their views and the senate will not even allow a vote to bring up a debate. i imfloor everyone back at home, in my district and across the country ask your kids, your ninth graders, college kids everybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: it's fairly simple. the congress and the senate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie: 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. brat: i think the truth in ethics is easy to see. go to your ninth graders in high school civic class and ask them how these bodies are supposed to operate and to investigate. i think when our kids go home and investigate and we investigate what's been going on in the last two months, they'll find the answer. that is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: the senate will not do its job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute.

mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my friend from kentucky. all right, for my friends on the left you are going to support this unconstitutional expansion of power. when there is a republican president, are you going to sit there and continue to applaud saying yes, we did not support the separation of powers when we had the chance and look the other way? one of my heart breaks here is i believe there were creative things we could have done. we are completely dearth of the willingness to try. this is trying about defending the u.s. constitution that we all raised our hands, and yet we are going to allow a vote to go forward to walk away from that fight? this should break everyone's heart in this body. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from kentucky controls 3 1/ minutes. mr. massie: at this point i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to look around this body, what are we asking to you do? we are asking to fund d.h.s. 14u7bd%. we are asking to put safeguards in there so that we don't move with an executive order that's been deemed illegal by a federal judge. that's all we are asking. and we need to have that language in this bill. i don't know anybody here that doesn't want to fund d.h.s. for us to vote for this without that funding -- without that language in there blocking what this president wants to do, and if we vote for that. we are voting against our constitution. article 1, section 8 is very clear that we have the authority for naturalization. and i say we vote against funding without that safeguard. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from kentucky is

recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. height. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. we are in this mess because of the unconstitutional, unilateral decisions from the president to ignore our constitution and the only thing standing in the way of that progressing is a stay from the courts and as thankful as i am for the courts, the reality is, we must stand up and defend our constitution. mr. heist: it is a constitutional issue, mr. speaker, and we have the responsibility to stand for that cause. this is not a time to watch this body be obstructed from multiple attempts to make it dysfunctional. it is a constitutional issue. this is a time to stand upon the constitution and i urge this body to do so. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: parliamentary inquiry what order is the closing when there are three

speakers and only one opposed? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize members in reverse order. mr. massie: at this point i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. we have no other speakers and prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky will be first to close. mr. massie: may i inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 1 1/ minute. mr. massie: in closing, congress and in particular the house of representatives, has the power of the purse. our constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. this means that the president cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the house of representatives, let him.

if today we agree to just give the president all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the american people ever trust us again? they'll realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. they'll realize we don't actually care about the best interests of the american people. and that instead we are just care about going along to get along. even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch. today we heard mr. netanyahu say this is the most powerful legislative branch in the world. organization in the world. i would say it is. except for when the senate decides that it's not. we need to stand up, use the power of the purse exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities. i urge my colleagues to vote today in the best interest of the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to recede and concur and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks for the spirited debate we have had. i agree with many of the comments made by my colleague from kentucky and the people that have spoken during his time. the problem is i don't see a path to victory with what they are looking at. what they want to do will result in not defunding the president's actions, because there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. everybody knows that, don't we? what it will lead to is a close

down of the department of homeland security. and that is not a victory. that is dangerous. you know, there's a difference of opinion between republicans and democrats between the administration and congress, as to the actions that the president made. whether they were constitutional or not. i have actually voted for something in here that -- in this body several years ago that i thought was perfectly legal perfectly constitutional. the court later found out it was unconstitutional told us it was unconstitutional. that's why you have a court. when there are differences of opinion as to what's constitutional and what's not constitutional, a court makes that determination. it's happened since the founders who wrote our constitution disagreed about what they had written. marbury vs. madison. it was up to the courts to make the determination of what the constitution said.

as for voting for this, hurting our case, that is -- it's not our case it's the attorney general's case of the states, that is before the courts currently, if this voting to defund homeland security, that doesn't have any funding for the president's action, hurts our case then i would say that any law that passes congress can't be declared unconstitutional because we all voted for it. that's not reality. again, let the courts do their job. now, it's true that a majority in this congress and in the senate voted to defund the president's actions. but because of the senate rules it didn't pass. we didn't even get to go to conference because of the senate rules. some people suggest, maybe we ought to change the senate rules. we ought to insist that the

senate change their rules. for the for the last four, eight years, i was kind of glad the way the senate rules were. they prevented what i believe a lot of bad stuff from coming over from the senate. so i don't know that i would go that way because, remember, at some point in time in history -- i hope it's not soon -- but at some point in time in history my party is going to be in the minority over there. and it's going to be nice to be able to control some of the agenda. let's remember the underlying bill is a dang good bill -- almost said it -- not quite. is a darn good bill, and we need to pass it and we need to pass it for the security of the american people and for the employees that work at the department of homeland security so those are -- that are considered essential don't have to go to work without way. that's irresponsible. that's us not doing our job.

i will fight with anyone and i will stand on their side as long as they can show me a path to potential victory let's get this bill passed. it's a good bill and i would encourage >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house, and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using "congressional chronicle," on c-span.org. there is lots of useful information, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org.

starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern today, we will be outside the supreme court for the sights and sounds as justices hear the oral arguments in the key -- in the king versus burwell case. the arguments will be released on friday, but we will have reaction from the attorneys on both sides in the case and reaction from the crowd, live on c-span3. president obama's chief economical bosman -- chief economic advisor, jason furman testifies before the joint economic committee today. it follows the economic report of the president. you can see it live starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s.

cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partner with calmed -- we partner with comcast in galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising wind certainly drew them. they watched in amazement as both of these factors -- at that time we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico, and we also had a huge pavilion called olympia by the sea. as the storms increased in intensity, these structures were literally turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday, september 8, 1900. the storm began at noon and increased in dramatic intensity

and then finally tapered off toward midnight here in -- toward midnight that evening. this was and still is the deadliest -- >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 >> live today on c-span, "washington journal" is. art nt noon, funding for internet. coming up, justjess bravin

speaks on the aca subsidy. >>and ♪ >> good morning everyone. open phones. in today's top news. yesterday the house passed a clean funding bill without language blocking the executive action on immigration, avoiding a shutdown of the agency. the vote was 257-167. all no votes came from republicans. also, the israeli prime minister tells congress that