the obama administration's nuclear negotiations with iran as the deadline approaches. those conversations plus your calls, tweets, and e-mails. ♪ host: good morning, everyone on this thursday, march 19. here are some of the headlines. the federal reserve dropped the word "patience", but came in and said after that the fed will avoid raising rates too soon and too quickly. updates on benjamin netanyahu and afraid relationship -- and the frayed relationship between

the obama administration and the prime minister. today, whether the budget committee can come together, we will have more details. before they gavel in we want you to weigh in on this debate in washington. in the face of national security threats from isis and others around the globe, should the pentagon budget be increased? the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us a tweet you can go to facebook, and also send us an e-mail. the phone lines are open. before we get to your thoughts,

molly o'toole from defense one joins us to talk about this. gop hawks want to use defense for funds to skirt this. what does each chamber want to do and what has the president opposed? -- proposed? guest: the house and senate have very different approaches. the house released their proposal on tuesday. these are nonbinding medical agreement, but any russian of -- but are an expression of priority. the house proposed $523 billion for defense, which adheres to the level set in fiscal year 2015 and the budget control act but they essentially make up the shortfall between their amount and what the white house requested for defense by adding to the overseas contingency operation funding or oco,

which is not beholden to those caps. that is what they make up the difference. there was a lot of disagreement. in fact, last night they could not even finished the market for their measure. -- the mark up for their measure. oco can be used for emergencies and it's considered war funding. they are using it as g to get around the cap's. -- using it as a strategy to get around the caps. it also says in that $94 billion that they request for oco that $20 billion has to be spent elsewhere to not add to the deficit. the hawks are concerned that those office -- offsets will not be able to be found, the threatening the budget that they considered so important. the senate release there's

yesterday and there's adheres to the over all caps of the $523 billion, the caps the set with the 2011 budget control act. but it also grants the $58 billion for oco. it pretty much matches the white house request when it comes to defense spending. they actually included language in their budget that says 60 votes are required in order for the senate to add to the oco fund at all. the hawks in the senate are very concerned that spending will not increase. the white house recommended 560 $1 billion discretionary funding and $58 billion for oco. obviously, oco is not beholden to the caps, but the 50 $58 billion -- the $58 billion was

to force the house into the budget. they are both essentially skirting the fund and not addressing the issue like there directed to do. host: under the budget cap act of 2011 which resulted in sequestration, where does the budget command -- come in compared to previous years? is it at the same levels of 2011? where is it in terms of recent years, and what is the military saying about this level under sequestration? guest: the military, -- i mean, obviously for the last couple of years, the military, all of the top officials have come to fail over and over and said haldane -- come to the hill over and

over and said how dangerous sequestration is. they have readiness levels that will be impacted. they cannot pursue modernization that is necessary at this time. but because in 2013 there was an agreement that came to grant them some relief from sequestration cuts, which are very blunt across-the-board cuts , so when those went into place in the defense department did not get to begin choose where those cuts hit. -- did not get to pick and choose where those cuts hit. across-the-board, that is referred to sequestration. if those coming back into place congress will try to pass some of those level set back in 2011. the pentagon has an added urgency to lift sequestration caps off not only because they come back into place, but because relief is going to be over -- and because relief is

going to be over, but because it affects the security climate across the world. isis, boko wrong, and even ebola suggest of the time to begin train. they need to be able to think long-term. host: how to the deficit hawks that wing of the party, how are they responding to what the military is saying? guest: despite the added urgency this year, they've have been making this argument on the hill for years now. and despite there being a pretty broad level of support in both parties and in both chambers for lifting the sequestration caps and spending more money on defense, there is a gap between the rhetoric and the political reality. some of the fiscal hawks have even suggested that we do need to make sure the defense

spending is a priority. but they are not willing to pursue what could be pretty tough solutions in order to lift the sequestration caps and give the pentagon that flexibility again. host: molly o'toole, explain for the viewers before we let you go, this overseas contingency operation fund. where did it come from the echoed is the history of this fund -- where did it come from? what is the history of this fund? guest: it has been around for over a decade and it was created to allow for unexpected to the cheese -- unexpected contingencies. it is our wartime fund. in many ways, it ballooned in the past decade to cover the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the thinking several years ago especially when president obama came into office, was that the

fund would drop back down as we withdrew from a rock and from afghanistan -- from iraq and afghanistan. and some of the wartime funding would be folded back into the base budget for defense. many members have come -- of congress have presented as being a slush fund, but now it is being seen as a necessary evil and something that is very difficult to do away with. the pentagon says it is absolutely necessary in order for them to applicability to deal with all of these foreign-policy crises. that is the history of the oco funding, this unfettered war chest that is not beholden to those budget caps. host: and that is molly o'toole was defense one. thank you so much. let's turn to all of you. ted in new york, independent caller. should the budget for defense be

increased? caller: good morning. we are not going to spend money on the first things. but the question now, security. when you say security, it is going to be a cyber war. it's going to cost a lot of money. i don't understand why the pentagon needs to buy modernization. such war is over. in the coming age, it's going to be cyber war. and this will not cost that much money because every region has to put money to fight terrorism. there is no reason to put too much money on defense and then hurt education and infrastructure and all those things.

i don't support this spending. we should freeze it, in fact. host: ok, you don't think that building navy ships, big infrastructure is not necessary anymore. caller: not at all. building a giant ship is not going to help us. we should be smart. we should cut it, but we should really focus on technology. that time is over. host: wayne, chicago, democrat. what do you think you -- what do you think? caller: my thinking is this is nothing but for the military contractors. we are thrown under the bus to finance these

multibillion-dollar corporations. it's ridiculous. that is it. host: ok, wayne as a democrat supposedly if the republicans try to go over the caps that have been sent under the budget control of 2011, if they tried to go over that with defense spending, then every dollar for defense, another dollar for domestic spending. should we go for? -- go for it? oh, we lost him. loretta, go ahead. caller: i do believe there is never enough spent on defense. that goes for the cities and townships with the police. we need more police to keep us safe from the muslims -- the was loans -- from the hoodlums.

there are a lot of terminals in the world and we got to be defended. i do believe never enough is spent on defense. and educating ignorant people is not going to get it. they're going to be robbers and crooks whether they are educated or not. host: ok, loretta, we will take a look at what the defense secretary said yesterday to end -- yesterday testifying on capitol hill and warning about the dangers of sequestration. [video clip] ashton carter: our nation will be less secure. as you have said, sequestration threatens will be threatening the size and capability of our war fleet, and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform will stop and the -- in uniform.

and the joint chiefs has said the same. and the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not a result of our objective factors logic and reason, instead it is purely the fallout of political gridlock. host: the defense secretary on capitol hill yesterday talking about the pentagon's budget and the dangers of not increasing the pentagon's budget. lawmakers under the budget control act of 2011 were forced to put in place what has been called sequestration here in washington. now the republicans, some in congress, want to bust those caps and give the pentagon more money, but there are the hawks in congress saying, no way -- no way, we cannot do that. we need to stick to what we have agreed to. david, republican, go ahead. caller: i just want to comment

that we have spent 12 years and is worn they could not even train the army. now they train our troops in probably 12 weeks. i just understand. host: all right, david. we will go to joe, maryland independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i think defense should be completely independent of other priorities and i believe spending on defense is necessary. we are in a situation with global issues that are all over the place and we need to make sure that we do not weaken ourselves. we will face a serious problem in the near to distant future. and i'm surprised that the president appears not to notice or take it recently. it's almost as if he believes he

can say, we are going to have peace, and it will appear. that does not appear to be the case. host: the president did want to put more money in his overseas defund -- overseas contingency fund, this warchest. he proposed $51 billion. some republicans in the house are saying the pentagon needs more like $94 billion in this warchest fund. they put $94 billion in that, but they want to keep the pentagon's budget under the cap. caller: right, i don't think that's going to be possible. they will have to resolve the issues with the sequester and they will have to do it civilly. which is one of the reasons i am an independent, because it doesn't appear that either party can do that anymore. they are both on either side of the net and they're not going to do it.

they have to make a solution. host: all right, joe. rick in louisville, ohio independent. caller: it's the same old thing. bush and cheney were elected and the conservatives started this insanity of using oil for trickle down economics. and it's the state of texas that is doing this. the state of texas has started the last five wars. now you're talking about increasing defense spending. we know for a fact that george bush, again, the state of texas start an illegal war, and then they manipulate the will prices to $120 per barrel. we go over there and we slaughter these innocent people to steal their oil, and now you have terrorism.

in fact, the other part of this literally controlling our radio and tv through time warner. and the other aspect of this is just what you've seen yesterday with israel, the jews and the radical wing of israel is running israel. you have the south here in this country and the east coast jews and bush and cheney -- hello? host: rick, why would you say all the jews on the east coast? that is a generalization. caller: the juice in this country come from connecticut and new york. host: that is a ridiculous thing to say that they are controlling what the bush administration did. let's go back to security.

should the budget for the pentagon be increased after that is the question for all of us. randy forbes, a republican for virginia, somebody advocating for more money for the pentagon. his questioning for the defense secretary about the increasing of the money. [video clip] senator forbes -- representative forbes: what really took me back is what you said about the president's position. his position is that he would do away with sequestration not just for spending on defense, but everything else. what you are telling me is as secretary of defense, you would be prepared to support of each other that would end up with a crisis for national defense and be devastating for national defense unless the president can also get a lot of the funding you need for epa, irs, and all of the other non-defense items

that he has proposed in the budget. is that your position? secretary carter: what we need for defense are two things. we need stability and -- mr. forbes: i don't mean to cut you off, but i only have two minutes. you are coming here and saying that unless the president gets full quit -- full sequestration taking off the limits he has on epa, irs and other nondefense matters, you would rather have a crisis it comes to national defense funding. secretary carter: no. mr. forbes: then would you support sequestration that would have to do with defense spending only? secretary carter: no, i would not. we need relief from sequestration across the board. every other manager of the government --

mr. forbes: you are not managing other agencies in the government. you are saying that you would be in defense -- in defense of a crisis for defense spending and leslie get funding for all of these other programs -- unless we get funding from a visa programs across the country. host: allowing the lifting of those defense spending caps because of defense spending on other things. that is the topic. robert, go ahead. caller: hello, i was just going to say that the whole thing about military spending, the people on the right, the radicals want to say that they want to eliminate the threat that the president has done a horrible job or whatever.

all you have to do is bring the warships home, bring the soldiers home, stop protecting the rest of the world and see what happens. bring them home for two or three years. stop the military spending. let them fight it out between themselves. light we have to be in the middle of every fight all over these countries? -- why do we have to be in the middle of every fight all over the country's? host: ok, robert. nic, what you think? caller: i think national defense should be increased. without national security, we cannot have economic security at home. economic security at home could not exist without national security abroad, even if the navy is out showing the flag

protecting the waterways of the world and just being strong and supporting our allies. many people do not understand that without national security abroad and protecting and leaving this world, president obama is the commander -- and leaving this world, president obama is the cam and are in chief. -- and leading this world, president obama is the commander-in-chief. host: here is something from bloomberg business.

that is the director of the audit the pentagon coalition, the group that has several advocates, including ralph nader and grover norquist. and a story from "the washington

times" yesterday, a piece and a warning to congress about the impact of sequestration. now congress is debating. should they lift the caps on sequestration and put more money in the pot for the pentagon? michael in tucson, arizona democrat. what do you think? caller: credit, good morning to you. i don't think they should --

greta, good morning to you. i don't think they should lift those caps at all. the reason is, for one, they are not auditing any. and number two where is this military spending going anyway? i think they should live look sequestration on everything else, -- lift the sechrist on everything else, but as far as the military goes, leave it there. and the caller about three dollars ago, he kept talking about how the jews got us into the war in iraq. he is correct. it was benjamin netanyahu who came to congress in 2003 and commence the congress to go along with the bush administration about weapons of mass destruction and being collected -- connected to 9/11. host: ok, michael, we got your point. i don't want to go too far down

this road. chris, go ahead. caller: yes, i got -- i agree with his tie who just got through talking. i appreciate you putting me on by the way. congress is doing just fine and they are wanting to give to the 1% or's. they are rich enough, don't you think? host: all right, rick. from waldorf, what is your name? caller: this is brent. i just want to say sequestration is not a viable option. we are more engaged in the world than at any other time and sequestration is not viable. and the ranks of the military suffer. if they are looking for cuts the military has unfortunately had to take the brunt of

sequestration and i don't think we have addressed the largest spending in our government, which is entitlement. more cuts could be made to entitlements with regard to balancing the budget. host: what you do for a living? caller: i'm in the military. host: you are seeing it first hand. what are you seeing? caller: multiple deployments overseas and many are saying we are not engaged and it's morbid technological war for the future. well, that's not the case. -- a more technological war for the future. well, that's not the case. we are engaged and trying to change the mindset, while

americans are being beheaded. and you have an aggressive russian government pretty much asserting itself in europe. these things are of national security important and have to be addressed. and it's not like the rest of civilian government agencies, as far as being audited, the military and the department of defense is not saying because we are adjusting and being asked to do things that are far beyond what these other agencies and organizations are asked to do that is why we have an oco fund, which started back in the day when it was the global war on terror, and it has been changed to the northeast contingency operation. we are not just dealing with the

global war on terrorism. we have other contingentcies we are engaged with, for example, ukraine, and the counterinsurgency operation and whatnot. host: ok. kathleen, good morning to you. caller: the last guy seemed really reasonable. you are objecting to other colors, but the last guy that called was talking about the aggression in ukraine. we have our own aggression in iraq. we have to reflect on our own behavior. but it's hard. maybe ccn -- maybe c-span has done is for the washington journal. the need of our defense contractors economic interests how to use -- how do you

separate the actual need from -- and people like james woolsey and douglas fife and others who have push for the invasion of iraq, their personal and economic interests are in defense companies. if the government could address the revolving door of who has economic interest versus our need for defense worldwide. and then the person who went off semi-racist earlier, just generalizing jewish people, but we do have to look at our defense and how that does foment anger in the middle east. and down at yahoo! is coming out and saying he -- and now

netanyahu is coming out anything he does not support to state, which we all knew years ago. host: ok, kathleen, got your point.

that in the "new york times" this morning. also from the front page of the "wall street journal," the federal reserve meeting for two days behind closed doors, and in the chairman coming before the cameras saying they were dropping the word patience. and the chairman came before the cameras and talk about what they would like to do and talked about being cautious and not

increasing words -- rate too soon or too quickly. take a look at what she had to say. [video clip] chairman yellen: the committee remains committed to the view of the target rate that is appropriate. but in the months ahead, we will again modify our forward got. -- forward guidance. in december to january, we were beginning to judge monetary policy. that meant we considered it unlikely that economic conditions would warrant an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of fomc meetings. while it is still the case that we consider it unlikely that economic conditions will warrant an increase in the target range

at the april meeting, such an increase could be warranted at any later meeting depending on how the economy evolves. host: the chairman of the federal reserve, janet yellen, yesterday talking to reporters in a meeting where she said they will cautiously consider raising rates. if you missed it, go to www.c-span.org. also another headline to share with you from the "wall street journal" this morning. a $15 minimum wage in seattle.

back to our headlines. andrew, good morning. caller: i think that -- i don't think that the pentagon budget should be increased. we seem to be in this mindset that more ships and warplanes are needed. it is more of an insurgency/special forces type force that we need. and of course, cyber warfare. that is where our forces and resources should be modified. i applaud that caller earlier who accused the jews on the east coast and the middle east. i'm glad that you dismiss anti-semites.

but i would like to see you dismiss people who come in all the time and accuse the president of being a kenyan and accuse him of being a muslim. just like you told that anti-semi that the comment was ridiculous, i would like to see c-span dismiss some of this marginal stuff that is being stated and given credence because it is repeated over and over. i would hope for more consistent across the board. host: all right. gregory, independent. good morning. what do you think about increasing money for the pentagon? caller: i don't think they should cut any money at all for the military. just because -- well, just

because there might be a couple of problems here and there and we might have a bully overseas we have tyrants here in the united states. the problem is, you can't stop problems from coming. you cannot stop enemies from coming. but when you can count on is being prepared for them when they do. and the best defense for the united states, the best force and readiness is to have a strong economy. thank you. host: all right, gregory. this debate continues on capitol hill today when the senate budget committee continues marking up their budget blueprint for 2016. that is at 10:30 a.m. eastern

time on c-span3. you can tune in and get a good idea on the back and forth and watch those that want to increase the numbers, and others that do not. also today, this morning on c-span2 the house foreign affairs committee will be taking up the issue of u.s. negotiations with iran and they will be hearing testimony from the deputy secretary of state about where those negotiations stand and lawmakers will be addressing those concerns. that is in an hour or two if you are interested in that ongoing debate on capitol hill. by the way, the papers noting this morning that negotiations

are continuing in switzerland and they are getting closer to meeting on march 31 deadline for having some sort of broad deal, and then focusing in on the details i june. they are getting closer, according to the papers, but no deal likely this week. republican, brian, good morning. caller: i just want to make a comment about the auditing. i just retired about three years ago from the murray. -- the marines. we had a budget that we spent for training, including bullets and gas and everything else. pretty much to the dollar. i really don't understand when whoever comes and says they cannot produce something and say, this is the money being spent. this goes down to the very smallest of all the units.

i was on the ground, so other than maybe how special operations spend their money or maybe the air guys spend their money, i don't understand why they can't produce that. i was a line item budget for congress. host: ok. james, what do you think? caller: i think spending should increase but listening to the first man, and the other guy talking of the epa and all of that, it's a is like they're concerned about the epa and all these other little rings than they are about protecting the country. as a black man, when obama was running for president, i saw something in him i didn't like. and when he became president, he said that america would never be the same again. and that struck me. and the next time he did three

elected, he said america will never be able to fight two wars again. he is not concerned, as far as my thought -- host: james, did you fight in the military echoes -- in the military? caller: no, i didn't. i am 72 years old now, and i wish i could've gone when they bombed the place, whatever it was. i would have went then. host: james, republican color. -- republican caller. craig torres joins us on the phone from bloomberg news. what did the federal reserve say about interest rates behind closed doors in? guest: they are getting ready to

raise interest rates. the economy is doing good, just short enough for janet yellen, but getting closer. and for the first time in more than six years we will see rates rise. host: ok, when? guest: that is the question. i think they want to see inflation move up a little bit. inflation is very low in this country, and part of it is due to the existence of labor market slack. there are still people working part-time who want full-time jobs. and part of it is wages are not rising. they haven't risen during the expansion. they want to see a little more tightness in wages, a little more firmness in prices. that could take nine months. it could take a year. host: some were saying before the meeting that you should look for the fed to raise rates in june. is that so what they are saying?

-- is that what they are still saying that? guest: i look at the economic indicators every day sitting in front of my screen. the amount of cheerleading going on around the monthly job numbers, which are indeed strong, do not really reflect chair janet yellen's view. she's very focused on how long it takes to get a job. you know, it takes more than 30 weeks now if you are out of a job. that's a long time. there are still 6.5 million people stuck out of work. i'm finding her a very perceptive economist. she's in no hurry, let's put it that way. host: ok, craig torres, she's in no hurry. but what about when the fed finally does raise the rates. -- raise the rates, how quickly will they do it? guest: this is very interesting.

in the past, we've seen this stairstep climb. they go up one meeting, of the next meeting. this is from very low rate in 2003. this time around, that is not going to be the approach. it's a little bit like walking down a mountain in the fog. you take a couple of steps, you look around, see where you are going, take another step. it is going to be a much slower, deliberate path to higher rates. host: so, what does this all mean for tumors? -- for consumers? guest: it major credit costs will rise more slowly than they have in past economic cycles. it means the chair once a little more tightness in the labor market. if you don't have a job now,

she's hoping that your search time will go down, perhaps the day you are offered will go up. and i would say, the federal reserve is on the side of labor here. they want to see more firmness in the job market. host: are they listening to the concerns of those that say if you raise the rate, that impacts wages and you will see even more income inequality? guest: yeah, it is a terrible problem. i think monetary policy contributes to it a little because interest rate affect assets prices. and keeping interest rates low the signal we saw from the fed yesterday that we would be very slow and cautious, so the stock market rose. anyone with assets is benefiting those of anyone who does not have assets, house, mutual fund, portfolio, are not benefiting because they are just trading their labor for dollars.

again, janet yellen would like to see people trading their labor for dollars get paid more. but then there are the secular trends in the economy that have to do with a high level of skill employers are demanding, and then there are other segments of the government that -- other segments of the government will have to take care of through education and so on. host: does chair yellen listen to leaders of other countries and also to christine lagarde the leader of the imf, who is warning about raising rates and its impact on the rest of the world? guest: yes, i'm sure she's listening. part of the slow approach we saw yesterday is out of concern that other countries are cutting rate, cutting rates below zero as we saw in sweden yesterday, by the way. and her feeling that you cannot totally decoupled from the rest of the world. that said, those countries have

their own monetary policies and they can adjust. that was bernanke eastview -- bernanke's view. we will see how she does going forward. host: craig torres from bloomberg news, we appreciate your time. coming up, we will talk to rick larsen of the intelligence committee. and later on, chris stewart republican from utah. we will be right back. ♪ >> now, isis rears their ugly and we are very shaky.

you can't undo the decades of soviet and saddam era stuff especially when you are going to have advisers and partners with them. afghanistan, according to announcement, we courtney -- we currently have 10,000 troops there. we will draw down to 5000 extra and almost zero the year after that. i will warn that we will probably see a similar result to what we saw in iraq when the isis attack. that army will be very shaky. >> sundays q&a with daniel bolger on the failures in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done them differently. sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern and pursue vick -- and pacific on's c-span's q&a. here are some of our featured programs on the c-span networks.

pulitzer prize winning historian eric phone or on the effort to free slaves and the remission of the underground railroad. and hassan has on on the rise of isis in the middle east. and american history tv joins historians and authors at the abraham lincoln symposium live at the ford theater. and a visit to the national museum of health and medicine to view items from their civil war collection. find a complete television schedule at www.c-span.org and lettuce know what you think about the programs you are watching. -- let us know what you are thinking about the programs you are watching. join the c-span conversation.

like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with democrat rick larsen on the armed services committee. let's begin with the debate in washington over war powers and the fight against isis. president obama has sent of address -- a draft asking congress for new authority to after these terrorists. where do things stand right now? guest: i would say right now, it's basically a stalemate between the congress and the house on the presence resolution. last year when we started -- on the president's resolution. last year when we started this debate was the time to get it done. but it has been six or seven months since that time and a lot has transpired in iraq and syria. we've had a new election in the united states since that time

and congress is split on how to approach the presence resolution. host: where do you have concerns? guest: last year, i would've gotten onto a resolution of the timeframe of 18 months with no clear boots on the ground. it would have repealed a 2002 authorization to use military force. we call it the aaumf. and it would have cast a new aumf strictly dealing with is il. host: that like the president's proposal. guest: what the president proposed was not canceling the old one and proposing a new one. it was really open-ended in my view and in the view of my

colleagues as well. others think it was much too narrow. host: why not keep the flexibility of the 2001 aumf that allows the president to fight terror groups wherever they may be? guest: let's go back to 2001. i was in congress of the time but many of us were not. there was no debate in 2001 that we should in 14 years from then keep that 2001 aumf in place and just keep adding on to the groups that we would use it for in order to go after. we need to update this authorization to use military force and not do something we did nearly half a generation ago. host: you want to do away with the 2002 authorization. you would like to limit it to 18 months.

yesterday before the house services committee the joint chiefs of staff, general martin then see, the defense secretary, they were asked about limiting this aumf to three years, which is what the president would like to do. i want to show our viewers how they responded and get your take as well. [video clip] >> three years is not a prediction about the duration of the campaign to defeat isis. it is a recognition of the way our political system works. and the recognition that a new president and a new congress in three years may wish to revisit this issue. as i said, i understand and respect that, but it isn't a prediction about the duration of the campaign against isil. general dempsey: my military experience suggest that it will likely extend beyond three

years. host: congressman, what do you make of the generals statement and what the defense secretary had to say? guest: i think it will be longer than three years, but the point about having three years or 18 months, as a member of congress congress will go back in 18 months and take a look at it. the debate last fall on the authorization was, how is congress going to be involved in authorizing the use of our military in order to go after isil? there is a legitimate role that congress has been setting the broad policy in this debate on war and we have not practiced that responsibility very well in my view. and having an authorization with a timeframe on it would require congress to keep coming back and making its own assessment and say, ok, where will we go from here?

right now, we are basically in a stalemate, as i said, and not really participating in the policy side in our article one responsibly. host: given the partisan divide on capitol hill in the difficulty of passing any legislation, are you concerned that asking the pentagon to come back to you after a certain amount of time puts the country at risk? isis is not going to wait for politics to be resolved. why should the commander in chief? guest: a good question. number one isil, they are not waiting on isis mono terrorist group is. -- on congress, no terrorist group is. but largely because it is a constitutional requirement. congress has a legitimate policymaking role when it comes to the war and the military as well. right now, congress is

essentially abdicating that. we are having oversight hearings and talking about it but when will we actually exercise our role in putting the will of the public behind a fight with isil by doing an aumf for this? that is a fundamental question of congress has not yet answered. host: if this figure of the house were to put to the floor what the present sense of for the fight -- sent up for the fight against isis, would you vote for it? guest: i would not vote for the aumf and part of this debate we are having about not doing this aumf is the fundamental fact that we are not debating this issue. i don't want to go back to far, but you can go back in history and go to the congressional record and read about abraham lincoln when he was a house member debating the mexican-american war, because it

was a long debate about war -- it is a part of the long debate about war in this country. we do not do that anymore. we need to have this debate, because his are changing. host: let's get to calls. robert in louisiana, independent. caller: is the report of isil using chemical weapons, does that change the way we are getting involved? guest: that is a good question. the report cap to confirmed, first and foremost. second, i don't think it will be changing the way the rest will get involved. right now, we are focused on airstrikes in iraq and syria and doing training and advising in iraq. i don't see the the ports, even if they were true, changing at

role right now -- the reports even if they were true, changing that role right now. host: margaret, are you with us? go ahead with your question. caller: yes, thank you, congressman. can i please ask you a question on -- we are supposed to have 60 -- yes i'm margaret johnson from columbus, georgia. i would like to know, congressman, 60 nations we are supposed to have involved in this isil problem we have in the mideast. are we getting these 60 nations together? and trying to resolve this problem? guest: it's a great question margaret. i would like to answer it that way. 60 nations or so are involved,

all of them in varying degrees. what is most important about the involvement of some of these countries is, in fact, they are muslim dominated countries. as the king of jordan said a few weeks back when he was here on capitol hill visiting, he said that there needs to be a muslim faith on this battle -- face on this battle, because iisil is a muslim problem. the involvement of muslim countries in this fight is probably the most important factor in and is probably the most important factor in defeating isil and shut -- in syria out of iraq the list of all different countries, i think the list is the important thing in that region. host: what is the strategy right now? do you think it is working? where do you have concerns? guest: the largest concern i

have right now is the strength of the iraqi military itself. is it strong enough and cohesive enough? we saw the iraqi military disintegrate in iraq and that was not a function -- essentially dividing the iraqi military between sunni and shia, a function of the state of iraq. there was no connection with the state. i think the strength of the iraqi military is still an open question. host: karen, new jersey independent caller. caller: thanks.

congressman, a few months ago, it must have been october, a long car ride, the currents might be coming in this went on for hours. toward the end of the car i come what is the number? 150. something i heard the other day, 150 vices are holding. jeb bush had to go back on saying that there were 200,000 isis. hits -- his staff had to come out and correct him. there are only 20,000 or 30,000 isis. even fox news with the video in libya with the seven foot tall ninja warriors, that was probably fake. we know saudi arabia beheaded 40 five people this year -- 425 people eat -- this year.

over there at the funeral of the king of saudi arabia. my concern is that this is not the threat you are telling us it is or the nightly news is telling us it is all the time that americans have to be terrified and keep the war machine going, pumping muddy -- money into war. we need the money at home. the ferguson business, what that told you is those small communities have no tax base. we pumped $2 trillion into these wars and all we have done is kill a lot of people over there and they do not believe us. you can look up. research. muslim countries do not believe arabs did 9/11. i do not know if they are right or wrong, but they do not believe us. we do not win their hearts and minds by bombing and killing them.

guest: i want to be very clear if they do not believe who did 9/11, they are wrong. the second is, the frustration you are expressing is something i heard as recently as last week in my own district, about, what are we doing over there and why are we over there? this is the debate we ought to have in congress that would drive us into doing a new a umf. even though the numbers on isil are somewhere in that range of 20,000 80,000, -- to 30,000, it is still a question whether or not it is good for that region for isil to dominate reasons -- regions of iraq. that is a concern of countries in that region.

the spread of isil, it's ideology and brutality, and that is why you see them pushing back and why the united is can make a legitimate national security interest pushing isil back. we need to get back to having that debate in congress about what role we are playing rather than kind of play wacko more in the region and go after the next terrorist group. we need to have an updated a umf so we can focus on what we're doing over there in the will of the evil, congress, behind what is going on. host: what is your reaction to the terrorism strike in tunisia? guest: a tragedy. tunisia is one of the few victories of the arab spring, where they made a transition to a more democratic, more representative government. we need to continue to stand behind tunisia as a burgeoning

democracy in that region. part of that is not just expressing remorse for what happened, but to the extent we can, and hopefully will, help them, help the tunisian government figure out who did this. help them use their own judicial system to bring those folks to justice. >> norman, independent caller. caller: quick comment. i would like to know exactly what the united this plans to do for the sunni tribe over there or the shia? what do you do? medicaid, medicare? those people are not doing anything for the people here. so round them up and throw them

all in jail. host: we got your point. guest: yeah, again i think the sentiment you are expressing is a sentiment i've heard my district last week. what is the u.s. doing there and why are we spending money there and not at home? ultimately, it is in our interests to have a stable government in iraq and an iraqi government that can deliver services to its people and it will not be able to do that if they are continually fighting and it will not be up to do that if they continue fighting amongst themselves in the iraqi government. it is simply critical, in my view that the iraqi government get his own house in order and understand they have divisions in their government, but they have got to play through those weaknesses and problems in order

to become a stable government rather than relying on the united states to continually support that. host: ed from richmond, virginia, a democrat caller, go ahead. caller: i am concerned that the day before 9/11, donald rumsfeld was in a senate community saying the pentagon had missed placed $2.3 trillion. a few years later, we are in iraq and $2 billion sitting in a warehouse we like used to bribe with, and it disappears. i read in the paper yesterday there is $500 million worth of equipment in yemen that has disappeared. every time we were getting ready to pack up and leave iraq, we decided we could not be bothered spending the money pulling all that equipment out of there, so

we let a couple billion dollars worth of equipment over there. now all the images i see of this isis group, they are driving camouflage humvees and american camouflage uniforms and all kinds of american equipment. i want to know, did anyone calculate bringing that stuff back to the united states, did they calculate what would have happened when all these people get that equipment? the people training over there they seem like the people we have trained the isis people. we have got to have a lot more responsible military and pentagon man we have had in the past 10 to 12 years. guest: we will be having this budget debate, the defense will soon enough. the residue discussion about the defense budget.

we need to have the pentagon complete a full audit of what they have, and what they are spending, and we do not have that yet. there is a lot of concern about waste and pentagon spending that deserves a lot more insight than we have been able to give it a we hope to do that with this audit. getting back to one issue about equipment in iraq, it is a matter of u.s. policy to leave equipment in iraq on purpose in order to provide material to the new iraqi army. some of this is done purposefully on the equipment with the iraqi army. we can debate the merits of doing that but the end result is when the iraqi military disintegrated last year in northern iraq, it left chucks

and humvees and such available for isil to take their that was not in anyone's plan and is certainly a great frustration of mine and a lot of my colleagues as well, but getting back to when the u.s. withdrew under the freedom plan from iraq to deliver policy to leave some material with the iraqi army. host: ray, tennessee, a republican. you are on the air. caller: hello? i have a congress -- a comment for the congressman there. it seems to me that these people on the republican side and on the democrat side, they get up there and they say things just because a are a democrat or just because they are a republican. you are an american. you need to tell it like it is.

you say there are 60. there is none. there is one. this whole thing could have been taken care of six months ago when those people were in the desert and our president failed to do it. say it is a mess up there. that is all you have to do. you are an american and for the american people. you are not a republican and you are not a democrat. host: d think this goes back to the situation in syria, that if the united states had acted then, this would have been resolved? caller: absolutely. now this president, and this man has been in here before. just because he is a democrat,

60 coalition people. that is not true. host: let's give the congressman a chance to respond. go ahead. guest: it is true six countries are involved. it is also to the president said we would do one thing in syria and then did not do it. on the other hand, the president processor threat to bomb syria did end up in a very successful foreign policy victory in many of the chemical weapons out of syria, and destroyed the major chemical weapons and clarissa ration -- proliferation. regarding the broad point about democrats and republicans being america's first, it is also true americans are democrats

americans are republicans. one is coming up next after me to provide a view. i also hope that they are mashed by future tough comments by ray. host: do you think a long-term plan requires talking with syrian president assad? here is the headline here john kerry said the u.s. will eventually negotiate with us. guest: the president's's policy and comments have been clear that we want a solid gone. i do not know how the administration plan to square that circle with the secretary of state saying we will negotiate with someone the president himself that he wants out. host: mark in california, and

independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i two questions. why i ask we spent a lot of needless money on u.s. citizens. if there are people that need to be spied on, i'm ok with that. this country in every country in the world. guest: good to hear from the west coast up in early may can phone calls. being from washington state. the defense budget, really more and intelligence committee in terms of budget. terms of the broader issue you are bringing up about the nsa

this is the bigger issue and the debate we need to have on reforming the national security agency to put some stronger parameters around provisions of the patriot act and this in ministration in the previous administration have used to allow the nsa to get what we would call warrantless searches. a lot of us thought that was right. i think the administration took a mile and the patriot act on this we want to put some limits around what the nsa can do so they can continue its focus on doing the really positive things it has done in fighting terrorists and helping us fight terrorists around the world. revelations in the past couple years about nsa activities, i think it was disturbing to a lot of us to legitimate reforms can take place and we have tried to get past but as of yet, have not

succeeded. host: a few minutes left with congressman rick larsen, member of the house armed services committee. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. about 140 years ago, grant after his presidency took a tour of the country's and when he went to the middle east, he said it was a lost cause. maybe we should contain around it and let it burn out like any unfortunate fire. since i have an open window for a few minutes, i also believe those parties are obsolete and when they do take the oval office, it should be to their party and not to our government. thank you. guest: on the last point, we

take the oath of office to the constitution, not the party or the government. the folks i have had a privilege to serve with, largely, have maintained that in their service to the constitution first and foremost. with regard to whether or not we ought to be involved in the middle east, that we are involved in the middle east, that is kind of the reality to our situation p are we have national security interests as well, working with countries we can work with, some of them as allies and some of them as friends and some of them as convenient friends, or friends of convenience. that can be very frustrating for the american people, frustrating for people in my district as well. we have legitimate national security rate -- interests in that part of the world.

i do not think even metaphorically doing what you are suggesting is a good idea in terms of national security for the united states. host: what is your take on the president's's relationship with israel and a prime minister there, the times reporting this morning that the white house may not stand in the way of the u.n. security resolution that would improve a two state and -- resolution to israel and palestine? >> ever the report as well. as far as i know, declared u.s. policy is still support negotiations between israelis and palestinians, to develop that without bypassing the u.n. security resolution, as opposed to have a u.n. security resolution pass in order to support what has already been negotiated, but i think the president's's relationship with israelis remains strong, but i do not think it is a strong

relationship between the president and the prime minister. host: what is the impact of that? guest: there will be a lot of speculation about what the impact of that is, but the u.s. stands behind israel as a friend and ally in the region and that will not change. host: michael, democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to make a couple of comments. i served in two conflicts, the first gulf war and somalia. after my stint in the military i served in the federal government for almost 13 years. i left the government on my own to open my own business. one thing i have noticed is that in the federal government, there are quite a bit of talking heads, a lot of people who have a lot of information they kind of regurgitate. there is really not a lot of

solutions being formed around some of the plans being presented. because of the extent of all the talking heads, who always have things to say, they have action taken. one thing i recall is when we put together budgets, it $1.5 billion program office, we would put together a wish list. they would go through the different components and bureaus and a wish list would be created that would generate what is called the budget. there are items on that budget. the problem is everybody is fine to get their piece of the pie and fund their own project or program office. i see this as the same problem as the defense spending plan. the problem is you have got all these different pieces of the puzzle all coming together and saying, we need this and that.

the truth is you are probably seeing line items for a new veteran -- video conferencing system, things like, we need new tires on a couple of trucks. so many things going to the defense budget. when we talk about cutting the defense budget, we're not talking about cutting the operational ability of the military. we are talking about cutting all the fluff and fat that all the various agencies are trying to include in their -- host: i have to leave it there p are we're running out of time. guest: the budget should not merely be a collection of requests the people make. it needs to actually reflect what we want and what is the end state in this case in the pentagon budget. what are we buying and to what end and what purpose? that is the debate we will have, especially the sequestration spending caps are in place and stay.

i will assure michael there will be a lot more tires cut this year if sequestration takes place. host: that debate today and then they will come to the floor next week house and senate. thank you, sir, for talking to our viewers. coming up next, we will hear from a republican congressman chris stewart, a member of the house select intelligence committee, who discusses ongoing negotiations with iran. first, yesterday, senators continued debate on the stalled human trafficking legislation. democrats filibustered over the abortion language included and senate republicans say they will not go ahead with the nomination to become the next attorney general unless this bill gets a vote on the floor. in the senate today republicans will continue to bring it to the floor and democrats have said they will continue to filibuster. here is a little bit of the exchange yesterday between the

republican of texas, and dianne feinstein, of california. >> rightly point out that these child victims of sexual assault have been raped, either statutory rape below the age of consent, or they are adults and have been criminally assaulted. isn't it your understanding of the hyde amendment that the exclusion would still allow them to gain access to the services you believe they need and deserve? >> yes. i think that is correct. i suppose we could change this to have a rape implication. but the gauntlet has been thrown down. it is not up to me alone to remove it. there was no open discussion in our committee when we discussed that there was a highly sensitive issue. you can say and i will waive a

lip and get my staff. they will look henceforth at every change, and you and i know that occasionally, things slip through. i will please on that. the once i found out i had an obligation to do something about it. so i am pleading with you. let's just take it out. let's just pass this bill. let's put the feinstein amendment on it. let's go after the internet purveyors. let's go after 19 sites who put pictures of girls of 12 and 13 and 14, to be sold all around the united states, to be sold after fig -- big football games in various areas of the country. let's go after them. isn't that more important? >> the reason i am so confused

by the filibuster of this legislation by people, including my friend, the cosponsors of the legislation who are devoted for it. i am not about pointing fingers in terms of what staff or member should have read or understood but i believe the reason it was not debated at the judiciary committee level is because it has become a routine matter since 1976 when the amendment was passed. every appropriation of labor hhs or other funding that could arguably use tax dollars for abortions has been limited by the hyde amendment language. quite sloshed and journal continues. host: -- >> washington journal continues. host: let me introduce you to chris stewart, new to our table. 14 years as a pilot in the air force, flying rescue helicopters and b-1 bombers.

hold three world speed records including the record for the fastest, nonstop flight around the world. serve his presidency, consulting energy and environment, and he has and 17 books, several of which have become national said -- national bestsellers. we had you on to talk about the iran nuclear negotiations. talk about your experience with the start negotiations and the inspections that took lace and how that impacts your thinking now when it comes to an iran nuclear negotiation. cressida's and example of how the background and experience we as members bring to congress to make a difference in impact on how we approach various things. i honestly wish we had more members who served in the military than we do now. as your show indicates this morning, it is one of the great challenges of our day. i was a captain at the time, not a general. my view of this was very small. i was not a negotiator nor the

secretary of defense or that level. but i was involved in implementing. implementing the agreement with the former soviet union. we would work with other pilots and the inspectors when they come to our base and other facilities in the united states and it became clear that if somebody wanted to cheat on an agreement, and i made this point on -- in an editorial in the last week or so, if someone wanted to cheat on an agreement, they certainly could and there is no question. there is an element of trust between the two parties that is such an important part of having a successful agreement. i'm not sure we have that yet with iranians. that is concerning to me and to others as well. host: how do you know the element of trust is not there? guest: as i said, i asked him,

can you give me a single example, any example at all of where this regime has worked with the united states or any of our allies in a positive way. i could go down a long list of where they have been destructive to our interests and we could start with hamas and hezbollah and how they have interfered in yemen now. even in central and south america. again, the list is longer than that. tell me now, where have they ever worked with us on anything. the truth is that they have not. with the format soviet union, we have had decades of them working on previous agreements and we had a foundation of saying, we believe it is in both our interests to her together on this and we do not have that basis with the iranian regime. it is so important that these negotiations have some kind of verifiable process. i am worried that may not be possible.

host: how do you think the iranians could she? -- cheat? guest: they have access to certain facilities at any time without any prior notification. they could show up immediately and say we need to see this, this, and this, and we would have to open all of that up to them. but if they say we want to go over there and take a look at that facility, that was not part of the treaty and they have no ability to do that at all and could be easily denied that. that could be the case as one example, with the iranians. we would have access to certain facilities but they could easily move those facility somewhere else and that was not part of the negotiations, have them be operating over here, and we do not have access to that. host: what is the alternative? guest: the president has crated

a false alternative of going to war. that is not true at all. it is not a or b. there are many other options. the most obvious option, if this is a bad agreement, let's negotiate a good agreement. that is what many of us are saying. let's keep the pressure on. talks of sanctions and the proposal in the senate that i hope will come forward very soon, to strengthen and reimpose the sanctions that they walk away from the table that is a very valuable tool. we could bring or keep them to the table to negotiate an agreement much more in the national interests of the united states and our friends and allies in the region. is not an option of let's go to war, it is a start but not a good agreement. >> very few details are known about these negotiations, about what the deal may be. you serve on the intelligence

committee. have you been briefed about finer details? guest: to some degree and not a sufficient degree pair that is another thing very concerning about this. president kennedy and reagan and johnson and others came to the congress and said, here is an agreement and i want you, the senate, to ratify this. i want this to be a partnership with us. this president said the exact opposite here he said, i will bypass the senate and submit this to the chinese and russians before he will submit it to the united states senate? i think that is insane. for heaven's sakes, we want to work with them to protect u.s. interests and he says, i will bypass you. one concern we have is to the core of your question. the truth is we have not seen this. the truth is, we have not. host: if you have not, how can you say it is a bad deal? guest: because we have the

framework. the framework is a bad deal. host: what is the framework? guest: it has a timeline a short as six years. we start from a position the united states has always said we will not allow iran to develop nuclear weapons. it seems like now we are saying, we might allow them to in 10 years or maybe six years. we have said, we will not allow them to keep their infrastructure and now we said maybe we will allow them so long as they do not actually use them, or they are not in the process of raking out and developing the weapons. we said now we will allow them may be a year to become a threshold nation. the route -- the reality is that may not take a year. it may take six weeks. just that much of the knowledge we have of the treaty is enough where, no, this is not a good idea. host: is it realistic to say the united states will never agree

to allow iran to have nuclear weapons? guest: absolutely. we have said that for decades now. that should be our policy and we should end by that policy. it is not just iran that will have nuclear weapons if they are successful. every country in the region wealth or do you think saudi arabia will stand by, we're cool with that. let them do that and we will not. turkey or any of the others? you would have an explosive and dangerous arms race if iran were able to move forward on this. we are trying not just 2-d nuclear eyes or prevent iran from having nuclear weapons. we are trying to prevent the entire region. host: artie is on the air. caller: thank you for allowing me to call.

regarding united states and iran and working together, why would iran and the united states working together, going back to the 1950's the crew have been placing the shots with saddam hussein, it is kind of obvious. should we give negotiations a chance to see the two sides? thank you. guest: i would reject the premise of your question. the reason these negotiations will fall is because a good partner with iran, once again, i could go down a long list. in a deadly way. let me mention one of them. the shia militia we are operating in iraq for years killing american soldiers,

primarily through improvised explosive devices hundreds of americans have been killed by this regime in the last decade alone. they have got 60,000 rockets with hezbollah north of israel pair 100,000 in other areas as well. we go back to the embassy in 1979. i think that is what is starting -- what has started the regime. they have always said, they would seek to destroy us if they could. i just do not accept the reasons the negotiations may fail is because the u.s. has been a trusting partner or harms them. i just do not think that is the case. host: don, republican california. caller: good morning. i want to strongly endorse what you're saying. as the next marine, -- as an ex-

marine, they do not see how long it takes to be prepared for the military or president obama has enough authority, to do something. judging his reaction to israel where he is not backing netanyahu, it befuddles me. we have got a guy rather riding on a bicycle with kardashian and positions himself as some kind of a success story, a set of addressing the fact ukraine is are you celebrating, they're flying all over the world, and he wants to put more money for the irs, i mean, it is ridiculous. i would like your comments please. guest: you touched on a couple of different topics and let me address just one of them. the middle east in this part of the world is not the only concern we have. in negotiations with iran are really one of the most critical

issues facing us right now from a national security perspective. but they are not the only issue. the aggressiveness of russia is another one that we have to do with in a real way as well. i think it is an illustration of this that i have seen and heard again and again. i spent a little more than three weeks last august in the middle east, in egypt, jordan morocco israel, all over there. it was as if everyone was talking off of the same briefing point. wherever we went, they would just say to us, where is the united states? we do not know if we can count on you any longer. i heard that from the ambassador just last night in the dinners we shared together. i probably ought not say in this case because the expression was very clear and that was, i

rather say what they said can tell you who it was. but they said, we would fail if united states does not lead in this part of the nation to we have to have your involvement. i would say with russia, that is true as well. the idea of leading from behind i do not know what that means. i say that sincerely, how can you lead from behind? we leave the world a darker and more chaotic place if we are not willing to take our role in the world. i am not saying we are the world's policeman. i understand how difficult this is for military families and how much we have used them in one them out here but we have the responsibility to lead when we can i do not think we have done that. question referring to the russian president celebrating here is the headline on the website, solving the first anniversary of crimea.

he said the united states needs to lead. what needs to be done? >> let's go back to where our failure of leadership hurt in that situation. this was very obvious and many people have made this point. i think vladimir putin was emboldened when our president said, there is a redline in syria and if you cross that line you will be held accountable for that, and then they did, and they were not. our allies and our adversaries noticed that. i think the stage was set for that earlier in syria when the administration vacillated so much in the response to that the we will do this and that, well we do not know, and that is what started that. that redline was a defining moment for many people. it has clearly emboldened the russians and others and now we have hit a price where the problem is much harder now where we have walked down that path and it is harder to back up on it. host: back to calls, guy is back

from maryland, democratic caller. caller: i do not know a lot about war, but once the first individual killed, you just do not know how things just how far the thing is going to go. it is easy to start the difficult to end. i do not know how we can go over to a foreign country and tell who is the enemy and who is the friend, who is a threat who is not, yet when we get there, they know exactly that we are there because we look nothing like mp or to want to kill off people's fathers and brothers and sons what do you think the family members are going to do? they will not just go away. the united states will have that threat forever. quite's i agree it is easier to start wars the van and them. we are trying to avoid starting a war. as an air force pilot for years

i know and i have seen the loss that he come from u.s. involvement it when we see the soldiers, the best people we have been at this nation has to offer, it is a terrible price to pay. but you do not protect yourself with weakness. you do not avoid worse by becoming weak or subject to other people's wells. it is a fine line and the art of genius to do this where you keep america strong and are not overly aggressive. it is not my intention or anyone i know who would like to involve the u.s. more militarily overseas. just the opposite, we're trying to avoid that by putting ourselves in a position where we are strong enough that we do not have to get involved in that way. host: let's talk to chris florida, republican. caller: good morning.

as a republican, i want to say i agree with one of the first callers who called in and said our interference in the middle east has been substantial and caused a great deal of turmoil and blowback against our policies since then. i am talking about the 1950's, when one of the democratically elected president of iran was overthrown and our cia was involved in that and it is on the record. it is a fact and it happened peerless fast-forward. here we are now, and we have over $4 trillion and countless lives lost, not only the u.s. military but the millions of iraqis and other people who have been killed and poisoned with the gas and all other kinds of krapp going on over there.

we are mired in debt in this country, $18 trillion and counting. yet we are talking about going back into another war. you're talking about negotiations with iran here at it is not and really negotiating with iran. we all know, we're told, basically, this is what we have to do, we cannot trust iran and we cannot sit down across the table from them. that is ohlone. we have to negotiate. we cannot leave the world constantly and have our military all over the world, and what will happen here? i just to do not get it. guest: no one is proposing we attack -- we attack iran to we are trying to avoid doing that. the whole point of this is to avoid another war. to the point there is no question u.s. foreign policy is fraught with mistakes along the way.

especially in this part of the world. it is a chaotic part of the world, unpredictable with all sorts of unintended consequences. it is hard to look down the road a few years, and predict or know what exactly will happen as a result of policies now. i do think we know a couple of things. we know the u.s. involvement there helped stabilize the area, that the u.s. has been a force for peace in many cases and i would argue in almost all cases rather than a force for instability and war. we know, as the caller said, the negotiations could have a positive outcome. but we have be committed to having a treaty or an agreement that is in our interests. and protects our interests and the interests of allies in the region. that is the whole point of this to have a strong agreement to protect us rather than a week agreement that makes us less secure in the future. that is the whole point of this and what we're trying to do.

host: utah, larry, a republican. caller: good morning, congressman. happy to be one of your constituents. you mentioned your recent travel to northern africa. i know the national guard has a special relationship with folks there in morocco. can you talk to the value of such relationships and what is going on there and what you learned while you were there? guest: that is a great question and a great example of where u.s. involvement can have a positive effect and it brings peace and stability to the region, or to a nation looking to us for help. the state department said of the special partnerships between various states, national guards, and these nations that could use their training or their leadership or their input, the utah national guard teamed with morocco, it was asked in my brother-in-law at the time who

was involved with instituting that. general burton is carrying that forward now. we have had an enormously positive impact with the military and be on the military as well. we have been able to train f-16 pilots. i think they're having something like 35 joint exercises or activities together this year. we have really made a difference to them, and they are very grateful. i go to morocco and they treat me like a rockstar because they find out i am from you top your they are so grateful for the help we have been able to give them. host: independent caller on the air. caller: what i want to say is one president obama tried to gain support against assad with the accusations of using chemical weapons against the opposition, there was no support there. in turn, we armed the opposition

and the opposition is now called isis. that being said, i do believe the talks with iran, we will give them an inch and they will take a foot and once they do, they will have public support for war with iran. we obviously showed our intentions with the middle east. it is not security interests they have paired it is oil interests. call it what it is. there are no security interests there. they're not coming over here in attacking us. we have the best military in the world, the strongest military in the world, and we are trying to democratize countries that do not want to be democratized. guest: i would have to agree to disagree with the caller.

the last 20 years, saying it is all about oil. there is far more to this than that. in fact, if you want to ship oil, then have no war and let iran do whatever they want him as long as they keep their oil wells flowing and you could have said the same thing about iraq. if it is all about oil, do not invade iraq and everything was going swell before that. it is counter to it -- counterintuitive to make that argument. it is one of the great success stories of the last seven or eight years, the u.s. greater independence of energy because of fracking and some of the new technologies. it changes the world. imagine what we would be paying for gasoline right now if it were not for the development of our own resources which i'm pleased to see. the second thing is this idea that we armed the moderate forces and they became isis. it is far more complicated. it takes a long list to write

down the parties involved. it is not just isis and the side. there are dozens of groups and isis has a core that is frankly in al qaeda. it was not the fighters in syria. >> tell our viewers what you can about the threat of isis because you have heard from the color and others, there are americans not believing isis poses a direct threat to the united states. >> i do not know if that many americans believe that any longer. maybe a year ago. when they saw isis move to iraq in a matter of four or five months, when we see them beheading and targeting christians and other minorities, including women and children and the most vulnerable groups there, when we see them taking a pilot and bringing him alive, beheading christians, the christians in egypt, simply because they are christian and

then we just say, that is ok because as long as they're over there, they will never hurt us heavens, i think that is so naive. you cannot have a force as powerful as they are becoming with as many fighters as they have, community as much territory and as much wealth as they are accumulating, who hate us and want to destroy us, and just say, that is ok. i just do not think you can. the president recognizes that in this administration recognizes that and i think most people would see we just cannot let that be. host: chicago, steve, republican caller, your question, steve. caller: good morning greta, and good morning, mr. stewart. i was thinking about this and i have been watching it very closely. caring negotiations and obama's negotiations. and i like your comments on this how about if we had a set

of fusion experts, so to speak, nuclear fusion experts and we have seven or eight facilities something like that, and we put in a permanent task force that permanent members that are there as watchdogs to make sure they do not enrich iranian -- uranium , and what they do is, ok, you are employees for the world make sure you do not enrich uranium, and it is an ongoing situation, and we pay them in every facility, and we do risk reward, so to speak at we put them in there, there there

constantly, there watching it 24/7 and when iran sign that deal -- host: let's have congressmen respond to that idea. guest: that is what the negotiations are about. it is a small part of it and includes much more than that, while the dozens of the ladies maybe even more than 20. it includes a whole element of detectors and other processes where you can monitor them. but certainly, caller, you are exactly right here it but once again, if one party wants to cheat, i can promise you they will find a way to do that. it is counterintuitive to think we can monitor, a country is a good they are with a military as pervasive throughout society and assume they will not be able to do something we are unaware of. host: larry, democratic caller, california. caller: i served 20 years in the 90's disney corporate i

predicted 9/11 to it we let it happen and invokes the patriot act to invade afghanistan to get the oil in iraq. now we should have been in syria and iran. senator, i cannot believe anything you say. we cannot be going over there and run these people blind. let them deal with it themselves. we should have never went there. guest: let me challenge you on that. you said we did this on purpose so we could invade iraq for the oil. if that was the outcome and they were so smart to put this incredibly sophisticated conspiracy together, why weren't they smart enough to control the oil at the end? we do not control iraqi oil and we never did. i've heard his argument and we have heard it for a dozen years now, it is all but the oil, i think that is insane, frankly, to make that argument when the outcome was we did lose control of the oil and we did not before and we don't now. if that was the plan, it was a spectacular failure. host: michael, republican.

caller: good morning, how are you doing, c-span? he talked about the red line in syria. yes, they supposedly crossed the red line, but you cannot say we did nothing. the entire chemical weapon arsenal? that is my first question. i second question is regarding ukraine. if we were not aggressively recruiting -- recruiting, [indiscernible] the major bases located there. and one of the only outlets to the city. if russia recruited mexico to join their coalition? host: i will leave it at tea does because we are running short on time. the houses gaveling in early this morning in about five minutes for their legislative session. guest: i would like to maybe change subject just quickly and

talk about tunisia. there was a partial positive outcome with syria in the sense that we have had some success destroying some of their chemical weapons. again, that is some, but the reality is the outcome, the assumption was crossing the red line, we would hold bashir assad accountable and we have not. the second thing regarding russia and the ukraine, the caller has a fair point on that. i think you have to allow this presumption, and that is that the ukraine is a free and independent nation and they should have the ability like we do or like any nation does to make their own decisions whether they want to align with russia or whether they want to align with the west third russia was trying to deny them that really -- that ability. they said you have to rely on us. and they said, we want to look toward free markets, and russia was denying them that. that is essentially what that

conflict was about. do i have time to talk about tunisia quickly? i was in tunisia within the last few days and we met with the president there, who, in my opinion, is a good man. he said to us, i need your help for us to be successful. they are a success story to this point. he said, i have insurgents crossing the libyan border and i do not have the capability of stopping them. if they come and attack the tourist sites, and an enormous part of their economy he said i do not know if i could be successful in what i'm doing it we might lose this one success story we have. it broke my heart to see what happened yesterday because these insurgents did exactly what the president feared. they went after the tourists. who will dare go to tunisia now from europe or where it -- or anywhere else in the world and visit any of the sites as a tourist? they are so dependent on the foreign capital. he was exactly right and he knew

what they were planning or he suspected and they did it. it is heartbreaking to see the negative impact that will have on this part of the world trying desperately to maintain their own freedom and democracy. host: who are these people that did the terrorist attack? >> we know in general they are insurgents who want to bring chaos and destruction and they hate the west and hate democracy. that is why they would attack the only democratic government in that part of the world. host: i want to show you this headline from the associated press this morning the nuclear deal would cap iran pluses uranium centrifuges at 6000 for a decade or more at what is your reaction? guest: i would have to read it and look at it. it is hard for me to respond with just a headline. host: as they are negotiating it looks like they're getting close to figuring out the framework bar march -- by march 31.

guest: 60,000 is better than 180,000. we started with 6000, we started from a position that we would not allow them any capability and we have backed off of that and again, i do not think that is a good idea. host: coniston chris stewart member of the intelligence committee p are we appreciate you coming on and talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: now we will turn to the house. they are about to gavel in. early today for their legislative session. today marks the 30 -- 36th anniversary of the house going on television and c-span cameras were there when van represented al gore was the first speaker on to take to the podium. we will do now what we did 36 years ago for you gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 19, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable scott r. tipton to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer this morning will be offered by our chaplain, father

conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house to encourage them in their official tasks. especially during this season of budget deliberations, give them wisdom and an accurate understanding of the needs of the citizens of this country, most particularly those with narrow margins in their life options. remind us all of the dignity of work and teach us to use our talents and abilities in ways that are honorable and just and are a benefit to those we serve. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.

pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. pursuant to clause 1 rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the approval of the journal. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal is approved. mr. olson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i hereby resign as the representative of the 18th congressional district of illinois effective march 31, 2015. signed respectfully aaron schock, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. olson: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: mr. speaker, e.p.a. has proposed a new lower standard for ozone. smog. before america -- on the

current standard, we have made important gains in air quality but the latest draft is so low that most of america will be out of compliance. under current law e.p.a. can't even consider whether we have the technology to achieve the new low standards. e.p.a. says half the work to meet this new rule will come from technology that doesn't yet exist. this rule will mean lost jobs and lost opportunities. this week bob latta and i introduced h.r. 1388 the clean air and strong economies act. our bill requires e.p.a. to protect health and consider whether the rule can be met. mr. speaker i urge my colleagues to help us balance clean air with the strong

economy by supporting h.r. 1388. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 105 years ago in a small town in germany, her 105 years on earth has been a testament to the greatness of the united states. mr. kilmer: she has seen so much. living in holland during world war ii, she saw the capability of our military and -- capability and bravery of our military. she came here with $20 and the clothes on her back and eventually coming -- becoming a citizen. she has been able to live with dignity because two of the greatest public policies in this country, medicare and social security. and she's seen the power of the american education system, watching her daughter and

son-in-law become teachers and seeing three grandsons who love her very much also pursue educational opportunities so they could follow their dreams. mr. speaker, she even saw her youngest grandson get the honor of serving his community in congress. mr. speaker, let me close by saying to berdal my grandma, happy 105th birthday, oma. we love you very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today along with congressman tim ryan i'm introducing the medicare evaluation parody for service members act. this legislation, which has strong bipartisan support and the support of a large number of military and mental health advocacy groups will help the military identify behavior health issues and prevent suicide prevention by having an

assessment for all incoming military recruits. finding that, quote, nearly one in five army soldiers enter the service with a psyche attic disorder and nearly half of those that attempted suicide attempted it before enlisting. we need to make sure that our service members are physically fit for duty and this legislation will make sure they're mentally fit. we will have beater baseline of any potential medical harm may have incurred during their duty. these brave men and women put their lives on the line every day in the service of our nation and it is our duty to offer everything in our power to guarantee they return home safely, both physically and mentally. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bipartisan legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this morning i speak on two issues of justice. one dealing with my alma mater, the university of virginia, and to thank the young man, the student who experienced an unfortunate incident that caused him to have 10 stitches and to bleed on the streets of charlottesville by the hands of those who were enforcing the law. i want to join him by saying we all should be treated with human dignity, and i thank the governor of the state of virginia for a full investigation. we have to find a way to balance law and order with the dignity of treatment of african-americans and all people. i also say that the hostage taking of the attorney general nominee by those who will not push for her confirmation on the floor of the senate of the other body is not the handling of the constitution and the vice and consent that is

necessary in the process of government. she is qualified. she is ready to serve. the nation needs a chief law enforcement officer. we must come together and find that balance that the constitution protects and that is the right of all people for access and freedom of speech but we must also respect law and order. we have to find a way to walk that pathway together, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize three of my constituents from owington, kentucky. these three outstanding powerlinemen from owen electric cooperative recently volunteered a project in haiti when completed will provide safe, reliable and affordable power to 1,600 consumers.

the goal of the product is to build a distribution system that will connect three towns in haiti and establish its first electric cooperative. the cooperative electic. my constituents upgraded and installed new lines and service drops in the -- in a town and trained locally linemen, proper hand line use. mr. massie: electric is essential to the quality of life in haiti's rural communities. it assists in clean water, health care education and general economic opportunity. therefore, i salute my constituents for contributing their time and efforts in haiti on this critical project. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognize? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to

oppose this irresponsible and dishonest budget recently proposed by the house budget committee republicans. under this budget's grossly misguided priorities, people at the top continue to get richer while hardworking american families fall further behind. last fall at election time, congressional republicans said they understood the pressures that american families were feeling and they promised to help hardworking americans but this republican budget would squeeze hardworking americans even harder in countless ways, making it harder to pay for college, making it harder to pay for their health care, making it harder to ensure a secure retirement. this budget would eliminate health care coverage for tens of millions of americans, cut nondefense government programs from transportation to research to education and make more than $1 trillion in unspecified cuts in federal entitlement

programs. this house republican budget would make life a lot harder for hardworking american families like the ones i represent in western pennsylvania. mr. speaker, this is a budget that needs not to pass. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to speak on the floor for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. today we have the opportunity to speak about values, values that we have as americans, values that we hold dear. the fact that someone can work their entire life and be able to make it to retirement and live out their golden years with dignity is something this budget denies. the idea that someone has an opportunity to go to a college or university and become whatever they want to be maybe

an astronaut, maybe an engineer, maybe a politician, but without an education, every single one of those dreams is harder and tougher than before. the budget being proposed by the republicans in this house denies dreams denies food denies health care to seniors and many more disasters are in this budget. this budget denies an opportunity for children to get an education. if you're not born with a silver spoon in your mouth, this budget's for you. extending tax loopholes into perpetuity but denying and condemning children away from education, seniors away from food and health care. this budget doesn't deserve one vote. this budget deserves to be reworked and to carry the values we hold dear in this country. thank you very much. i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 152 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 16 house resolution 152. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, house resolution 132, providing for the expenses of certain committees of the house of representatives in the 114th congress. the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the resolution as amended shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution as amended to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except, one one hour of debate equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee ton house administration. and two, one -- on house administration. and two, one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, senate joint resolution 8 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code of the rules submitted by the national labor relations board relating to representation case procedures. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and the work force. and two, one motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: house resolution 152 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of h.j.res. 8, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code of

the resolution submitted by the national labor relations board and a closed rule for consideration of h.res. 132, providing for the expenses of certain committees of the house of representatives in the 114th congress. across the capitol, the united states senate took positive action on march 4 when it passed a resolution s.j.res. 8 invoking the congressional review act to overturn the national labor relations board's recent ambush election rule. on that same day, my colleagues and i in the committee on education and the work force subcommittee on health employment labor and pensions, held a hearing on legislation i strongly supported and co-sponsored. h.j.res. 29, which is identical legislation to that which will come before the house today. the national labor relations board's ambush election rule is just the latest of its outrageous actions taken in

defiance of long-standing precedent. jeopardizing employee free choice and privacy, and employer free speech. this rule would give workers as few as 11 days to consider a consequential decision before voting for or against joining a unedown. prevent employers from having adequate time to prepare for union elections and postpone critical questions over the election such as voter eligibility. until after the election. while providing little consideration of the long-standing rights of employees and employers, the rule further violates their privacy by ensuring that workers personally -- workers' personal information such as email addresses, work schedules, phone numbers, and home addresses are provided to union leaders. there is a myriad of consequences to this harmful

regulation, including constraining the rights of workers to make informed decisions, severely hampering employers' rights to speak to their employees during union organizing campaigns and weakening privacy rights of workers. these consequences will seriously impact the relationship of workers and employers and upend carefully crafted process for organizing relations. these precedents have ayins over decades of practice with existing rules and should not be upended by hyper partisan bureaucrats to the benefit of national it unions at the expense of hardworking americans. h.res. 152 also provides for consideration of h.r. res. 132, the committee funding resolution for the 114th congress. since taking the majority, house republicans have been careful stewards of taxpayer dollars,

streamlining house operations, and saving funds for -- wherever possible. in fact, this congress -- in fact in this congress the house remains below the amount authorized in 2008. this bipartisan resolution will allow our committees to continue their vital work on behalf of this institution, including legislative reforms and oversight with additional investigations and field hearings. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolutions, mr. speaker. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying resolution, senate joint resolution 8, and the resolution to overturn the national labor relations board

election rule. the other bill i support, h.res. 132, which provides for the expenses of the committees of the house, the house committee on administration's bipartisan work should be commended. as we all know committees that we as individual members of the house are members of play a very important role in the work we do every day. now, i think it's unfortunate that this bipartisan bill has been packaged with a partisan bill to repeal important commonsense reforms that were done at the national labor relations board. and they have been wrapped up with a controversial bill. the nlrb's function as you know is both to investigate and prosecute unfair labor practices, provide a legal framework for employees and employers. where employees may be seeking to organize in their workplaces for better wages and working conditions.

both of those functions are required of them by the national labor relations act, which has been in place since 1935. the work the nlrb is doing is important. it's precisely what is required of the -- by the national labor relations act. holding a vote on this resolution will get in the way of the nlrb pursuing its mandate successfully. i stead of focusing on important issues like shrinking the wage gap or growing the middle class instead, the republicans are spinning their wheels to score points by going after the national labor relation board and if common sense reforms to make it function more effectively. the president has already released a statement vowing to veto the resolution. it's another example of spinning our wheels. it's obvious neither the senate nor house will have enough votes to override this veto. i ask simply why are we wasting or time on this misguided legislation when there's plenty of challenges our country faces, whether it's balancing our budget, growing the middle class, dealing with the use of force abroad.

instead we are discussing legislation which won't become law. while we are three months into this congress, and i can't even count the amount of hours we have spent on the floor discussing legislation that anybody knows won't become law because we have a president a white house, who said he will veto them. this piece of legislation uses the congressional review act, which is a rare legislative tool that allows the majority to rush through legislation with little debate. in the senate, normal rules of debate and cloture are not even required. and -- but it does require the president's signature. keep in mind the congressal review act is used to undo rules that have been promulgated by the executive branch. through the executive office. why would a president sign something that undoes his own rules? he simply wouldn't have made those rules in the first place if he didn't want them done. so here we are without 2/3 of this body going through these motions on something that we

know isn't going to become law. the congressional review act has only been used once to overturn a rule in the entire history of the united states. and is there for emergencies. this bill is far fromage emergency. instead it's packaged with a closed rule, an extreme and unnecessary procedural action rather than allowing for amendment and discussion of ideas from both sides of the aisle. this resolution would overturn the new and improved election rules at the nlrb which are modernizing the system of the current rules were done before email existed. and we talk about how important privacy s. we are only talking about email addresses that the employers has. if employers can use them to lobby their employees one way or the other in a vote, the organizing campaign should also be able to use those same email addresses. if neither side has access to them that's fine f one side has access to them in an election, the other side needs to have access under similar terms.

we in this body have a responsibility to protect workers' rights to provide employers with predictibility and expeditious processing. under the rules prior to this change, it was far too easy for bad actors to endlessly delay workplace elections. in our committee that dr. foxx and i serve on, we got to hear the testimony of a nurse from california who had engaged in an effort in her workplace to organize the nurses that had been delayed time and time again. more than a year before a vote was finally held. oftentimes f. a year or two or three go by, it might be different employees, people come and go, the groups of employees change, often some of those involved with the organizing are subsequently fired. employers are able to do this by appealing time and time again on issues that have no bearing on the election, simply to delay, delay delay. the modest commonsense reforms of the election rules truly go a

long way in balancing the system and making it work more efficiently. they are standardized practices already common through many parts of the country. to allow workers to make their own decisions without manipulation, threats, or intimidation from either party. under current rules what happens all too often is employers continuously appeal an election with unwarranted litigation so they have time to threaten, coerce and far too often fire workers. by the time the election occurs, workers have moved on, voluntarily or involuntarily to other jobs or have been threatened so many times they feel they have been forced to vote no. there is a proven direct and carbal relationship between the length of time it takes to hold an election and illegal employer conduct. in other words, bad actors stall the election process and use the system they have to do whatever it takes to win the election. there are hundreds of examples of unscrupulous actors using the system in this way. the nurse i mentioned earlier

decided she and her co-workers were in a better workplace environment and began to organize. but the employer delayed the action multiple times. they had time to threaten the workers via text and email. they even held mandatory meetings with employees to threaten and coerce into voting to organize. they did this under the guise of education. in the end of the nurses were too scared to form a union. another unfortunate example is the mercedes-benz dealership that delayed the election at every opportunity. the entire process lasses 4828 days. with the new rule the process would have taken 141 days. what i can't understand is how some people think that 428 days is reasonable, that somehow 141 days is an ambush election. -- -- i think 428 days for a union election is inexcusable. it's harmful to our families and economy and businesses. the lack of predictibility that brings. the average resolution for an election is 38 days and we are

not dealing with the average here. we are dealing with the outliers. one in 10 election cases are still unresolved after 100 days. there is no excuse for that. it's unthinkable. if at least 10% of employers and organizing efforts that this election will impact. the other 90% work well. the current nlrb process has worked well. we don't need to change their methods. i keep hearing arguments that employees are losing their rights to privacy because i want to address these points because they are false. the companies have work schedules, email address, phone numbers. they often use these to threaten, coerce employees at all hours of the day and night. those who are working already have access to home addresses, but that's all they have. without work schedules they might show up when an employee is egg sleeping or when they are not home. this new rule provides the same information to employers and organizers. if you ask me, a home address, which they already have, is far more intrusive than email or phone number, and i think these

reforms will therefore further the privacy of workers. the rules simply modernize the disclosure requirements because the last time they were updated people didn't have cell phones and emails. all they had was home addresses which is why the union organizers currently have access to home addresses. employers also indicate that they might be surprised by an election. . the timeline of 11 days is not -- under the new rule, employers will have plenty of time to make their cases and employees will have plenty of time to make an informed decision. it's important to note if the resolution were to actually pass and somehow be signed by the president which it won't be, it will forever prohibit the nlrb or any agency from enacting a substantially similar rule. that means a simple modernization efforts that i hope we can all agree on such as allowing parties to file election documents

electronically, which this bill does will force both businesses and workers to use an antiquated and costly system. mr. speaker, for these reasons i oppose the rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the lady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my colleague from colorado knows very well that the house is doing its work and focusing on the things that are important to hardworking americans. just this week we're holding 81 hearings here in the house in various committees. we're here on the floor today looking at a very important piece of work in overriding this onerous rule that is not a waste of time. mr. speaker, the national labor

relations board has been attempting for years to tip the scales toward union organizers and last december they were finally able to accomplish one of their major goals with approval of this ambush election rule. the two board members who dissented from the decision were clear about the rule's primary purpose enabling initial union representation elections to occur as soon as possible. this rule will shorten the length of time in which such an election is held from the current median of 38 days to as little as 11 days. the board's decision was broad and unprecedented, overturning decades of practice and labor laws and skewing elections in favor of unions. one of its most outrageous provisions is postponing decisions about who is eligible to participate in an election

to after the election. one of the most fundamental principles of a fair election is to make sure that only those eligible to vote -- to have the ability to vote, maintaining the value of each voter's individual vote. that basic democratic protection would be shattered by this rule. it may also lead to more union representation elections being set aside and new elections being ordered. one characterized the ambush election rule very fittingly in testimony before our subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions saying, quote, it's akin to a mayorial election in which it is unknown either before or after the election whether up to 20% of the potential voters are inside or outside the city limits, end quote.

the rule will also require a new mandatory poster be placed within the workplace within two business days receiving a petition for election. the content of which will be determined by the national labor relations board. employers are also provided only eight days to find experienced representation before facing a hearing and must file an in depth statement of position within only seven days of receiving a petition for election. companies of any size and in particular small businesses frequently do not have in-house counsel and are not prepared at the drop of a hat to respond to complex consequential legal situations. a provision with a serious impact on employee privacy is the access provided to unions of additional contact information, including every employee's name, address,

personal phone number and personal email address which must be provided within two days of an election order with an -- without any option to opt out. important review procedures would be set aside by this rule as well, including the opportunity for review of decisions made prior to the election by the board itself. the board's requirement for review of postelection disputes would be made discretionary for the first time as well, limiting oversight. this flawed decision is currently facing litigation from the private sector as well. with the u.s. chamber of commerce and other trade associations filing a lawsuit to block its implementation as a violation of the national labor relations act.

administrative procedures act and employers rights. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolution and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker the export-import bank ensures that american businesses remain competitive in foreign markets and re-authorizing it would create certainty for business across this country and is fully permissible under w.t.o. rules. mr. speaker if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation which would re-authorize the export-import bank for seven years. to discuss our proposal, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from washington, mr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i indeed rise to oppose the request for previous question in order we might get on with the task of deliberating on re-authorization of the

export-import bank. and just to remind people, the export-import bank provides loans or loan guarantees to the foreign purchasers of american-made goods and services american-made goods and services. this institution has been around for 80-some years. it has been enthusiastically supported by every single president since, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, all have supported re-authorization of the export-import bank. and this federally chartered bank disappears in 103 days if we do not act. if the house continues to refuse to place it before the committee of jurisdiction for hearing, refuses to place it before the committee of jurisdiction for markup, refuses to consider it on this floor, the bank will disappear in 103 days. but the problem is that's not when the damage is done. the damage is already beginning because of the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the

export-import bank. air tractor, a company in texas which manufacturers airplanes for use in firefighting and agriculture, lost a multimillion-dollar order to africa because they were told we don't know if the bank will be around. last year firm green, a california-based firm that was founded by a wounded vietnam veteran, lost a multimillion-dollar deal overseas because they were told there's too much uncertainty, there's too big a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the export-import bank. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i don't know what to say. i don't know what to say to terry and stacy cochran, the owners of a business in eastern washington that have grown their business from 1/3 base on exports to 2/3 based on exports as a consequence of their relationship with the export-import bank.

i don't know what i say to terry and stacy if this cloud of uncertainty continues to hang and the bank goes away. i don't know what to say to stack, a business located in my district in sumner washington, an idea in a gentleman's head -- also, by the way, a veteran who formed a business to selled a -- sell adhesives into the marketplace. why? because of the export-import bank. i don't know what to say to manhasset of all places in yakima, washington one of the leading music stands manufacturers, indeed 90% of the transactions approximately of the export-import bank are for small businesses. the damage is being done now in the absence of action and the failure of this house to take up this issue. the real damage is long term and it is significant and it is material. i talked the other day on the floor about the fact that

commercial airlines is basically a manufacturing do poly. one is air france -- mr. polis: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: so airplane manufacturing currently is a due only a french-based business and an american-based business which i want to remind people is the heart and soul of engineering manufacturing in this country. it is the heart and soul of it, but it's not going to remain the case in any event because as we all know, and if we don't we should. china is right now in the process of developing a wide-body commercial aircraft for entry into the world marketplace. i thinks tentatively named the

c-919. china's export credit authority, which i remind the chamber every other developed nation on the face of the earth has, is a multiple in size of america's export credit authority the export-import bank. they are literally, not figuratively, they are sitting over there rubbing their hands in glee waiting for this chamber refuse to act because when their airplane comes online in two to eight years they're going to jump into this market like there's no tomorrow and the damage to the heart and soul of our manufacturing sector cannot be exaggerated. indeed, to remind you, every advanced economy on the face of the planet has an export credit authority and if we allow ours to expire it is tantamount to unilateral disarmament. an amazing array of groups support this. everyone from, yes, believe it or not, the sierra club to the chamber of commerce to the international association of machinists to the national

association of manufacturers, everyone supports our bill and yet we dither. in summary, to repeat, the export-import bank is a job-creating machine. 1.2 million jobs in the last five years. the export-import bank is a deficit-reducing machine. $6.9 billion. to reduce our deficit. it doesn't cost us anything. there are no federal taxpayer dollars involved, and it is a superperforming agency. it creates jobs. it reduces our deficit and significantly and it goes away in 103 days if this chamber fails to act. i oppose the demand for the previous question so that we might get on with the business of strengthening america's economy. i yield the balance of my time. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves.

the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i have the word ven rated is usually reserved for clerics and not government agencies. such an attitude borders on worship of government agencies and i doubt very seriously that majority of hardworking americans agree with that attitude. i would now like to yield four minutes to my distinguished colleague from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. roe: i thank the chairman for yielding and i hope you're feeling better soon, also. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of both the rule and senate joint resolution 8 which would overturn the national labor relations board ambush election rule. i was proud to join my friend chairman john kleine, in introducing the house version

of this -- john kline, in introducing the house version of this resolution. the obama administration is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. delays in the process supposed unfair advantages to employers. mr. speaker, let me say that i grew up in a union household. my father worked for b.f. goodrich company. he was a longtime union member after world war ii, and i've seen many things that unions have done that have been good. unions are legal in america. if employees have a right to hear all the information they can decide they want to be in the union or not be in a union and there's no big hurry. look the national labor relations board -- and this is march madness. i'll use a basketball metaphor. i played basketball. other people do. you expect the referees to be a fair arbiter of a game. when you expect to go in someone else's home court you expect to get a fair call. that's what we expect nlrb to

do and it's not happening. here are the facts. in reality under the current procedures 94% of elections are held within 56 days. 38 -- median is 38 days of a petition being filed. furthermore, unions won 60% of those elections. so they win more than half or 2/3, i should say. given the importance and consequences of the decisionmaking being made by workers, this is an entirely reasonable period of time. under the nlrb's radical new policy, union elections could be held mr. speaker, in as little as 11 days after a petition that's filed. as an employer of not a large business myself, i don't know if i could find a labor attorney in 11 days to go through this very complicated legal issue. . this is not enough time for employers to present their side to the employees or the employees to make an informed decision. unfortunately for workers, the

nlrb rule doesn't stop here. of grave concern to me is the threat posed to workers' prifecy. currently employers are required to turn over a list of employees and their home addresses to union organizers within seven days after an election is in order. you got a week. ambush election rule instead would open the door for greater harassment intimidation by requiring employers to turn over each employees' name, address, phone number, email address, all within two days of an election order. it's for this reason i introduced employee -- the employee privacy protection act in the last congress. this bill would have required only the names of the employees and one piece of contact information of the employee's choosing. the employee gets to decide how they are contacted to be provided to union organizers. i think that's very reasonable. this will allow communications to happen, but on the workers' terms. choosing whether to be represented by a union is a big

decision. with ramifications in the workplace and at home. instead of ensuring a fair process for unions, employers, and workers, this nlrb is trying to rig the game in favor of union bosses and that's not fair to workers or employees. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the resolution, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. polis. i rise in opposition to the previous question because i believe that it is imperative that we have an opportunity to present a piece of legislation that will have a tremendous impact on our economy. i believe that h.r. 1031, promoting u.s. jobs through

exports act, is an important piece of legislation. and i am in complete agreement with my colleagues who have indicated that this piece of legislation has not received a fair hearing. it has not received a markup at the financial services committee. it has not been accorded an opportunity to come to the floor. and one of the ways that we can eliminate things here in congress is by not acting on them at all. it appears that this piece of legislation is destined not to be acted upon and thereby the elimination of the export-import bank will take place. this is unfortunate. and i believe that when there are things that you would like to say that are being said better by others, it's better to let them say them. i'd like to just quote a few things from the u.s. chamber of commerce with reference to the

eximbank. the chamber has indicated failure to re-authorize ex--im would put at risk more than 150,000 american jobs at 3,000 companies. that is significant. the chamber goes on to talk about the spinoffs, the other jobs that will be impacted by virtue of the 150,000 jobs that will be put at risk. tens of thousands of smaller companies that supply goods and services to large exporters also benefit from export-import's activities. meaning that these companies, too, will suffer. these are additional workers who will suffer. the chamber indicates that other companies -- other countries are providing approximately 18 times more export credit assistance to their exporters than ex-im did

to united states importers last year. and it goes on to say that if congress fails to re-authorize ex-im the united states would become the only major trading nation without such a bank, putting american exporters at a unique disadvantage in a tough global market. now, that's the united states chamber of commerce. i think that this is a source that many of my colleagues on the other side would rely upon. i'm also here to say that the state of texas, which is the largest state that deals with exports, the top exporting state counting for approximately 18% of the national exports, would be hurt because in texas we've got approximately -- mr. polis: yield an additional

30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. in texas we have approximately 1,630 exporters that utilize the export-import bank. in my district, 45 small businesses are using the export-import bank. 14 of these are minority owned. five are owned by women. the bank is making a difference. in texas we have a saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. it ain't broke. we are trying to fix it. and we are doing it by eliminating an entity that is making a difference for our economy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the history of this regulation is as sordid as most of the national labor relation board's actions have been over the past few years.

the board initially attempted to prom null gate this regulation in -- promulgate this regulars wlation without a quorum and saw its decision struck down by the u.s. district court for the district of columbia. that court decision was upheld by the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia. after rescinding their initial attempt at imposing an ambush election rule the board now back to its full strength after threats by senate democrats to exercise the nuclear option to spark filibuster reform reintroduced the ambush election rule in february, last year. today we face the consequences of that effort. those efforts are not the only objectionable actions of the national labor relations board in recent years. last year i sent a letter with several of my colleagues opposing the nlrb general counsel's effort to deem

franchiser joint employ hers -- employers with their franchisees. that determination could have profound consequences for the over eight million americans who go to work at our countries' over 750,000 franchise businesses. the national labor relations board also purported to be able to instruct private businesses where they could invest. telling the boeing company in 2011 it could not operate a factory in south carolina it had already built. our federal government has far too much power. thankfully it does not yet have the power to tell businesses where they can and can't expand. the board was forced to withdraw its complaint. the national labor relations board regulation that we will address today on the floor is just another in a long line of objectionable actions that the board has taken since president obama's appointees have taken

office. there is no reason to believe that their approach to the law will change. but our step today to invoke congressional review act is merely another sign of our willingness to exercise oversight tirelessly into the board's actions. we will continue to be vigilant on behalf of workers and their employers. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields two minutes. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. green's repeated reference to the chamber of commerce, the united states chamber of commerce's point of view prompt me to believe entering their actual words, that of the chamber's, into the record would be a constructive addition to this debate. i read from their letter. failure to authorize ex-imwould

put at risk more than 150,000 jobs. at 3,000 companies that depend on the bank to be able to compete in global markets. ex-im is especially important to small and medium sized businesses which company for more than 85% of the transactions. tens of thousands of smaller companies that supply goods and services to large exporters also benefit from ex-im 's activity. other countries are providing approximately 18 times more export credit assistance to their exporters than ex-im did to u.s. exporters last year. further, re-authorization of ex-im would benefit taxpayers by reducing the deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars. far from being a subsidy. ex-im has generated $2.7 billion for taxpayers in the last six years. mostly through fees collected from foreign customers. eliminate, ex-im would increase the u.s. budget defments i repeat that, eliminating ex-im would increase the u.s. budget

deficit. ex-im's over all active default rate hovers we low one quart of -- below one quarter of one%. lower than commercial bank. the u.s. cheamber, the world's largest business federation, representing the interest of more than three million businesses of all sizes sectors, and region, as well as state and local chambers and industry association, and dedicated to promoting, protecting and defending america's free enterprise system urges the house to pass long-term ex-im re-authorization as expeditiously as possible. end quote. those are ver baytism words from the u.s. chamber of commerce's position on the long-term re-authorization of the export-import bank. why? because they know that failure to do so 103 days from now will materially damage the u.s. economy and reduce the number of jobs. i urge you to support long-term

re-authorization of the ex-im. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i am prepared to close if my colleague from colorado is also prepared. mr. polis: somebody else shows up i might yield to them. but with that understanding i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded. mr. polis: i want to talk a little bit about import-ex-port bank and what they do. first of all there's a lot of forms of subsidization that are not permittable under trade rules or w.t.o. however, there are certain safe harbors for things that are allowed. all of our major trading partners have something like it. what it does is effectively finance our exports, somebody who wants to buy products from an american company, in another country, rather than have that

company itself have to collect those overseas debt, effectively that debt is transferred to this pseudo public entity, the import-export bank, and that effectively becomes the collection agent overseas for that debt. it effectively allows our exporters to get their payment up front. to outsource any risk of no payment occurring. and in fact, u.s. export agency is in a better position to collect those debts because people see them abroad as an entity of the u.s. government. works out well. it's profitable. it's supported by the business community. it's fully permissible under trade rules. if we fail to re-authorize, the import export bank, we are effectively stabbing ourselves in the foot. we are hurting our own exporting economy. do we think for one minute other countries are going to stop engaging in similar allowable trade practices that benefit their own manufacturing industry? no. of course not. people across the world will scratch their heads. just as they do when our own

congress shuts down our government. just as we do when our -- members of our own congress undermine our own president diplomatically. what are the americans doing? they are doing this to themselves. they are hurting their own exports and manufacturing. that's exactly why i hope that we do defeat the previous question and come forward with a clean import-expoth bank re-authorization which i am confident would overwhelmingly pass here on the floor of the house. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker what this discussion really comes down to with regard to the nlrb is whether or not bad actors should continue to get away with abusing an antiquated system for their own advantage. i truly believe and i hope my colleagues do, too, that employers and employees should have a level playing field with an updated and expeditious

processing mechanism. employers should not be able to endlessly delay and appeal elections and abuse a process that was put in place just as much for them as employees. organizing is a long and important history in american. unions and collective bargaining have made sure we have a weekend to spend with our families. the 40-hour workweek, make sure that women are paid fair wages, organizing has made sure workers are safe from all types and forms of workplace dangers. . it tracks very closely for income for middle-class americans. critics of this rule don't want a level playing field for labor organizations to fight for the middle class. they want a process that's open to delay and manipulation. rather than letting workers choose for themselves whether or not they want to join the union, bad actors would prefer to delay or prevent the choice from ever being made at all. this