but congress, what they should do, what congress should do is what congress did in the case that congressman burgess referred to, and that is pass a new law or use other powerful sources of leverage that congress has. >> so we could only act legally if both houses were controlled by the same party and largely in agreement. i mean, that effectively disenfranchises either from acting independently. >> well, i don't think that is right. of course, i share the experience that walter had with congress' past, we're both pretty grown up as that were. and often we've had congresses that different houses were in the hands of the other party but were still able to work together and make legislation happen. so i don't think it's beyond the power of the congress to do that. >> let me move to miss foley and you may want to comment on a couple of things but there is one in particular that i want you to address. because we sort of had this discussion, it seems to me, do we have to use every single weapon before it's available? that is, are we required to cut off funding even though we may have a lot of col

and this congress, being the most failed congress of all-time, this congress that has done less than any other congress in the modern history of congress, that fact about them has been true all year long. it's been evident all year. by rights, this really should be the center of what we talk about when we talk about washington right now. this is truly historic failure. right now, this week, that failure is newly horrible and newly consequential in part because the world is on tour and don't have ambassadors in places we're involved in tense negotiations with. places like guatemala and russia where these huge crises that really affect americans right now. that's part of it. the other part of it is we are just wrapping up right now the one month this year in which congress has actually gone to work. when the republican party took over control of the house of representatives, you may remember that one of the things they did is gave themselves a lot less time at work. they changed the calendar for themselves. they expanded their vacation periods. they said they would work fewer days. the

no congress has ever done what this congress has done. that is they refuse to pass any substantive legislation at all. so it is an interesting experiment in american democracy it turns out. in the event congress chooses to stop governing, how much governing than the other parts of the government do to pick up the slack? that's the experiment we're all part of right now. at the supreme court, the five conservative justices in the court's majority today ruled that some companies are exempt from regulations of health insurance in obamacare. it's a weird ruling. we'll be talking about this later. the justices in the majority went out of their way to say your religious objections can only get you out of one part of this one law. said specifically only contraception laws are subject to religious beliefs. other laws aren't. if you're lucky enough to be employed at a company where five or fewer people hold at least 50% of the stock in the company and the people have religious beliefs about what contraception you're using, your boss gets to decide

but congress, what they should do, what congress should do is what congress did in the case that congressman burgess referred to, and that is pass a new law or use other powerful sources of leverage that congress has. >> so we could only act legally if both houses were controlled by the same party and largely in agreement. i mean, that effectively disenfranchises either from acting independently. >> well, i don't think that is right. of course, i share the experience that walter had with congress' past, we're both pretty grown up as that were. and often we've had congresses that different houses were in the hands of the other party but were still able to work together and make legislation happen. so i don't think it's beyond the power of the congress to do that. >> let me move to miss foley and you may want to comment on a couple of things but there is one in particular that i want you to address. because we sort of had this discussion, it seems to me, do we have to use every single weapon before it's available? that is, are we required to cut off funding even though we may have a lot of col

that was the 111th congress. that is, i believe, the 113th congress. that is perhaps a small point but it goes to show that this is not a kind of institutional injury. the 111th congress, god bless them, has gone upon its way. some of the members came back, some of the members didn't. different parties are in control, but the idea that this is an institutional injury when it is essentially just a dispute about how the president interprets a law. let me respond briefly and i will close with this. professor turley uses his considerable rhetorical powers to paint a picture of an uber-presidency where there's rule by majority of one and the legislative process is displaced. i see nothing like that in any of the tales about which we speak. neither the president nor the treasury department has asserted any prerogative to disregard the law, to suspend the law. yes, the president will accomplish some things by executive action he would prefer to accomplish by statutes by statutes are permanent but the president has has to have statute authority. nobody believe

but congress, what they should do, what congress should do is what congress did in the case that congressman burgess referred to, and that is pass a new law or use other powerful sources of leverage that congress has. >> so we could only act legally if both houses were controlled by the same party and largely in agreement. i mean, that effectively disenfranchises either from acting independently. >> well, i don't think that is right. of course, i share the experience that walter had with congress' past, we're both pretty grown up as that were. and often we've had congresses that different houses were in the hands of the other party but were still able to work together and make legislation happen. so i don't think it's beyond the power of the congress to do that. >> let me move to miss foley and you may want to comment on a couple of things but there is one in particular that i want you to address. because we sort of had this discussion, it seems to me, do we have to use every single weapon before it's available? that is, are we required to cut off funding even though we may have a lot of col

we want congress to do its job. we are not point to re-elect 90 or 95 percent of the congress if they are not doing basic national security issues. they called the hill and we in. that is probably -- if they will do that i think you could see a bigger chance for this. >> a great point to end on. thank you. i am sorry. we have run out of time. happy to take your question off line. unfortunately we do have to move on. before we do so i want to make a few comments. understood. i apologize. happy to talk to you offline. i do need to wrap up. [inaudible conversations] >> happy to talk to you. okay. i did not know you were a family member and tell you showed me this time. happy to talk to you offline. >> appreciate that not everyone is getting an opportunity to speak. thank you for volunteering. i think that we are probably all happy to participate alongside our c-span2 commissioner frans. with that, i would like to recognize a few people in the audience to have made all of this possible. without a permit would not have t

-- he asked the question that every member of congress opposed himself, is congress authorizing $130 million for warfare in vietnam, but they never appropriated that some of money for war in cambodia. in and around my congressional district, in eastern massachusetts, there lived the descendents of those who fought at concord and lexington. revolutionaries, two centuries ago, took up arms in a desperate and determined effort to gain the precious right of knowing and participating in the processes of their own government. the men who fought in the revolution at concord gathered in philadelphia from may to september, 1987 -- 1887. they came together to create a government. where no one would have to enter into armed rebellion to vindicate his right to be free of tyranny. the framers of the constitution, the ultimate your name was war -- the ultimate tyranny was war. kerry not illegally by the executive without the knowledge or consent of the congress. mr. randolph of virginia stated in the constitutional convention that the president under the constitution that they were writing would h

of congress very well. kennedy was very scared of letting him have too much power . cause he assumed the certainly makes the case that johnson could have improved some of kennedy's success in is negotiations with congress. they controlled all of the committees. they were very conservative. they were against a lot of the bills democrats were pushing and even if vice president johnson had a greater role before the civil rights movement gained full steam in 1964 kedge dee would have had trouble getting these bills out. >> when you are listening to these phone conversation what is is going through your mind? >> i lose myself. i lisp with earphones and listen to every single one. i am thinking about the difficulty of politics and absorbed by the subtle negotiations taking place. all of the figures that he interacts with, some great and horrible. the humanity is important in terms of how they get along. their relationships are important. i'ms it is the personal interaction. >> in his conversations with the republ

that was the 111th congress. that is, i believe, the 113th congress. that is perhaps a small point but it goes to show that this is not a kind of institutional injury. the 111th congress, god bless them, has gone upon its way. some of the members came back, some of the members didn't. different parties are in control, but the idea that this is an institutional injury when it is essentially just a dispute about how the president interprets a law. let me respond briefly and i will close with this. professor turley uses his considerable rhetorical powers to paint a picture of an uber-presidency where there's rule by majority of one and the legislative process is displaced. i see nothing like that in any of the tales about which we speak. neither the president nor the treasury department has asserted any prerogative to disregard the law, to suspend the law. yes, the president will accomplish some things by executive action he would prefer to accomplish by statutes by statutes are permanent but the president has has to have statute authority. nobody believe

that was the 111th congress. that is, i believe, the 113th congress. that is perhaps a small point but it goes to show that this is not a kind of institutional injury. the 111th congress, god bless them, has gone upon its way. some of the members came back, some of the members didn't. different parties are in control, but the idea that this is an institutional injury when it is essentially just a dispute about how the president interprets a law. let me respond briefly and i will close with this. professor turley uses his considerable rhetorical powers to paint a picture of an uber-presidency where there's rule by majority of one and the legislative process is displaced. i see nothing like that in any of the tales about which we speak. neither the president nor the treasury department has asserted any prerogative to disregard the law, to suspend the law. yes, the president will accomplish some things by executive action he would prefer to accomplish by statutes by statutes are permanent but the president has has to have statute authority. nobody believe

how does congress do this? >> there's going to be a new congress in january. this woman never voted -- no clearance for you. >> at the same time, there are things they've done that tick her off. oversight is essential to the system. last point. why does congress have the power of oversight? they have the power to create things. they said there will be a c.i.a. therefore, they have the right to say what are you guys doing? congress funds the nro. so they have the right to say what did you do with the money? i know the oversight systems of most of the democracies in the world, there's no country in the world that subjects its intelligence system to much scrutiny that we do. the system works. it's just not pretty. let me stop there and take questions. >> so given the time, i'm going to dispense with whatever questions i have and open the floor. >> thank you. i was wondering why if you ask what they do what they do, they say it's to protect the national security interests. and you talked about the historical oversight in congress. i was wondering, because the term

moreover, this congress has a remedy. if it doesn't like the way the president implemented the affordable care act, it can change the law. that would be a far better approach, one more consistent with our separation of powers, than this expensive and ill-conceived lawsuit. i urge the house to reject this effort and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reservices his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. the speaker does not have a good record on wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits. when the supreme court said the domedome could not be wasted -- they lost in the supreme court. now the speaker wants to waste more of the taxpayers' money on the merit

where is the congress? the congress has failed. time is running out, the christians and other religious majorities in iraq are being targeted for extinction, they need our help. literally during our time we will see the end of christianity in the place it began. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. speaker. as many of my colleagues know, i spent 30 years in a courtroom, one half of those as a judge, including two years on the north carolina supreme court. i have taken particular interest in house resolution 676. i spent considerable time researching the standing of the house to initiate litigation against a president or department heads or federal agencies to seek, quote, appropriate relief for failure to act in a matter consistent with the duties of the executive branch, end of quote. never before, mr. speaker, in the history of the congress has there been

speaker, it is -- madam speaker, it is my hope that one day we ask congress -- in congress will repeal the 2001 and the 2002 aumf. until that time comes, i believe that today represents a strong step toward reclaiming the constitutional power that we each have and are entrusted with to make decisions about going to war or declaring war. . i cannot emphasize enough that no decision is more important for a member of congress than a vote to send young men and women to fight and to die for our country. the main text of this resolution is simple. the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization. madam speaker, this is what madison meant when he said the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislation. may i have 30 more seconds, mr. chairman? mr. royce: i'll yield the entleman another 30 seconds. mr. jones: this is a monumental step toward reclaiming our constitutional authority. in closing, i want to thank representative

i think congress said that. but to be as responsive as i can to your question, the parade of horribles that the government offers you ought to sound familiar, because if you look at that parade of horribles social security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination every item on that list was included in justice scalia's opinion for the court in smith. and justice o'connor responded to that in her separate opinion and she said, look, you've got to trust the courts; just because free exercise claims are being brought doesn't mean that the courts can't separate the sheep from the goats. now, whatever -- >> well, she had an understanding of how the court worked pre-smith that was a kind of sherbert v. verner yoder understanding, which was we did a balancing, we looked at the government's interests, we took those very seriously, especially to the extent that there was harm to identifiable third parties and that it fell on an identifiable third party. that was basically you could not get an accommodati

we want congress to do its job. we are not point to re-elect 90 or 95 percent of the congress if they are not doing basic national security issues. they called the hill and we in. that is probably -- if they will do that i think you could see a bigger chance for this. >> a great point to end on. thank you. i am sorry. we have run out of time. happy to take your question off line. unfortunately we do have to move on. before we do so i want to make a few comments. understood. i apologize. happy to talk to you offline. i do need to wrap up. [inaudible conversations] >> happy to talk to you. okay. i did not know you were a family member and tell you showed me this time. happy to talk to you offline. >> appreciate that not everyone is getting an opportunity to speak. thank you for volunteering. i think that we are probably all happy to participate alongside our c-span2 commissioner frans. with that, i would like to recognize a few people in the audience to have made all of this possible. without a permit would not have t

are you going to work with congress. why don't you be specific in terms of money? why don't you send them a bill? >> we are talking about two different processes, one is the appropriations process. >> you have been a veteran of capitol hill. just for the benefit of people who are watching and thousands of people who are watching at home and absolutely enjoying this conversation, we are talking about two different processes. we have specific funding requests for additional resources. there is a separate process for the legislature giving the executive branch the authorization to use discretion. >> you need the house to pass something and the senate to pass something and how quickly do you need that? >> quickly. >> why don't you send them a bill. you sent them a bill for the highway trust fund. >> when we are seeking legislation from congress is to basically tell them what generally the goal that we would like to achieve in this case, allowing the secretary of homeland security to exercise greater discretion and allow congress to do their constitutionally-appointed d

and teasing congress about how little they do? when the president travels around the country they don't do anything and the crowd goes they don't do anything what effect will they have on congress that that is what the president spends his time on now? there is the little house keeping matter that there is stuff that congress does have to do and that the president can't do. the reason for the president's trip today was to talk about the fact that the bridge is being repaired. federal highway funding is being spent to fix the bridge. that was the set piece for the back drop today because of this letter sent today from the administration to all 50 states. 50 of these letters went out today telling all states today is july 1. most parts of the country this is known as construction season. summer is when we do the most work to repair roads and bridges and fill pot holes. it is july 1 today and on august 1 one month from today unless congress acts every state in the country will see on average a 28% immediate cut in the transportation

now i'm sad to leave the congress. i love the congress and i'm delighted that my wife is running for the congress because she's smarter and descent and certainly much prettier than i am. i will observe that my sadness has the poisonous atmosphere that we see in american politics today i'm comforted to know that they can only improve. so when the dictionary defines the word congress as a coming together it also defines the very way we can emerge from this current mess. first and foremost lit take a congress willing to put aside petty differences and live up to the definition of the word compromise is not a dirty word or evil thing cooperation is not an unspeakable act. the sooner that the congress realizes this and that american citizens realize this and that they begin impressing this view on their candidates t better the situation is going to get. so then the congress can begin to focus it's work more on the public interest. but it also is going to take an american people that are willing to and interested in seeing t

congress. very well aware of the cultural mix that is going on in mexico. we have about 400 years of cultures working together. so the fact that it's jo ann i think who is the one using the striking adjectives about things that would cause fear. i don't hear that in our conference. i don't see the republicans sitting here making these issues. i hear democrats who make them issues. she said be honest and tell people the benefits that they get at taxpayer expense. guest: well, many of the people are coming to my district, we have about 700 of them many mexico who was just talking to a health care provider yesterday and she's telling me they're bringing the children down if they have sickness or cough. they're seeing them locally. everyone is being fed, they're being housed. family units are being held together in they request asylum, they're being given a prompt hearing on these are the things that make america stand out. and i think that people are being treated fairly. now, i have seen the loca

many times congress didn't intend. you read a statute that says you shall not store hazardous wastes, when that statute was passed by don't think members of congress realized they were saying if you buy a piece of property you discovered toxic waste on it or storage chemicals or barrels, you buy a building and there are some chemicals stored in that building, in an ongoing business and you almost immediately report that, find out what it is, you report it, and the cost is several times, even more than what you bought the piece of property for. back to this gentleman, this is a real example. he actually said to the bp a you can just have the property. >> was foreclosed. >> can you just take the property? i am not sure that congress ever intended -- may be a misdemeanor but a civil fine or forfeiture of the property or something of that nature, do each of you agree that there may be should be a general statutes? >> no, candidly. no matter what we do, the system depends upon individual discretion of decisionsmakers and if

the congress has already shared draft legislation in this regard with congress which i would be pleased to resubmit to this task force. one example of the significant cost of stacking is the case of weldon angelos, a first-time non-violent offender whose 55-year sentence resulted in stacking mandatory minimums. i would ask whether our taxpayers are truly well served by spending $1.4 million or more to incarcerate mr. angelos for 55 years. thus, the judicial conference has agreed to seek legislation such as the safely valve act of 2013. the judicial conference also supports the policies contained in the smarter sentencing act of 2013. legislation that i know several members of this task force have co-sponsored. the third major public policy initiative that the judicial conference supports relating to overcriminalization is the sentencing commission's april 2014 decision to amend the guidelines to lower the base offense levels and quantity table across drug types. the commission is currently considering whether to make this decision retroactive. the judicial conference endorses these refo

leadership congress has to embrace it. the less the leaders in congress recognize publicly that this is an important issue it's not going to happen because they're going to have people pushing back real hard so it's got to be a public effort. they have to be armed with a push from the president and the white house to say -- this is important. so i'd like to see the whole national security apparatus from the president, nfc on down, making this top priority in all the conversations. >> tom, you had mentioned the role of the congressional leadership in pushing this ahead. what should they be doing? >> it is -- i think my colleagues brought up two very important points. one, it is a national security issue. it is a national security issue. i don't think anyone would argue the restructuring of congress after world war ii and subsequent restructuring from the department of war to the department of defense were more aggressive about the oversight of dod. that needs to be understood. this is not a management and organizational iss

if congress were to say we're devolving the highway. it's up to you, governors , then they would all do that. but if the governor makes legislation for revenue collection , and raises the tax cass, then these expenses have almost been for nothing. we need certainty from congress what it's going to do, and raise the gas tax over the next couple of years and then index it for inflation. it might not be the best option but it's the best right now and most political possible. >> thi possible. >> ray: this sets up an interesting thought. there is something about a national transportation network that you want a national view of rather than 50 different networks of revenue systems. if this was devolved to states, at the same time would you get what you need? would you get arkansas roads hitting texas roads in the right way? >> that articulates the issue right there. we're the united states of america. we're not the 50 states of america. if you look at the impact the highway has had on this country, it's been huge. i think we put at risk, we d

but a number of congress -- but a member of congress -- but congress has had a chance to do this since 2007 but we haven't. we need to give congress the opportunity to oversee d.h.s. progress or lack thereof this bill would solve the personal security issue by our -- by allowing workers who have h.m.e. cards to have access without having to get another federal credential. representing those plants, i saw what happened after the card and the concern of folks who had to pay more money for a federal i.d. card this bill, if passed, would protect that for folks who work in my plants. that's important to my constituents who have three cards and work in the plants and drive the trucks that deliver the raw materials and produce and move those products they produce. i urge my colleagues to join in the house homeland security committee which passed this legislation by voice vote and help homeland security secretary johnson who has been a vocal supporter of this legislation and vote in support of h.r. 4007. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from

of congress very well. he was a consummate insider. kennedy was very scared of letting them have too much power, because he assumed the more power he gave lyndon johnson, the more you would use and ultimately he would push his way too much into the inner decision-making circle. that cost him. you could make the case that johnson could have improved some of kennedy's negotiations with congress. but i still think the key figures and this time, the southern democrats who controlled all the committees. they were very conservative. they were against a lot of the bills liberals were pushing. even if vice president lyndon johnson had a greater role, i think before the civil rights movement gained full steam in 1964, kennedy would've had a lot of trouble getting these bills out. >> when you listen to these phone conversations lyndon johnson as having, what is going through your mind? >> i lose myself. anisten with earphones in office. i listen to every single one. what i am thinking is the difficulty of politics. i

in congress. >> so -- >> it has to be led by the president. >> so there is a bill in congress. i want to ask you a question -- >> there are many bills in congress. >> the bill that was passed by a bipartisan senate, democrats and republicans, sent to the house a year ago, that's a starting point. do you think that house republicans who lead the house of representatives should try to move something? because right now they're just saying no. >> yes, with one caveat. something substantive -- maybe this is it. maybe this headline is it. something substantive has to be down with regard -- >> to this current crisis. >> the immediate crisis, the humanitarian crisis, the ongoing crisis this administration lacks credibility. >> a couple of facts on that. governor, please join in here, a and, newt, you too, of course chblgs he ge chblgs. >> he gets to talk too? >> i love stephanie's facts. >> the president has taken lots of criticism from people on the left for the highest deportation rate every, higher in

congress hasn't passed it.n if it did, there is a bigger illegal immigration problem going on for years that they should be working on. not taking weeks of vacation. yes, i know the president says congress won't be in town why should he stick around. here is why: congress, same excuse. they say the president not around to solve problems. that's their green light to likewise take off. i don't know but. check your promises. then you go on vacation. real leaders do the right thing. they do the work they promised. washington, d.c. really is the city of no consequences and it's sad. that's my off-the-record comment tonight. coming up, donald trump taking on rosie o'donnell again. you have to hear what donald just said about rosy's return to the view. return to the view. you will [ female announcer ] there's a gap out there. that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if it becomes simpler... if frustration and paperwork decrease... if grandparents get to live at h

and how congress could do it better. so we're hopeful by talking about it in these terms and having people like especially secretary ridge talk from his perspective on homeland security why this must be done now. not five years from now, not ten years from now after an attack, why it must be now. >> very good. well, it's very difficult to add much to what my colleague just said, but let me try to supplement his observations with a few of my own. this is the bipartisan policy center, so i'm going to take a leap of faith, and on behalf of secretary johnson, secretary knoll low -- napolitano, secretary chertoff and yours truly, my plea today isn't to you, but to the leadership of the house and the senate: do something with regard to the massive, inefficient, ineffective oversight procedures dealing with the department of homeland security. we speak with one voice across the board, republicans and democrats, on this. and it's going to require some leadership in the house and in the senate. it's structural, it's organizationa

the members of congress, democratic members of congress will have to be the ones to do this. it can't just be the president. they have to talk about republican incompetence, the inability to get anything done and the consequences for individual americans for all of this michigoss the republicans are pulling. >> i want us to be focused. i'm in memphis tonight. >> mm-hmm. >> i want us to be focused. people around the country need to understand this is the most unproductive, do nothing congress in the history of this country and here they come again today with another stunt, talking about a lawsuit. a congress that will not do thinking in terms of legislation. zero in terms of jobs, in terms of even covered benefits. in terms of dealing with our veterans. the most do nothing congress of all time and now they want to initiate a lawsuit. >> i'm going to basically answer your question, reverend. you can just imagine people sitting at home around the dinner table coming home from are their second job trying to grab something to eat before they go out for the third job to make sure t

congress has become so gridlocked. whene dealing at a time there is tremendous frustration with a lack of action in washington. we want to make sure that the american people know that the president will act. we expected that we would get a reaction from republicans. there, as we went out you hear cries of imperial presidency, etc. we did not presume they would sue the president, but in some ways that is a validation of the idea that the executive actions we have taken are far from the small ball that accused it of being, but instead have forced the republicans to take in nearly unprecedented step of suing the president. that is going to come to fruition in the next week as a house will vote next week to authorize that lawsuit. aat is not going to cause loss of wind in our sails. said, at the end of the summer, as the president promised because of congress is lack of action in immigration reform, he will do what he can within his power. i suspect i will generate a reactionrly aggressive from the republicans, perhaps one

the congress after that. make no mistake, in may of next year, there will be no transportation bill, there will be no funding. congress will be even more nervous and confused with the transportation problem that will be more complex it. will be more expensive and the politics i'd sad to say will be harder not easier. my good friend, the chair of the ways and means committee, does have a proposal. he's never had a hearing on it. and it was dismissed when it was announced by his own speaker, if i quote, blah, blah, blah. this is a sad moment for me. but it's not too late for us to do something about it. we need to move forward, have a tighter timetable, let's finally have a hearing in ways and means, let's have a proposal going forward. i'm perfectly willing to work in august to do this. i'd be happy for us to add days in september. we shouldn't recess in october to campaign and leave a big question mark. it's true that it takes time to put these things together. but we won't be putting it together next spring.

instead we have members of congress standing and applause when the president says he would bypass congress to enact his agenda. mr. speaker, half this body stood up in applause. it should have been in defiance. here we have members in congress cheering for a president for basically saying he's going to eliminate their purpose here. this isn't the first president whose actions have raised alarms over overreaching executive, and it's clear if we do nothing it will not be the last. i urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, to stop the assault on separation of powers, let's finally say to the executive, enough's enough. let's finally say, support the constitution, support the separation of powers, and support this rule. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend from florida for yielding me such time -- the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. that's ok with you, mr. speaker?

let's compare this congress with congresses in the past.ck in 1948, when harry truman famously ran against the do-nothing 80s congress, that group managed to enact 906 public laws. that's the blue bar all the way to the left. compare that to the 112th congress. but so far, this current 113th congress has enacted just 142 bills into law as of today. again, on tract to be the least productive ever and a lot of those bills are just -- let's make it maple sunday. we'll be right back. when you run a business, you can't settle for slow. that's why i always choose the fastest intern. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. >>> welcome back to "hardball." yesterday, with republicans in congress racing to vote to sue him, president obama had these strong words, calling out the d

congress must speak. congress must act. this resolution should have passed, would direct the president to send our troops home from iraq within 30 days or should the president determine that such a rapid withdrawal would pose a security -- security questions, then no later than by the end of the year, nearly six months from now. it would not -- and i repeat -- it would not require those troops that have been deployed to safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel from withdrawing. they could remain and carry out their crucial roles of protecting our civilian personnel on the ground in iraq. mr. speaker, we need to take up this resolution. we need to debate our military engagement in this latest war in iraq. we need to have a clean up or down vote, whether we stay in iraq or whether we bring our troops home. we owe that much to our troops and their families. we owe that much to the american people. and we owe at least that much to our own democracy and democratic institutions that require congress to be