pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, you are compassionate and merciful. we give you thanks for giving us another day. this morning the house welcomes the prime minister of israel. may he find a welcome here and may the partnership of our two countries continue into a future of mutual respect and security among the community of nations. there are many issues which press upon our nation now and more lie upon the legislative horizon. put forth an abundance of wisdom, knowledge and understanding upon the members of congress and upon your people so that together solutions for the betterment of our nation might be forged. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done 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. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the lady from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the lady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: 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 will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the lady from arizona ms. mcsally. ms. mcsally: please join me in the pledge. 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, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 3 2015, at 9:32 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 431. appointments, election assistance of advisors, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces that when the two houses meet in joint meeting to hear an address by his excellency, benjamin netanyahu prime minister of israel, only the doors immediately opposite the speaker and those immediately to his left and right will be open. no one will be allowed on the floor of the house who does not have the privilege of the floor of the house. due to the large attendance that is anticipated, the rule regarding the privilege of the floor must be strictly enforced. children of members will not be permitted on the floor. the cooperation of all members is requested. the practice of reserving seeds prior to the joint immediating by placard will not be allowed. members may reserve their seats by physical presence only following the security sweep of the chamber. pursuant to the order of the house of thursday, february 26, 2015, the house stands in recess subject to the call >> the house taking a break to prepare the chamber for a joint meeting. members expected to reconvene at about 10:45 a.m. eastern and the address to start at 11:00 eastern. news about funding for the homeland security department. house republicans say they will hold a vote today on funding the department for the rest of the fiscal year without language to block immigration policy. speaker boehner has told his colleagues a clean bill will come up for a vote, according to a tweet. john boehner laid out three options. he said shutdown was not an option. we will keep you updated as more news becomes available. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaking to congress today. there was a short video of the speech released earlier today. >> america's bond with israel is stronger than politics at the moment. that will be made clear when he addresses the united states congress republicans and democrats. table talk about the great threats we face from radical islam and iran. this is an important message and an important time. i hope you will plan on watching. i invited to tune it at speaker.gov/live. >> expected to speak at 11:00 eastern time under an hour from now. we will take your calls. he spoke yesterday as well. he was followed in the evening by remarks by susan rice. we will show you as much of her speech as we can before the prime minister starts his remarks. ♪ rice: good evening everyone. it is great to be back at aipac. [applause] rosie, thank you so much for your warm introduction. i also want to thank howard core, bob cohen, lillian pincus and my old friend lee rosenberg, and all of aipac's board and members for welcoming me tonight. i also want to thank the members of congress. [applause] i want to thank all the members of congress who represent america's strong bipartisan support for the state of israel. [applause] and all the young people here today, some 3000, who represent -- [applause] some 3000 young people who represent the bright future of the u.s.-israel special relationship. i brought one of those young people with me tonight. my 17-year-old son jake, who insisted he had to come to aipac. [applause] but i want to take a moment, before i begin, to remember three young men who aren't with us here today. i want to call us back to those terrible days last summer when we were united in grief over the horrifying kidnapping and murder of three israeli teenagers. [applause] as a mother, my heart breaks for such unspeakable loss. those boys were our boys. and we continue to mourn their tragic loss. the last time i spoke at aipac it was to the synagogue initiative lunch. this group tonight is a little bit larger. [laughter] but when i finished that speech, more than 400 rabbis thanked me in hebrew. now, that is something i will never forget. and the words of their song reflects the spirit that brings me here tonight. [speaking hebrew] [applause] "how good it is and how pleasant when we sit together in brotherhood." it is a great song and i admit where i first encountered it in church, it was not the original hebrew. that song always reminds me how much we can do together when we unite in common purpose. and it goes to the heart of what aipac is all about. what the relationship between israel and the united states is all about -- brotherhood togetherness, unity. that is because the u.s.-israel alliance is not just rooted in our mutual interest, vital as they are. it is also rooted in the values of freedom and democracy that we share. and it is in the friendship and fellowship between ordinary israelis and americans. and for me personally, it is a warmth that is rooted in my very first visit to israel. i was just 14, traveling with my younger brother and my beloved late father. my dad was on the board of twa. some of you are old enough to remember that once-great airline. [laughter] we arrived on one of the first ever flights from egypt to israel just after the camp david accords were signs. we had an unforgettable visit. the power of which has stayed with me all my life. we bowed our heads in sorrow. we walked the lanes of the old city climbed masada, floated in , the dead sea, and pick fruit best picked fruit at a kibbutz. my first memories of israel remain etched in my soul. put simply -- the relationship between the united states and israel is not just one between states, it is one between two people's and the millions of personal, intimate connections that bind us. [applause] our relationship has deepened and grown through different presidents and prime ministers for nearly 70 years. it was president truman, a democrat, who just 11 minutes after david ben-gurion declared israel's independence, made the united states the first country to recognize the state of israel. [applause] it was president nixon, a republican, who made sure that america stood with israel as it fought for survival on one terrible yom kippur so that its people could declare [speaking hebrew]. [applause] "the people of israel live." it was president carter who helped israel forged an historic peace with egypt that endures to this day. and it was president clinton and president george w. bush who backed israel as it took more brave steps for peace and as it endured terrorist attacks from hezbollah and hamas. the relationships between the united states and the state of israel is not a partnership between individual leaders or political parties, it is an alliance between two nations rooted in the unbreakable friendship between our two peoples. [applause] it is not negotiable and it never will be. [applause] our alliance grows [speaking hebrew]. "from generation to generation." that is what counts. that is what we have to protect. as john f. kennedy said back in 1960, "friendship for israel is not a partisan matter, it is a national commitment." [applause] no one knows this better than all of you. for decades, aipac has built bipartisan support for america's special relationship with israel. that is why every president from harry truman to barack obama has begun with a fundamental premise, that is that strengthening the security of israel is in the national interest of the united states. [applause] president obama's commitment to israel is deep and personal. i know because i see it every day. i first saw it when i accompanied then-senator obama to israel in 2008. i saw it when he surveyed with horror the stacks of charred rockets that hamas had fired on israel, and when he walked through the hollowed-out homes. that same year, president obama came to this conference, still a senator, and he made a promise. he said israel's security is sacrosanct. and each day over the past six years, president obama has kept that promise. [applause] the president is profoundly committed to ensuring that israel is never alone. [applause] that is why today, security cooperation between our two countries is not just strong, it is stronger that it has ever been. [applause] both president obama and prime minister netanyahu have called it "unprecedented," and that is the way it is going to stay. [applause] president obama has met with prime minister netanyahu more times than with any almost other world leader. as national security advisor, i am in nearly constant communication with my friends and israeli counterpart, who i am so pleased is here tonight. [applause] i also want to thank his predecessor who is also here tonight and who was kind enough to greet me backstage. [applause] and i have to say hello to my dear friend ron, who served together with me for many years of the united nations. [applause] so, together, he and i host the u.s.-israel consulted it grew, to make sure we are working closely in the highest levels of our government. our armed forces conduct extensive exercises together and our military and intelligence leaders consult continually. under this administration, in times of tight budgets, our security to israel has increased. since president obama took office, the united states has provided israel with more than $20 billion in foreign military financing. [applause] last year, we provided israel with the largest package of security assistance ever. [applause] and that is money very well spent because it goes directly to bolstering israel's ability to defend itself by itself in a very tough neighborhood. [applause] it goes to protecting israeli citizens and to strengthening a vital american ally. new defense technologies and access to the most advanced military equipment in the world. president obama is determined to ensure that israel -- i'm sorry. when israel receives the f-15 joint strike fighter next year it will be the only nation in the middle east with a fifth generation aircraft. [applause] since 2009, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and producing the david sling missile defense program and the missile system. we have invested more than $1 billion in the iron dome system. [applause] when i visit israel last may, i saw the technology firsthand at the air force base. and last summer, as hamas terrorist rockets rained down on israeli cities, people saw how the dome save the lives literally every day. literally every day. [applause] during the height of that conflict, with sirens wailing and israeli citizens huddling in bomb shelters, united states stood up for israel's right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks, even as we work with the israeli government to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. and when the israeli government made an urgent request for an additional $225 million to support iron don't batteries, president obama's response was immediate and clear. he said, "let's do it." [applause] so within days, legislation was drafted, passed through congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and president obama signed it into law. at that critical moment, we replenished israel's arsenal of iron dome interceptor missiles. that is what it means to be an ally. [applause] our unwavering commitment to israel's security is why we will never give up on a just and comprehensive peace between israelis and palestinians. [applause] it will require hard decisions but the united states will remain a steadfast partner. like past administrations, republican and democratic, we believe that a truly lasting peace can only be forged by direct talks between the two parties. [applause] like past administrations, we are concerned by the latter actions that you wrote trust and ensure legitimacy. like every administration republican and democratic, since the six-day war, we have opposed israeli settlement activity and we oppose palestinian steps to throw up the further obstacle to peace, including actions against israel at the criminal court. [applause] the only path to ensure israel's long-term security is to bring about a viable, sovereign, palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with a democratic jewish state of israel. [applause] israel's security, our mutual security, is also at the heart of one of president obama's most important foreign-policy objectives -- ensuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. [applause] as president obama has repeated many times, we are keeping all options on the table to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. as he said in jerusalem and i quote "iran must not get a nuclear weapon." "this is not a danger that can be contained and he added that america will do what we must to prevent a nuclear armed iran." [applause] president obama said it, he meant it, and those are his orders to us all. [applause] that is still the way that we see the danger of a nuclear iran today. given their support for terrorism, the risk for an arms race in the region and the danger to the entire regime and ira with a nuclear weapon is an unacceptable threat to the united states of america. [applause] we understand the unique concerns of our israeli friends and partners. in jerusalem, president obama made plain, and i quote, "when i consider israel's security, i also think about the people who have a living memory of the holocaust. faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed iranian government that has called for israel's destruction. no wonder israelis view this as an existential threat." but this is not simply a challenge for israel, it is a danger to the entire world including the united states." end of qujote. [applause] now i want to be very clear. a bad deal is worse than no deal. [applause] and, if that is the choice there will be no deal. [applause] now, negotiations continue, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. as of today, significant gaps remain between the international community and iran. i am not going to get into all the details about ongoing negotiations, nor should sensitive details of such a negotiation be discussed in public. but i do want to make five key points about our approach to the negotiations. first, with the joint plan of action, we have already succeeded in halting iran's nuclear program and rolling it back in key respects. [applause] let's recall what has been achieved over the last year. iran is doing away with its existing stockpile of its most highly enriched uranium. [applause] iran has capped its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. iran has not constructed additional enrichment facilities. iran has not installed or operated new centrifuges including its next-generation models. iran has stopped construction at its potential plutonium reactor in iraq. in short, iran is further away from a nuclear weapon than it was a year ago. [applause] and that makes the world safer including israel. moreover, we are not taking anything on trust. what matters are iran's actions, not its words. [applause] that is why, as part of the joint plan of action, we have insisted upon and achieved unprecedented access to iran's nuclear program. before the joint plan of action, inspections happened only every few weeks, sometimes every few months. today the international atomic energy agency has daily access at iran's key nuclear facilities. verifying that iran is meeting its commitment. if i can paraphrase president reagan with a twist -- our approach is distrust but verify. [applause] second, we have kept the pressure on iran. i know this firsthand because when i was u.n. ambassador president obama personally directed me to make sure that the security council's sanctions had bite, and they do. today, even with limited sanctions relief, iran's economy remains isolated from the international financial system and cut off from the vast majority of its foreign currency reserves. iran's oil exports have dropped almost 60% since 2012. the rialto has depreciated by more than 50%, and iran's overall gdp has shrunk by almost 10%. all told, sanctions have deprived iran of more than $200 billion in lost revenue. [applause] i should be precise and say that is oil revenue, not all revenue. more has been lost beyond that. but sanctions are a tool, not an end in themselves. the pressure now, after we and our partners have brought to bear, is whether we can verify that iran cannot pursue a nuclear weapon. the question now is whether we can achieve a comprehensive deal, a good deal. this is my third point. a good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for iran to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon. [applause] every single pathway, any deal must prevent iran from developing weapons-grade plutonium at iraq or anywhere else. [applause] any deal must prevent iran from enriching uranium at its nuclear facility at fort out. that is the site we uncovered buried deep underground and revealed to the world in 2009. any deal must increase the time it takes iran to reach breakout capacity. that is, as you know, the time it would take to produce a single box worth of weapons-grade uranium. today experts suggest iran's breakout window is just two to three months. we seek to extend that to at least one year. any deal must ensure frequent and intrusive inspections at iran's nuclear site. including the uranium mills that produced the material fed into iran's enrichment and conversion facility to create a multilayer transparency regime that provides the international community with the confidence it demands. that is the best way to prevent iran from pursuing a covert path to a nuclear weapon, to stop iran from working toward a bomb in secret. any deal must also address the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. [applause] and, going forward, we will not accept a deal that fails to provide access we need to ensure that iran's program is peaceful. [applause] and any deal must last more than a decade, with additional provisions ensuring greater transparency into iran's program for an even longer period of time. that is what we are working toward, a good long-term comprehensive deal that verifiably prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. [applause] that brings me to my fourth point. we cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal. i know that some of you will be urging congress to insist that iran forgo its domestic enrichment capacity entirely. [applause] but -- but, as desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable. even our closest international partners in the p5 plus one do not support denying iran ever to pursue peaceful -- it would undermine the sanctions we have posed so effectively together. simply put, that is not a viable negotiating position. [applause] nor is it even attainable. the plain fact is no one can make iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses. we must also understand what will happen if these negotiations collapse. i know someone argue that we should just impose sanctions and walk away, but let's remember -- [applause] let's remember -- my friends, let's remember that sanctions unfortunately have never stopped iran from advancing its program. so here is what is likely to happen without a deal. iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges. iran will seek to fuel its reactor in iraq. iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile and will lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today. congress has played a hugely important role in helping to build our sanctions on iran, but they should not play the spoiler now. additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiations would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the united states to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal. putting us in a much weaker position and endangering the sanctions regime itself. meanwhile, the iranians are aware that if they walk away from a deal, congress will pass new sanctions immediately, and president obama will support them. [applause] so if iran refuses to resolve the matter diplomatically, and is clearly to blame for that failure, its isolation will only increase. the cost will continue to grow. finally, i know that some question a deal of any duration, but it has always been clear that the pursuit of an agreement of indefinite duration would result in no agreement at all. the question is, what is the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? a deal that extends for a decade or more would accomplish this goal better than any other course of action, longer by far than military strikes, which would only set back iran's program for a fraction of that time. and, at the end of any deal, iran would still be required to provide comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities, and to provide the international community the assurance that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons. and, if it fails to do so, we would have the ability to make our own decisions about how to move forward, just as we do today. there is simply no alternative that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon better or longer than the type of comprehensive deal we seek. we can always bring consequences to bear for the sake of our shared security -- harsh consequences. but precisely because this is such a serious issue, we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one. soundbites will not stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. [applause] strong diplomacy, backed by pressure, can. [applause] and, if diplomacy fails, let's make it clear to the world that it is iran's responsibility. [applause] one final word on iran. even if we succeed in neutralizing the nuclear threat from iran, we will still face other threats. iran's sponsorship of terrorism its gross human rights abuses, its efforts to destabilize neighboring states, its support for hamas and hezbollah, and its threats against israel. we will counter iran and the full range of threats it poses. tehran must understand the united states will never, ever waver in the defense of our security or the defense of our allies and partners, including israel. [applause] the bottom line is simple. we have israel's back, come hell or high water. [applause] and i have been with you all right there through some pretty high waters. i was proud to fight again and again for israel's security and its basic legitimacy at the united nations. [applause] from leading the charge against the deeply flawed goldstone report to casting this administration's only veto in the security council to block a counterproductive resolution. [applause] as ambassador power described to you this morning, when it comes to combating the shameful bias against israel at the united nations, israel has no better friend than the united states. [applause] last march, we were the sole no vote in the human rights council against anti-israel measures five separate times. [applause] earlier today, secretary kerry went into the belly of the beast and told the human rights council in geneva point-blank that its obsession with israel risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization. [applause] and, last month, with israel and the european union, the united states organized the first united nations general assembly meeting to combat anti-semitism. no country is immune from criticism. take it from this former u.n. ambassador. but when it comes to criticism and when criticism singles out one country unfairly, bitterly viciously, over and over, that is just wrong, and we all know it. [applause] >> we take you now live to the floor of the house. >> mr. speaker, the president pro tem, and the united states sent it -- senate. [applause] [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] [indiscernible talking] >> the joint meeting will come to order. members of the committee of the house support his excellency, benjamin netanyahu to come to the chamber. the gentleman from louisiana the gentlewoman from washington state, the gentleman from oregon , jim and indiana, the gentlelady from kansas, the gentlewoman from north carolina the gentleman from california, the gentlewoman from florida the gentlewoman from texas, the gentleman from new york, and the gentleman from illinois. the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, the gentleman from new york, the gentleman from new york, the gentlewoman from new york, the gentleman from new york, the german from florida the derailment from florida, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the gentleman from colorado. >> his excellency benjamin netanyahu into the house chamber. the senator from kentucky, the senator from south dakota, the settlements -- the gentleman -- the senator from wyoming. the senator from tennessee. the senator from illinois. the senator from new york. the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez, and the senator for maryland. speaker boehner: the members of the committee who elect the chamber through the lobby doors. >> mr. speaker, the acting theme of the diplomatic court. [applause] [indiscernible talking] [indiscernible talking] >> the prime minister of israel. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] speaker boehner: members of congress, i had the distinct honor of introducing to you his excellency, benjamin netanyahu. [applause] prime minister netanyahu: speaker of the house, john boehner, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and house majority leader mccarthy. i also want to acknowledge senator democratic leader harry reid. harry reid, it is good to see you back on your feet. [applause] it is true what they say to you cannot keep a good man down. i am deeply humbled for the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. [applause] i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive me being here as lyrical. that was never my intention. i want to thank you democrats and republicans for your common support for israel, year after year, decade after decade. [applause] i know no matter which side of the aisle you said, you stand with israel. [applause] the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics and it must always remain above politics. [applause] because america and israel, we center -- share a common destiny, of a promised land, church freedom, and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents, from harry truman to barack obama. [applause] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. some of that is widely known. [applause] like strengthening security corporation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well-known. i called in 2010 when we have the forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011, we had our embassy in cairo under siege and again, he provided vital assistance in crucial moments. support for more centers during operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. [applause] in each of those moments, i called the president, and he was there. some of what the president has done for israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between american presidents and an israeli prime minister. but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. [applause] and israel is grateful to you the american congress, for your support. for supporting us in so many ways especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including iron dome. [applause] last summer, millions of israelis were protected from thousands of hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our iron dome. [applause] thank you, america. thank you for everything you have done for israel. my friends, i have come here today because, as prime minister of israel, i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country in the future of my people. iran's >> for nuclear weapons. we are an ancient people. in our nearly 4000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the george people. tomorrow night, on the george holliday, we read the book of esther. we will read of a powerful persian who plotted to destroy the george people from 2500 years ago. but a courageous jewett woman exposed the plot and gained for the george people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. the plot was foiled. our people were saved. [applause] today, the george people face another attempt by yet another persian to destroy us. iran's is supreme leader spews the oldest hatred of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be annihilated. in iran, there is not exactly free internet p are but he tweets that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe iran threatens the jewett state but not the george people, listen to the leader of hezbollah, iran's's chief terrorist proxy. he said, if all those juice gathered in israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. but iran's's regime is not merely a george problem any more than the nazi regime was merely a george problem for the 6 million shoes murdered by the nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in world war ii. iran's's regime poses a great threat not only to israel, but also to the piece of the entire world. to understand just how dangerous iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are a very talented people they are heirs to one of the world's is great civilizations. in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. that year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for iran. it directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect iran's's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime's founder exhorted his followers to export a revolution throughout the world. i am standing here in washington, d.c., and the difference is so start. america's's founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. iran's's founding document urges death, tierney, and the pursuit of jihad. the states are collapsing. iran is charging into the void to do just that. their goons in gaza, its lackeys in lebanon, it's revolutionary guards, are clutching israel. backed by iran, assad is slaughtering syrians. shiite militias are rampaging. backed by iran, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the red sea. along with the straits of her moose, that would give iran -- just last week, iran carried out a military exercise, blowing up a u.s. aircraft carrier. that is just last week. while they were having nuclear talks with the united states. unfortunately for the last 36 years, iran's's attacks against the united states have been anything but mocked and the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage, murdered hundreds of american soldiers in beirut, and is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american servicemen and women in iraq and afghanistan. the on the middle east iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the community center and helped al qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in africa. it even attempted to assassinate the saudi and acid are right here in washington, d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals -- baghdad, damascus, beirut. if iran's's aggression is left unchecked, more is certain to follow. at a time when many hope iran will join the community of nations, iran is easy gobbling up the nations. [applause] we must all stand together to stop iran's's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. [applause] two years ago we were told to give foreign ministers a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. the government persecutes christians, hangs gays, and executes even more prisoners than before. last year, the same who charms western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of the terrorist mastermind who spilled more american blood than any other terrorist sides osama bin laden. i would like to see someone ask him a question about that. iran's's regime is as radical as ever. it subscribes to death to america, as loud as ever. this should not be surprising because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. that is why this regime will always he an enemy of america. do not be fooled. the battle between iran and isis does not turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. one calls itself the islamic republic and the other causes of islamic state here both want to impose a militant empire first on the region and then on the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that order. in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for america or israel no peace for christians, juice, or muslims who do not share the medieval greek. no freedom for anyone. when it comes to iran and isis, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [applause] the difference is that isis is armed with butcher knives and iran consumed the armed with intercontinental lipstick missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember, i will say it one more time, the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. we cannot let that happen. [applause] but that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is excepted by iran. that deal will not present -- prevent iran from nuclear weapons. it will all but guarantee iran gets those weapons -- lots of them. let me explain why. while the final deal has not yet in science certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. you do not need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran. the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break out time. break out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of center fuses used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. because iran's's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's's breakout time would be very short about a year by u.s. assessment and even shorter by israel. if iran's's work on advanced centrifuges is not stopped the breakout time could still be a lot shorter. true certain restrictions would be imposed on iran's's nuclear program and iran's's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. here is the problem. inspectors documented violations. they do not stop them. in factors -- inspectors viewed north korea but that did not stop i think north korea turned off the camera, check out the inspections. within a few years, it got the bomb. now, we are warned that within five years, north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. like north koreait has done that on three separate occasions. like north korea, iran broke the blocklocks, shut off the camera. iran defies inspectors and plays a good game of hide-and-cbheat with them. the iaa said iran refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was caught twice operating secret nuclear facilities, facilities that inspectors did not know existed. right now iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we do not know about, the u.s. and israel. if there is no undeclared insulation today in iran it will be the first time in 20 years doesn't have one. iran has proven time and again that he cannot be trusted. that is why the first major concession is a source of great concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. the second concession creates a greater danger. that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. virtually all of the restrictions will expire in about a decade. a decade may seem like a long time in political life. it is the link -- blink in the eye in the life of our children. we have the responsible to consider will happen when there sanctions will have been lifted. iran would be free to build a nuclear capacity that could reduce many nuclear bombs. the supreme leader says that openly that iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges. not 6000, by 10 times that amount 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. iran could make the fuel for entire nuclear arnold -- arsenal, and this in a matter of weeks. john kerry confirmed last week that iran could possess that centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. i want you to think about that. a former sponsor the for most sponsored of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough uranium for entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, and this with full international legitimacy. if iran's ballistic missile program is not part of the deal, and so far iran refuses to put it on the negotiating table. iran could have the means to deliver that arsenal to the far corners of the earth including every part of the united states. say you see, my friends, there are still terroristtwo major concessions. leaving iran with a vast program and lifting the restrictions in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb but paves t heirheir way to the. they believe the alternative is worse. i disagree. i do not believe iran's radical regime change after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years. this deal would only whet iran's appetite for more. with a be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and the economy is stronger? if iran is gobbling up four countries right now, how many more countries will they devour when sanctions are lifted? was a fund less -- wiillll they fund less terrorism? why should the regime change for the better when they can enjoy the best of both worlds? this is a question that everyone asks in our region. israel's neighbors, iran's neighbors know that iran will sponsor more terrorism when it's economy is in shackles and has a clear path to the bomb. many neighbors say they will respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. this deal will change the middle east for the worst. a deal that is supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation with spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal when update farewell to arms, but a farewell to arms control. the middle east will soon be crisscrossed. a region would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone thinks this deal kicks they can down the road, think again. when we get down that road, we will face a much more dangerous iran a middle east littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen, i have come it to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and our children's future. restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and the world. [applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. stopped its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [applause] second second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country israel, the one and only jewish state. [applause] thank you. if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change his behavior for a deal is signed, they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [applause] if iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change his behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [applause] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [applause] my friends, what about no alternative to the steel, that the nuclear know-how cannot be erased. that the nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is assessing with the proposed deal seeks to do. nuclear know-how without infrastructure does not get you very much. a race car driver without a car cannot drive. without thousands of centrifuges or heavy water facilities, iran cannot make nuclear weapons. [applause] iran's nuclear program can be rolled back beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse and the price of oil. [applause] if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often happens, call their bluff. day will be back. they need the deal more than you do. [applause] and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business with iran, you have the power to make then need it even more. my friends for over a year, we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. this is a bad deal. it is a very bad deal. we are better off without it. [applause] now we are being told the only alternative to this that deal with his war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [applause] a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time. it teach the restrictions on the nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. a better deal that will not give iran an easy path to a bomb. a better deal that israel and it's neighbors may not like but with which we could live, literally. and no country has a greater stake then israel in a good deal that removes as such. ladies and gentlemen history has placed us in a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. o leads to ane dad deal that will at best curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for a while. it will lead to a nuclear armed iran whose aggression will lead to war. the second half, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear armed iran, nuclear rise to middle east, and the perfect consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know, you have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one les traveleds, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country the security of the middle east, and the peace we all desire. [applause] standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner elie was out -- elia wiesel. your life inspires us to give meaning to the words "never agai n." and i wish i could promise you elie that the lessons of history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [applause] not to sacrifice the future for the present. not to ignore aggression in hopes of gaining an illusory peace. the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. [cheers] we are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. we were stored our ancient home. the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. for the first time in 100 generations, we can defend ourselves. [applause] this is why as prime minister of israel i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [applause] but i know that israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel. you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors. [applause] facing me in the gallery overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promised land. moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. [speaking hebrew] "be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them." my friends may israel and america always stand together, strong and resolute. maybe neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. may we face the future with confidence and hope. may god bless israel and the united states of america. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] thank you. thank you very much. thank you, all. you are wonderful. thank you, america. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> the chair declares the joint meeting of the two house is now resolved. the house will continue in recess. >> and the address by benjamin netanyahu wrapping up and the house going out to recess. we will bring you back to the house as soon as they gavel back in. we will be taking your phone calls about the speech right here on the floor of the house to a joint meeting of congress. the numbers are up on your screen. also join us online on facebook.com/cspan. you can also send us a tweet. we will take a look at some tweets coming through after the speech. we will take a look at who is sitting at the dais alongside the speaker. craig kaplan tweeting -- steve of montana -- showing a picture of his lapel pin. patricia says -- a number not attending because of the controversy. the speaker had asked the prime minister without consulting the white house. another from john -- one more. ann says -- and of course it was an occasioned that resulted in a number of outstanding ovations. making some comments, cheering during the speech. we will be taking your calls. dakota is on the line. what are your thoughts? caller: he touched some serious points. he did not get political. i think the democrats were scared with the sensitive material. he pointed out twi io facts. you could google parts of his speech. he happens to be right. the democrats got worked up over nothing. i would say that to anyone. thank you so much for c-span. thank you. >> ray is on the line for democrats. caller: hi. i think the activity of having him speak i think it was a shameful act. i think it was a shameful presentation. how dare a foreign official address our congress, to lobby against something that our president and the state department are currently working on? i think it is shameful to have him present to lobby the public to try to change public opinion and to make it seem like our congress is in support of him. as opposed to the support of our president. >> the prime minister does face elections in his own country three weeks away. kansas city, kansas, go ahead. caller: once again, many of the american people support the movement, what is going on with the crisis in the middle east. i find this disrespectful. netanyahu would never done this with the bill clinton or george w. bush. this is a way to undermine the president once again. i do not mind having piece with iran. if we can work on a peace agreement, i am for that. if netanyahu undermines our president, i have a problem with that. >> pennsylvania. caller: good morning. caller: when he makes a statement. israel's army can stand alone. let's be real israel's army is nothing without united states' money. this guy is so fearful of not being re-elected. what worries me is he is ready to fire the first shot. he has as much hate for arabs as arabs have for him and i think we are in a frightening cross roads and i will be scare to death to hear him fire the first shot. host: speaker boehner tehran or white house, what difference does it make? let netanyahu speak. some guests in the gallery with cheers calls, that is not allowed under house rules it was visitors and not members of congress. if iran threatens to walk away from the table. call their bluff. one of the things mentioned in the prime minister's speech. if you missed any of it watch it on c-span tonight 8:00 p.m. tonight. having wrapped up a few minutes ago. taking your phone calls and your opinions of what you thought of the prime minister's comments. carol on the independents line. >> i have sat here and catched this. first of all, i'm a veteran. i sat here and watched this speech, i agree with netanyahu 110%. i used to be a democrat. i did not register at a republican because i'm not satisfied with everything the republicans do. i'm registered as an independent. this country needs to come together and work with the republicans and democrats and independents. and those 55 democrats that boycotted this speech today should be ashamed of themselves. didn't say you had to agree with everything they said but still should have been there and i agree with everything the prime minister from israel has said because iran is going to get the nuclear bomb. whether we get a deal with them or not. and the people who are disagreeing with that and you can have your own opinion and i respect you for that. but watch on the news how iran has been doing other countries and all, and if you can't see what's going on, you need to open your eyes and look what's going on. as far as the president, he hasn't been transparent with everything but he's my president. i still respect him. and that's all i got to say about this comment on this speech and i'm all for. host: louisiana georgia is on the line for democrats. caller: i'm calling to express my opinion about the speech that was just held -- i was watching it on c-span. i learned as a ninth grader that the executive office is the highest office of the land the presidency should be respected at all times. i don't have a problem with the prime minister speaking before congress, but i do have a problem with the total disrespect that was shown to our president, barack obama, with boehner not getting permission or at least running it through the white house to have the prime minister come and speak. everyone knows that the prime minister came to bolster his ratings before his upcoming election. this is all political theater and i think it shows total disrespect for the presidency of the united states of america, the greatest country in the world. host: elections coming up less than three weeks away. the president faces his challenger. and herzog getting closer to him in the polls and trying to soften the supporters from supporting benjamin netanyahu. jean is on the line for republicans. caller: i was watching the coverage and i just felt like i had stepped out of the twilight zone for a little bit. but the world felt a little bit sane as i was listening to him. he was espousing views that have been the foundation of american culture. it's the things that have bound us together. and i just -- it was just really nice to hear the voice of reason. it was refreshing. it was giving him a continuous standing ovation not just the viewing audience but our representatives, the people we voted in. and this is the country's core belief. this isn't a personal assault against obama that netanyahu was here. what he had to say was truth. and i have always been taught that we re-examine history so we don't repeat it and to see him there and to have that message, i just thought it was very encouraging and inspiring. and it just gave me a little bit of hope, which i just don't really have a lot of times. host: we will look at what some of what benjamin netanyahu had to say. netanyahu pointed out during his speech, he said i deeply regret that some seeing me being here as political. that was not my intention. >> i know that my speech has been the subject of much covers -- controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive it as being political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you for your common support for israel. year after year, decade after decade. [applause] >> i know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit you stand with israel. [applause] >> the alliance has been above politics and must always remain above politics. because america and israel we share a common destiny the destiny of promised land that cherish freedom and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of american -- of america's people and of america's presidents from harry truman to barack obama. [applause] we appreciate all president obama has done for israel. some of that is widely known. some of that is widely known like strengthening cooperation and intelligence sharing and some of what the president has done for israel is less well known. i called him in 2010 when we had the carmel forest fire and he responded to my request for aid. we had our embassy in cairo under siege and he provided vital assistance, or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. [applause] and in each of those moments, i called the president and he was there. and some of what the president has done for israel might not never be known because it toups on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an american president and an israeli prime minister. but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. >> just some of his speech from earlier, prime minister netanyahu on the floor of the house and a number of lawmakers standing, and many democrats said they would not attend but some did attend and gave him a standing ovation. let us know what your prince are on what the prime minister had to say. here is thomas from florida on the independents line. caller: i thought the speech was great. his mind is incredibly clear, one of the great politicians of our time and everything he had to say about iran, which i call a renegade nation made absolute sense. if we proceed them to allow them to get the nuclear capability, it's not only israel that is threatened but the entire world and he had every right to be there. and i'm a registered democrat but haven't voted for them for many years over the roe v. wade issues. i think it's an insult to the israeli people -- i'm an irish catholic guy -- but an insult to this dem only democracy in the middle east that president obama doesn't even receive him in the white house. host: harold on the line for democrats. caller: as a mexican-american and proud democrat, let it be known that i stand for israel. today is a pro fetic day in america -- today was a pathetic day. mr. netanyahu was eloquent in what he spoke. and i say peace for the peace of israel. and i say shalom. host: karl on the independents line from maryland. caller: i won't say he disrespected the president. i believe most of the people in congress today are a lot of -- i agree with everything that he said and it's for the good of the whole world. and very important point -- not only israel is concerned but america and the whole world. and we need to have listen to what he's saying to all of us. host: the prime minister benjamin netanyahu will attend a bipartisan reception in the rayburn room off of the house floor and will be meeting with the senate majority leader and harry reid. we expect to be hearing from house democrats. we are going to be showing that to you live on our companion network. in about 15 minutes from now. we are taking your phone calls, getting your thoughts on the prime minister's speech on the house floor before a joint meeting congress. scott, portland, oregon independents line. you have the floor. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to say i respected a lot that president netanyahu came out and said on behalf of his nation as you can see he is a passionate man, which is why he is lacking in a lot of leadership here in our presidency. i wish we had somebody tougher and would speak to where you would believe his words. i agree that the president has been kind of bashed over this by not showing up but showing his nonpartisanship and sit on one side of the other candidate for netanyahu and their own presidency which is nice, but also the president should also take into consideration the words that netanyahu has spoken to congress and for our nation as a lot of us have watched. really seems like our government is willing to placate these rogue nations such as iran that have not shown any good faith at all with any of the agreements we had in the past as president netanyahu not allowing us to go in and do any kind of inspections. so i don't know why the rush to get a deal if somebody has not been on the forefront. host: martin from bullhead city arizona on the democrats' line. caller: i agree with many of the comments that were made in a positive way about netanyahu. and i'm a registered democrat and i'm 78 years old. i'm a veteran, and i tell you i recognize a leader when i see one. and that's what this country needs, to raise more leaders, not just politicians and obama is a wonderful man and good politician, but we need leaders and netanyahu is a leader. and i'm so glad he came and spoke to congress. host: let's look at some of what benjamin netanyahu said, this is in regards to isis and also iran. here's a look. >> the battle between iran and isis doesn't turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis is competing. one calls it self the islamic republic and the other islamic state. they want an empire, first on the region and then the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for america or israel, no peace for christians, jews or muslims who don't share the creed. no rights for women, no rights for anyone. when it comes to iran and isis, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [applause] >> the difference is that isis is armed with butcher knives whereas iran could be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember -- i'll say it one more time, the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons, we can't let that happen. host: some of netanyahu's comments earlier on the house floor before a joint meeting of congress. and rose is waiting on the line from kentucky. go ahead. caller: yes, my opinion is that his speech was -- it was very well. and he is a politician and he gave them what they wanted to hear. so i have no problem with his speech. host: what is it they wanted to hear? caller: concerning the fact of iran being the type of country that it is supporting the terrorism and about the missiles and all the things that he was saying. this is the things they wanted to hear. and they accepted that. i have no problem with his speech. but the problem that i have is the disrespect that the speaker of the house gave our president that he should have went through the steps that he should have gone through to bring the prime minister here. that was totally disrespectful. host: independents line, california. caller: i just wanted to say a few things. number one i'm talking about the executive order that our president -- i'm from switzerland and i'm very upset that the president can have executive order. i don't care if you are republican democrat or independent. i think anything that has to do with the american public with all america shall be by the congress and not the president. host: i will stop you there, we are hearing that the house will be working on some funding for the department of homeland security. i think you were referring there to some of the immigration executive orders that the house is actually trying to block and has been holding up the funding for d.h.s. we do expect to see some action on that, not exactly sure. but bringing you the house floor live at 12:30 and expected to gavel in at that time and will be working on a clean funding bill. we'll be going there live. republican line. caller: i would like to talk on this phone. i'm pleased with his message. as a member of a veterans -- when i was in the navy back in the 1970's and 1980's, i was in the middle east when they were trying to get the hostages back from iran. i truly believe ronald reagan and they called him a cowboy, sometimes if you're not strong you can make bullies back down. if we don't act strong, we'll suffer in the long run. thank you for allowing me to give this message and god bless america. god bless israel and never let your guard down, america. because if you do, your sons, your daughters, your grandchildren, they'll pay the price. host: independents line, christine is calling. >> this is christine and i watched the entire speech and i knew it was commented on. i'm in 100%, he is a brave man and great leader and i see no disrespect to the president whatsoever coming from him or boehner, either one. i like them both. and if our president would not be so difficult to work with, then it wouldn't have to be this way. i want to give kudos to speaker pelosi and speaker reed for showing up. and this man speaks truth and iran has been evil from the beginning of the ayatolla reign and i have been watching it every years. i have been disabled for quite sometime i watch a lot of news, tv and weather and i see what is going on and how isis is taking over and hamas muslim brother hood. and if everybody doesn't watch out, the end is going to be upon us. god bless america, god bless israel and may peace be under jerusalem, bless their leaders and our leaders be strong and understand the truth of what's going on in this world. host: i don't know if you caught a tweet from fox news, he is talking about some of what was in the prime minister's speech. this relates back to the issue of security. netanyahu saying during the speech, this capitol dome helped israel build our iron dome. that's their defense system. common support of israel from both parties. and tweet from david drucker i don't believe iran's radical regime will change for the better. benjamin netanyahu speaking before a joint meeting of congress. let's look at some of the speech which ended about 30 minutes ago. >> i have come here to today we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [applause] before lifting those restrictions the world should demand that iran do three things. first, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [applause] >> second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] >> and third stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel the one and only jewish state. [cheers and applause] host: some of the prime minister's speech from earlier today and we expect to be taking you on our companion network c-span2 live to a news conference of the house democrats. they are expected to speak at 12:30 eastern time and we will be showing the entire speech from benjamin netanyahu, on our companion network c-span2. we will be taking you back live to the house in a few minutes. john has been holding on the line in florida for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. if we don't do something with iran pretty soon, this world's going to be a mess. iran's behind all of it. they shouldn't even be building nuclear. we need to go over there and destroy them and be done with it and have a safe america and israel. host: independents line in texas. alan? caller: i'm in texas and looking what's going on with isis, it don't seem like it's a big threat. but i mean, more worried what isis is doing on the ground than iran going on with nuclear weapons. you have been hearing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction since george bush. so i mean -- i mean i'm more worried with the problem with is is -- isis. caller: i'm a veteran and was pleased with his speech. time that the american people's ice and ears get opened up. we know what we could be facing us in the future if we don't get a new leader as president of the united states. we are all going to go down. host: thanks for your call, washington, d.c., grant is on the independents line. caller: i think netanyahu is right. people should get on google and do their own research. iran does not have nuclear weapons. it is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty and undergoing inspections for years. some of it built with stolen material from the united states and if you google netanyahu, you can see that he was involved in a smuggling ring that acquired technology illegally from the united states, yet none of these congress members are willing to look into that. host: charleston, west virginia. caller: i just listen him talk about the enemy of israel, the again sideal -- genocidal people and so forth. i didn't hear a word what israel has done over years and years and years to the palestinians. and i have been watching this whole thing for years. all the way back to -- i don't know how far back. i know -- i used to be very pro--israel. now i'm really ashamed of what israel has done to the palestinians and their suffering and the united states -- the united states has very little to say to them. and so i just feel that it's been -- it's so one-sided and it really really upsets me. and of course, we have to be on one side for political reasons. but on the other hand, i feel this was a slap in the face to president obama who i happen to love. and i resent what has happened here. and i hope that when the israeli elections come along that they will get someone who is a little more even-handed and more rational than this guy. host: the elections going on in israel just a couple of weeks from now. benjamin netanyahu facing his re-election and fourth term. taking your phone calls and getting your opinion and point of view here of what you thought of his speech from about 30 minutes ago now to a joint meeting of congress. of course being add to speak to congress by house speaker john boehner without consultation of the white house. a number of democrats boycotting the prime minister's speech. getting your thoughts before we go back to the house. they will be working on a transportation bill, funding for amtrak and also possibly some funding for the department of homeland security come up in the house. julie is next on the line for republicans from california. caller: my husband and i have heard netanyahu before. we were impressed with his leadership skills. we always used to joke we wish he could be our president because he is an american patriot. we know the history of nazi germany and again side and america looked the -- againo side. i don't want to see it happen again. but as a -- host: we have to leave it there. be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-9. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. . the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or in the amendment of a nature of the substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, on any legislative day during the period from march 6, 2015 through march 13 2015, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved and b the chair may at any time declare the house to be adjourned to meet clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 3, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 4. at any time through the legislative day of march 13 2015 the chair may postponefurther consideration of a measure in the house to such time as may be designated by the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. and i now would like to yield the 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i always enjoy hearing the reading clerk read the work of the rules committee. i always look around to see how many folks are fixated on those words, because words matter, and we spend a lot of time trying to craft the rules to be just right. but as proud as i am of the work we do in the rules committee i confess coming down here to this floor just after the prime minister delivered the speech that he just delivered, wow. you talk about words that matter. words that matter. i knew i was going to learn something in that speech, mr. speaker. i knew i was going to feel something in that speech. and just here moments after, what i came away with is number one, we can learn a lot from the prime minister about leadership, about leadership, about saying what you mean and meaning what you say when the stakes are high, when the results impact, all the families that we serve, it matters. we care a lot about people in this chamber. sometimes we have a crisis of leadership sometimes we have a crisis of followership. tremendous to see the leadership that was on display, not just for america, but for the world. number two, mr. speaker prime minister had a lesson for us all about class, about class. you know, he spent the first five minutes of that speech talking about his affection for barack obama and his respect for president obama and his relationship between the united states and israel and how president obama had played a meaningful role in keeping israel safe. we're not always in that place down here. oftentimes we find politics gets under our skin. oftentimes when there is a big debate surrounding a serious issue, we take it as a personal afront and sometimes when we come back down to the house floor, we don't talk to one another with the mutual respect that i would argue that every single member has earned. we don't talk to each other across the aisle in ways that would always make our constituents back home proud. it meant a lot to me that given the emotion that surrounded the invitation of the prime minister to be here, that he spent his first moments of that speech not talking about frustrations, not talking about who did what to whom, but talking about his deep respect for the leader of the united states of america and what president obama has meant to the safety and security of israel. i value that. it kind of makes what we are going to talk about next seem a little small, but it's not small. we are talking about passenger rail in this bill. mr. speaker this rule that h.res. 134 allows us to bring up h.r. 749 passenger rail reform and infrastructure act. they call it prria. and it passed out of the transportation committee. i serve on the transportation and rules committee and rarely one of those things you think about as being a unanimous issue in migrate state of georgia. and i have taken the train from atlanta down to new orleans. i know we have some great stops on amtrak in the great state of mississippi. if you want to take the train from atlanta to columbia, south carolina, about a three-hour drive. that train is going to leave at 8:00 out of atlanta and not tomorrow but two days from now, that train's going to arrive in columbia, south carolina, having connected to the city of washington. makes no sense whatsoever, but that's where the rails are. you contrast that, the complete meaningless has for me in the great state of georgia since it takes me nowhere i want to go, contrast that with what's going on in the northeast corridor. any friend -- my friend, i wonder if he gets on a train. if i worked in washington, d.c. and lived in new york city, i would be on the train, it provides reliable inexpensive service for the most densely populated population corridor in the united states of america. that has always confounded this body, mr. speaker. how do we balance the needs of that northeastern transportation corridor where amtrak is so meaningful and so valuable, i don't think the roads and bridges could handle the crush of humanity in the absence of amtrak. how do we balance that success story, the only profitable corridor on the amtrak route, with what i would argue is a tremendous failure in the rest of the country, where i can fly to jacksonville, florida, 48 hours faster than i can ride the train there and at a lower price. this bill is about reform mr. speaker. and i'm not even going to argue that we in the transportation committee got it exactly right. we worked hard on it, a lot of leadership provided by members on both side of the aisle. but on the outside chance we didn't get it exactly right, the rules committee came together yesterday and made amendments in order, one of the great parts of this process is you don't have to be on the committee of jurisdiction. any member can come to the rules committee and asked for an amendment to be made in order. and this rule today makes in order seven such amendments to improve this bill. four of those come from democrats three of those come from republican members, again trying to maintain that collegial bipartisan spirit that we had in the transportation committee in the underlying bill and tried to continuity in the rules committee last night. i don't know how the amendments going to shake out down here and i'm glad i don't know. having a predetermined destination on this noor is what our constituents -- on this floor is what our constituents sent us to do. you want folks to come down here and express their opinions and i have a great pleasure serving on the rules committee which enables that to happen. one of the great changes in this bill, mr. speaker as we take those dollars that american citizens are paying to ride amtrak on the northeastern corridor, that profitable corridor, and we leave those dollars there so that that route can expand and improve. as the population continues to grow and transportation needs continue to expand there, and we create a partnership with states in those areas to say, mr. speaker, if you have a priority as a governor, as a state legislator, if you want to partner with the federal government to make your train service more effective and more efficient, we want to partner with you, but if your idea of a transportation plan is to do nothing locally and rely on the federal government to do it all for you, we have no money for you, that seems fair. that seems fair. it is not a piggy bank they can withdraw from. but it is a partner that for these large transportation projects or these projects of national significance states, localities federal government can partner to make those a reality. i don't know that we'll ever get the kind of amtrak service in your or my part of the world, mr. speaker that we have in the northeast corridor and candidly i don't know our constituencies will clamor for that service, but it is meaningful that even if we have different issues on rail and the future of rail, that we were able to come together again in a unanimous way to put forward a bill that will celebrate and fund those parts of the rail system that are successfully serving america and that will reform and in some cases eliminate those unprofitable parts of the rail system that i don't think any member of our constituency would be enthusiastic about funding with their hard-earned tax dollars. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentleman from georgia. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: we support the rule and support the underlying bill. and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. . mr. woodall: i don't know if i look a little wet. it's not pirs perfectation from running back to the house floor. i feel obligated to tell my friends. it's dripping outside. i was back in my office with constituents from apack -- aipac 16,000 men and women from aipac came into town this week to make their voice heard. i couldn't find anybody here on paid vacation. anybody had someone else foot the bill. what i saw were 16,000 people who put their money where their mouth is to come and petition the government. to come and try to make us better. i bring that up mr. speaker, because what i told those men and women of aipac, was that there were some grumpy faces on the floor of the house yesterday. i remember seeing a few. i might have been one. i'll go ahead and confess, mr. speaker, i was one. we have some serious problems here. serious challenges serious disagreements. in the now almost one hour since the prime minister finished speaking i have seen more smiles i have seen more collegiality, i have seen more members enjoying each other and working together and just that one hour than i have seen in the entire month of february. i bring that up, mr. speaker, because the gentleman from massachusetts and i have been working on rules for a long time together. a long time together. and i don't think it would offend the gentleman if i were to say that he and i often disagree about the way a rule ought to be crafted. we often disagree about the underlying legislation. we are here in the rules committee, mr. speaker, but we may spend an hour or two, three, sometimes longer debating the merits of the underlying legislation. and so to come here one hour after that spectacular come together for things that matter speech the prime minister just gave and to find agreement with my friend on the rules committee, not js on -- just on the rule but i dare say the underlying bill i hope it's a sign of things to come. not just a thipping to come in the relationship between my friend from massachusetts and myself, because that relationship is strong. but a relationship across the board. by passed and sent to the president lots of bills this congress, mr. speaker. i think we passed something like 40 bills out of the u.s. house of representatives. i don't know if i went home and asked my constituency that they could name two. i think they no the x.l. pipeline bill because that's something everyone has been focused on. i don't think as a population they could name two. i hope this is a start of a success that the rules committee is going to have together over the next 18 months. i hope this is going to be the start of the kind of agreements that we can create together, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend from massachusetts for being a part, again, making today a little better than yesterday was. with that mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we support the rule and the underlying bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to ask unanimous consent while we are having this agreement here on the floor today mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.res. 134. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: while we talk about agreements here on the floor, i think sometimes folks back home are concerned that we are agreeing on the little things. things that don't matter. that we are talking about renaming a post office. while that's important to that community, important to the man or woman being honored, i would argue it doesn't necessarily advance the cause of freedom and democracy. i can't tell you with a straight face what we are doing on passenger rail today is going to advance the cause of freedom and democracy. if you want to advance the freedom of cause and democracy, you needed to be here two hours ago when the prime minister came to deliver his message to the united states congress. freedom and democracy lived there. what we are advancing in this passenger rail bill, mr. speaker is just common sense. it's just common sense. i don't want to get in the weeds of all the exciting things that go on in there. of course it's exciting to me. of course i'm going to be involved in the minutia. i don't know that my other colleagues are quite as enthusiastic about that. i would encourage folks to go to transportation.house.gov mr. speaker. the transportation committee, like all committees on capitol hill, has a webpage. on that webpage you can get deep into the weeds. if you're a policy wonk like i am and you want to dig down into the minutia, find out what subparagraph f says about clause 2, you can absolutely do it. but there's some top line numbers there, too. i want folks to have something to celebrate here. i want folks to be able to be enthusiastic about when their representative body, i would argue as the prime minister argue, the greaties deliberative boddy, greatest bastion of freedom on the planet, if you want to know what's going on, go to the transportation committee website. you are a geg to find all sorts of information. like this one-pager right here. whether you are a high school student who cares about passenger rail or a transportation engineer leading your local department of transportation, all of those details can be found there. i'll give you one example, could you believe -- you come from a constituent icy much like i do, mr. speaker, can you believe in the united states of america today in the era of sequester, in the era of sequester, not one member of it body would say isn't having impact on our social safety net, where one member wouldn't say isn't having an impact on our national security, in this era of sequester, amtrak subsidizes food and beverage service. subsidizes food and beverage service. it is a lost leading part of the transportation funding on amtrak. i'll just tell you, i have ridden amtrak to new york a time or two. i didn't have any beverage services. it's not like my friends on delta bring me a coca-cola product on my flight between washington, d.c., and here. you have to go down to the beverage car. now, if you'd like to bring your own lunch on amtrak, you can. if your husband or wife wants to make you a sack at home, you can bring it and eat it right there on the train. and yet the american taxpayer as we sit here right now, this isn't prospective as we sit here right now, the american taxpayer is funding subsidizing food service for those men and women who happen to ride amtrak every day. again for your and my constituencies, mr. speaker, that's worth nothing. that's worth nothing. but even for those constituencies that ride amtrak to work every single day, don't you don't you think in this time of budget cutting trying to end the $18 trillion of borrowing from our children and grandchildren, this time of trying to balance our national security needs with our social safety net needs, don't you think that one of the things we could agree on is we don't need to subsidize snack food for train riders? and the truth is, mr. speaker, i say that like it's a rhetorical question that i'm going to start to get out my sharp stick and poke the other side. i'm not. what happens to be one of those things that we agree on. how many years have you and i been in congress, mr. speaker, trying to get rid of silly stuff that the federal government does? for you and me the answer is four. four years we have been working on trying to get rid of silly stuff that the federal government does subsidizes twinkies part of that silly stuff. i'm not picking on twinkies. i have great respect for tinky eaters. i don't want my tax dollars subsidizing that habit. unanimously on the transportation committee mr. speaker, we have come together to say you know what, i don't know why we didn't do this a long time ago? i don't know why a previous congress hadn't got again it done, the buck stops here and we'll do that. where are those dollars going to go instead, mr. speaker? they are going to go to improving quality of service. find me that constituent back home find them in atlanta, mississippi, find those constituents back home who wouldn't make that trade with their tax dollars every day of the week. we are doing it. we are doing it together. we are doing it in a way i hope the senate will act on it. if they can't take wisdom as we have defined it i welcome a conference and hope we'll be able to get this bill on the president's desk. all of these great ideas that we have come together, that we have done in a collaborative way, republicans and democrats on the committee, republicans and democrats here on the floor of the house, the seven amendments that were going to be considered -- we are going to be considering today, all these things we have done collaborating, mr. speaker, mean nothing, mean nothing if they don't go to the president's desk for his signature. this is the first step but a proud first step. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i again -- we agree with the rule and we agree with the underlying bill. if the gentleman would like more time, i'm happy to yield to him because i always enjoy hearing him speak in the rules committee. and i think our colleagues can benefit from his speaking on the house floor, but i don't know what else to add except we are all in agreement. we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. while i appreciate the accolades of my friend from massachusetts, the truth is i'm not an expert on this bill. the transportation committee is staffed with those experts. at a staff level and elected member level. at this time, mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. denham who has been a leader on the transportation committee, not looking for republican solutions, not looking for democratic solutions, but looking for commonsense solutions and selling those to his colleagues on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. denham: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to touch on a few of the great things on this reform bill. make no mistake, this will reform passenger rail as we know it today. in many different areas. first of all, we expect that amtrak will be utilized more often. in a more efficient way and transparent way operating more like a business. a business that will give results back to its customers. this is going to be a bill that sets up different lines of business. so if you're on the northeast corridor and paying a particular that's is high priced, you don't want to subsidize amtrak across the nation, your money is now going to stay on the northeast corridor so you have not only improved infrastructure but a smoother ride more efficient ride, quicker transit time. we want to fix rail across the nation. we want to make sure that we are doing it in a fiscally responsible manner. in the northeast corridor we are going to see significant improvement and jobs created at the same time. we are going to see in other areas of the country areas like mine, where you've got rail that we want to extend further. we want to be able to utilize rip loans. rip loans have been a great program that has been sorely underutilized. you talk to companies out there that want to use the loans, it is amazing that they won't even apply for them because they know it will slow their projects down. the wait time in getting them approved to release that capital will shut your project down. so they just don't apply. we streamline that process so that we can actually unleash that capital. not only for amtrak to improve its lines of business but for other rails across the entire country to improve theirs as well. we also introduce competition. this leverages private sector to reduce amtrak subsidies and uses our stations and right of way as actual income streams. amtrak should be utilizing every income stream available to them and utilizing their right of way for signage, cell phone towers utilizing their stations to actually generate a larger profit. but let me just touch on one other area that i'm very, very passionate about. one that hasn't been talked about a lot on this floor. but one that's getting a great deal of press across the entire country. to those families that have a pet at home, to those families that have to make a decision do i leave my daughter's cat at home, or am i actually able to travel with them on a train? right now they have to make a decision to either take a car or take an airplane. it is amazing to me to find out somebody from california, when i travel back and forth with my dog i can put them on a plane, but yet i can't put them on a train to go up the northeast corridor or anywhere else across the country. this is something that will allow new riders that didn't previously want to ride the train before because they couldn't take their pet on there to do so, but also a new revenue generation with paying for those pets the same way that our airplanes across the country pay for their bets as well. this is a great bipartisan bill. one that i am very proud that we reached across both aisles. every member of the transportation committee to make sure that we had true results across the entire country to not only bipartisan support, but unanimous support. you talk about the right way to get -- both parties to actually work together for real reforms that move america forward. this rail bill does just that. it will create jobs it will create a more efficient passenger rail. and this is going to give new opportunities to those that never were able to ride rail before the opportunity to be greater involved. let me just touch on one last point. across the entire country are our passenger rail often times rides on our freight rail system. they have to share the same tracks. as we expand that new infrastructure and create new jobs and create greater efficiencies, we have to do it in a cost effective manner. we streamlined the process. there is both environmental and historic review that we actually put time periods on. we want to do the reviews. we want to make sure it remains historic and we are being environmentally sensitive. let's streamline the process getting people to work and getting a rail system that is like no other across the entire globe. we have great improvements here and proud of this bill and the work we have done and looking for full passage this afternoon and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield three minutes to a member of the committee, a leader on transportation issues, the gentleman from tennessee mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker and i tchanching the gentleman from georgia for yielding me this time. i rise in strong support of this legislation for all of the reasons that were just stated by chairman denham, who has been a great chairman of the railroad subcommittee, and this is a major reform bill that i think every member should be very proud to support. it's a fiscally conservative bill. it will save $2.3 billion over the next four years and moving this congress and this legislation in a new direction a better direction from the fiscal standpoint. it also is going to save very substantial amount of money on food service according to the "new york times," train food service lost $800 million over the last 10 years. this bill will in a graduated way remove the subsidy for train food service until it gets on a self-supporting basis so it is fiscally conservative and commonsense legislation in that respect. it speeds up the environmental review process. this is an area that we try to do in all of our transportation bills because we have been doing all of our major transportation projects in such a convoluted complicated bureaucratic way that we have taken three times as long as any other developed nation to do the things to improve our infrastructure that needs to be done. this bill also introduces opportunities for competition and this is another good thing about this bill because if we really believe in the free market and free enterprise, we need to give more companies and more people a chance to get into these businesses. and make our -- all of our industries have greater ease of entry. another thing that i think is good about this legislation, this major reform bill, that it empowers states to get involved by setting up a advisory committee. this has the potential of creating new train service in states such as mine in tennessee that don't have passenger train service at this time. for all these reasons and for all the reasons that congressman, chairman denham just mentioned, i think this is a bill that deserves the support of all of the members on both sides of the aisle. i rise in strong support of this legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: again, we support the rule and the underlying bill. and i want to thank everybody involved. and this is a bipartisan effort. and with that, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i have no further speakers. and will be willing to close if he is. mr. mcgovern: i don't think we have any speakers. i think i have said it all many times. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i want to reiterate the partnership that went on here, not just in the underlying bill but the amendment process that is happening here. seven amendments available for our colleagues this afternoon. in you don't want to see amtrak subsidized by the federal government, a lot of folks would have kept your voice silent, this amendment process allows you to be heard. if you want to make sure the folks doing contracting focused on veterans and veteran-owned businesses, you want it included in the bill we have an amendment process that allows you to add that language. if you were concerned about the inspector general reports and what they are looking at, we give you a chance to make those changes. issue after issue after issue. again, three republican ideas, four democratic ideas. we allow those to come to the floor in this bill. mr. speaker passenger rail is an example of one of those things that divides this country. if you live in california as the chairman does, you have a spectacular rail system. if you live in the northeastern corridor, you have a spectacular rail system. and in georgia, you can ride your horse to your next destination faster than you can take the train. we don't need to solve that inequity. i'm happy for my friends in the northeastern corridor to have spectacular service. it's profitable. folks want it. folks need it. folks use it. and folks are willing to dig into their pockets to pay for it. there is an amendment that is going to be offered here today, mr. speaker, that would allow competitive private train service in that corridor. now that's going to be up to the body to decide whether or not that's a good idea, but imagine that, imagine that mr. speaker. before us today, you have your choice of do you want the bill that the committee has crafted, saving money as my friend from tennessee described, do you want to eliminate amtrak subsidies all together and say we do not have a national interest in rail and our budget will reflect that, or do you want to allow even more rail service by allowing private competition on some of these amtrak-owned routes? mr. speaker, that's why i came to this body. i'm not going to try and twist any arms on this floor. folks have a set of constituents back home and will represent those interests. but what i will do is support the rule that allow for this open debate. as my friend from massachusetts would agree we have not always had the open debate on important issues and we agree should be had. it's a process. and today, we got that process right. this rule is worthy of the support of all of my colleagues, republicans and democrats north, south and east and west. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. >> i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to the request of the house on h.r. 240 and an act appropriations for department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30 2015 and for other purposes. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i move to take from the speaker's table h.r. 240 with senate amendments thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and report the senate amendment. the clerk: an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will -- the clerk: senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> i object. the speaker pro tempore: the object is heard. the clerk will read. the clerk: senate amendment strike all after the first word and insert the following -- the following sums are appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30 2015, and for other purposes. namely, title 1, departmental management and operations, office of the secretary and executive management, for necessary expenses of the office of the secretary of homeland security as authorized by section 102 of the homeland security act of 2002, 6 u.s.c. 112, an executive management of the department of homeland security as authorized by law $132,573,000. provided that not to exceed $45,000 shall be for official reception and expenses provided further that all official costs associated with the use of government aircraft by department of homeland security personnel to support official travel of the secretary and the deputy secretary shall be paid from amounts made available for the immediate office of the secretary and the immediate office of the deputy secretary. provided further that not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this act, the secretary of homeland security shall submit to the committees on appropriations of the senate and the house of representatives the committees on the judiciary of the house of representatives and the senate, the committee on homeland security of the house of representatives and the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs of the senate, a comprehensive plan for implementation of the biometric entry and exit data system required under section 7208 of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 8 u.s.c. 1365-b including the estimated costs for implementation. office of the undersecretary for management, for necessary expenses of the office of the undersecretary for management, as authorized by section 701-705 of the homeland security act of 2002, 6 u.s.c. 3313445 $178,305,000 of which not to exceed $2,255 shall be for official representation and representation expenses. provided that of the total amount made available under this heading $4,493,000 shall remain available until september 30 2016. solely for the alteration and improvement of facilities. tenant improvements and relocation costs to consolidate department headquarters operations at the nebraska avenue complex. and $6 million shall remain available until september 30, 2016, for the human resources information technology program. provided further that under the secretary for management shall include in the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 submitted pursuant to section 1105-a of title 31 united states code a comprehensive acquisition status report which shall include the information required under the heading, office of the undersecretary for management. under title 1 of division d of the consolidated appropriations act 2012 public law 112-74, and shall support quarterly updates to such report not later than 45 days after the completion of each quarter. office of the chief financial officer, for necessary expenses of the office of chief financial officer as authorized by section 103 of the homeland security act of 2002 6 u.s.c. 113 $52,020,000. provided that the secretary of homeland security shall submit to the committees on appropriations of the senate and the house of representatives at the time the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 is submitted pursuant to section 1105-a of title 31 united states code, the future years homeland security program as authorized by section 874, public law 107-295, 6 u.s.c. 454. office of the chief information officer, for necessary expenses of the office of the chief information officer as authorized by section 103 of the homeland security act of 2002, 6 u.s.c. 113, the departmentwide technology investments $288,122,000 of which $99,028,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses and of which $189,094,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016, shall be available for development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software services and related activities for the department of homeland security. analysis and operations, for necessary expenses for intelligence analysis and operations coordination activities as authorized by title 2 of the homeland security act of 2002, 6 u.s.c. 121 $255,804,000 of which not to exceed $3,825 shall be for official reception and representation expenses and of which $102,479,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2016. office of the inspector general, for necessary expenses of the office of inspector general in carrying out of the provisions of the inspector general act of 1975 -- of 1978, 5 u.s.c. $118,617,000 of which not to exceed $300,000 may be used for certain confidential operational expenses including the payment of informants to be expanded at the direction of the inspector general. title 2, security, enforcement and investigations. united states customs and border protections, salaries and expenses. for necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to board boreder security, customs, agriculture inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and animal imports and transportation of unaccompanied minor aliens purchase of lease of up tore $7,-- $6,500 for replacement only police-type vehicles and contracting with individuals for personnel services abroad. $8459,650,000 of which $3,274,000 shall be derived from the harbor maintenance trust fund for administrative expenses related to the collection of the harbor maintenance fee pursuant to section 9505-c-3 of the internal revenue code of 1986, 26 u.s.c. 9505-c-3 and notwithstanding section 151-e-1 of the homeland security act of 2002, 6 u.s.c. 551-e-1 of which $35 million shall remain available until september 30, 2016 solely for the purpose of hiring, training and equipping united states customs and border patrol officers at ports of entry of which not to exceed $34,425 shall be for official reception and representation expenses of which such sums as become available in the customs user fee account. exempt such sums to section 130147b f-3 of the consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1985. 19 u.s.c. 58-c-not to exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in connection with preclearance operations and of which not to exceed $1 million shall be for awards for compensation to informants to be accounted for solely under the certificate of the secretary of homeland security, provided that for fiscal year 2015 the overtime limitation prescribed in section 5-c-1 of the act of february 13 1911 -- 19 u.s.c. 267-c-1 shall be $35,000 and notwithstanding any other provision of law. none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be available to compensate any employee of united states custom and border protection for overtime from whatever source and an amount that exceeds such limitation except in individual cases determined by the secretary of homeland security or the designee of the secretary to be necessary for national security purposes to prevent excessive costs or in cases of immigration emergencies provided further that the border patrol shall maintain an active duty presence of not less than $21 -- 21,300 full-time agents protected tekting the border of the united states. modernization. for necessary expenses for the customs and border protection for improvement of automated systems including salaries and expenses $808,169,000 of which $$75,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2017. and of which not less than $140,970,000 shall be for the development of the automated commercial environment. border security sensing, infrastructure and technology. for expenses for border security, fencing and technology $382,466,000 to remain available until september 30 2017. air and marine operations. for necessary expenses for the operations maintenance and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, the air and marine operation center and other related equipment of the air and marine program, including salaries and expenses, operational training and mission-related travel, the operations which include the following -- the interdiction of narcotics and other goods, the provisions of support to federal, state and local agencies and the enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the department of homeland security. and at the discretion of the secretary of homeland security, the provision of assistance to federal, state and local agencies and other law enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts $750,469,000 of which $299,800,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses and of which $450,669,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2017. provided that no aircraft or other related equipment with the exception of aircraft that are one of a kind and have been identified as excess to the united states customs and border protection requirements and aircraft that has been damaged beyond repair shall be transferred to any other federal agency, department or office outside of the department of homeland security during fiscal year 2015. without prior notice to the committees on appropriations of the senate and the house of representatives. provided further that funding made available under this heading shall be available for customs expenses when necessary to maintain or to temporarily increase operations in puerto rico. provided further that the secretary of homeland security shall report to the committees on appropriations of the senate and the house of representatives not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act on any changes to the five-year strategic plan for the air and marine program required under the heading air and marine interdiction, operations and maintenance in public law 112-74. construction and facilities management. for the necessary expenses to plan renovate, equip, furnish, main tan buildings, facilities and related infrastructure necessary for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to customs, immigration and border security $288,821,000 to remain available until september 30 2019. united states immigration and customs enforcement salaries and expenses, for necessary expenses for enforcement and -- of immigration and customs laws detention and removals and investigations, including intellectual property rights and overseas vetted unit operations and purchase and lease of up to 3790,254 replacement only police-type vehicles. $5,932,756,000 of which not to exceed $10 million shall be available until exspend pended for conducting special operations under section 3131 of the customs enforcement act of 1986, 19 u.s.c. 2081. of which not to exseed $11,475 shall be for official reception and representation expenses of which not to exceed $2 million shall be for awards of compensation to informants to be accounted for solely under the certificate of the secretary of homeland security. of which not less than $305,000 shall be for promotion of public awareness of child pornography tip line and activities to counter child exploitation of which not less than $5,400,000 shall be used to facilitate agreements consistent with section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act 8 u.s.c. 1357-g of which not to exceed $47 million to remain available until september 30 2017, as for maintenance, construction and lease hold improvements at owned and leased facilities and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the costs associated with the care, maintenance and repatriation of smuggled aliens unlawfully present in the united states. . except that the secretary of homeland security or the designee of the secretary may waive that amount if necessary for national security purposes and in case of immigration emergencies. provided further that of the total amount provided $15 million shall be for activities to enforce laws against forced child labor which not to exceed $6 million shall remain available. the total amount not less than $1,6,000, 000 shall be available for aliens that may be deportable and remove them from the united states. provided further that the secretary of homeland security shall prioritize the identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime of the severity of that crime. funding made available under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through september 30 2015, provided further that the total amount provided not less than $,3 billion is for detention enforcement and removal operations including transportation of unaccompanied minor aliens provided further that the amount provided for custody operations in the previous provision $45 million shall remain until september 30, 2015. provided further that of the total amount provided for the visa security program and international investigation $43 million shall remain available until september 30 2015, provided further that not less than $15 million shall be available for investigation of intellectual property rights violations including operation of the national intellectual property rights coordination center. provided further that none of the funds provided under this heading may be used to continue a delegation of law enforcement authority authorized under section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act 8 u.s.c. department of homeland security inspector general determines that the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of authority have been maturely violated. provided further that none of the funds provided under this heading may be used to continue any contract with the provision of detention services if the two most recent overall performance evaluations received by the contracted facility are less than adequate or the equivalent median score of any subsequent performance evaluation system. provided further that nothing under this heading shall prevent united states immigration and customs enforcement exercises -- exercising those authorities provided under immigration laws of the immigration and nationality act 8 u.s.c. 1101-817 pertaining to aliens convicted of a crime. provided further without regard to the limitation as to time and condition of section 503-d of this act, the secretary may propose to the reprogram and transfer of funds to the appropriation necessary to ensure the detention of aliens prioritized for removal. automation and modernization. for expenses of immigration and customs enforcement automated systems $26 million to remain available until september 30 2015. transportation and security administration, aviation security for necessary expenses of the transportation and security administration providing aviation security services pursuant to the act public law 107-71-115 49 u.s.c. 401, $5090,00 not to exceed $7 -- >> mr. speaker. the clerk: any award -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i withdraw my objection. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman asking unanimous consent to dispense with the item? >> i have asked for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the senate amendment is considered read. the clerk will report the motion offered by the gentleman from idaho. the clerk: mr. simpson moves that the house receive from its disagreement to the amendment to the senate and concur therein. >> i move to lay the senate amendment on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table the senate amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of ntiv. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes ipr prohit bthu. hsef reprent.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 140. the nays are 278. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, each will control 30 minutes on the motion. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would inquire if both managers support the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york opposed to the motion? mrs. lowey: no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky opposed? >> i am yes. i am opposed to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho, the gentleman from new york, and the gentleman from kentucky each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise today with a motion that will move us forward to ensure the security of our nation by keeping the department of homeland security funded until the end of the fiscal year. funding for the department of homeland security will expire this week. to allow a shut down of these critical functions would be an abdication of one of our primary duties as member of congress. it is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the federal government. all of the federal government. and this should be without threat of shutdowns or uncertainty of continuing resolutions. the house acted in january to fund d.h.s. for the year. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be if order. the gentleman may continue. mr. simpson: the house acted in january to fund d.h.s. for the year and has exed short-term funding several times. in order to maintain the critical security activities that keep our nation safe. the senate has now done all it can do given their unique procedural constraints. it is clear that the legislation before us will not exactly what the house wanted is the only path forward to avoid a potentially devastating shutdown and provide stable, continuous funding for the agencies and programs tasked with defending the home turf. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. semson: let us remember that the underlying legislation, and this is important, is a great bill. the security of our homeland is one of our highest priorities and this bill provides $39ings 7 billion for that purpose. it will assure we can key fend our nation against threats of terrorism and at that the men and women on our frontline remain well equipped and trained. we are now nearly halfway into the fiscal year and it is imperative that we get this bill enacted. at the same time, congress must continue the fight -- to fight the president's actions on immigration that i do not support and the american people do not support. we must continue this fight but we must also allow funding for critical security functions to move forward. these two priorities are not mutually exclusive. we can and should do both. for now the president's executive actions has been stopped in court. this is where we must focus our efforts and continue the battle against this unconstitutional overreach. mr. speaker, it is high time to act to provide responsible, adequate funding for the department of homeland security to protect the people who elected us and to defend this great nation. i urge an aye vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to proceed and concur and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i am opposed to the motion to concur and at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. morgan griffith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen i have to tell you that the only reason we are here is because of the unique procedural posture that the senate finds itself in. and that unique posture is a perversion of the democratic principles upon which our republic was based. we would not be here if it weren't for the modern filibuster and cloture rule which requires 60 votes to do anything. last week harry reid made it clear that he would not support a going to conference. jefferson was very clear when he set up the procedures for this place. each house makes an independent decision. then you get together in conference and work out your differences. but because of the unique position of the senate's processes, that cannot happen in these circumstances. we should not reward the senate for their bad behavior. we should reject this motion and force a new discussion on this issue. and so, mr. chairman i submit that if all we are doing is rewarding the senate for having bad rules and bad process, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. desantos -- desantis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized tore two minutes. mr. desantis: i hear we need to let the courts work their will to defend the constitution. as if we don't have an independent obligation to do that. we took the oath that we would support it. we didn't say we would be in congress pass bills, and let the courts support and defend the constitution. here's the problem beyond just that basic insight. if i were representing the department of justice in front of the fifth circuit to get this injunction overturned the first sentence in my brief would be, that the united states congress has voted knowing this program was in existence to fully fund all operations. court, you should step out of this dispute. it's between the political branches and they have settled it. so it's not just waiting for the courts. and in fact the action today if this bill were to pass i believe it would actually harm the case in the courts. i think it makes it more difficult for those states to make the case that what the president did was unconstitutional. if the one branch whose powers were invaded decided that they were not going to bite back effectively. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. salmon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this is a very, very sad day when we have to make a hobson's choice of either funding our national security or standing for the constitution. we actually took an oath just a few short weeks ago to defend this constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. that's our role, that's our responsibility. if not now then when? it's never going to be easy. it's never going to be easy. it's never been easy to stand up for freedom. i heard some people say, you republicans, you need to learn how to govern. if it was just about governing, then i think that the american people can just close shop and let the president just run everything. but we actually have a constitution that we have to adhere to. despots all over the world, they govern. they keep the trains running on time. but we stand for something different. we stand for a constitutional republic where we have three co-equal branches. all have an equal say. the founding fathers gave us a tool to deal with the time just like this. it's called the power of the purse. if we relegate that responsibility and drop kick it to the courts, as mr. desantis just said, they have nothing else to assume, then we just basically folded to the pressure. i believe this is a sad day for america. i believe america deserves better. if we are not going to fight now, when are we going to fight? i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. mr. simpson: i yield to mr. dent for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the privileged resolution and encourage my colleagues to concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 240 in order to pass the fiscal year 2015 department of homeland security appropriations bill. it's time for us to move forward and demonstrate our tasked with the arduous work of defending our borders protecting our communities and manning the front lines when confronted by natural disasters and acts of terrorism. i had the distinct privilege and pleasure on working on the underlying appropriations bill as a member of the house homeland security appropriations subcommittee and i can ensure my colleagues this is a good bill. it's a darn good bill. it's a bipartisan bill. among the bill's many highlights it would support the largest operational force of the border patrol agents and c.b.p. officers in history. if you -- it fully funds everify. if you're concerned about illegal immigration and interior, vote for this bill. it provides an increase of almost $700 million for immigration and customs enforcement. 34,000 detention beds and an increase of family detention beds by 3,732 beds. again, if you're worried about illegal immigration, vote for this bill. fully funds fema disaster relief programs and the first responder grant programs that are critical to many state and local departments. it takes important steps toward the implementation of a biometric entry and exit data system, critical to maintaining interior enforcement in this country. the bill helps us thwart cyberattacks and, of course, it helps maintain our coast guard. mr. speaker, it is time for the house to move past the corrosive pattern of self-imposed cliffs and shutdowns and get to the work that american people expect us to address, issues like tax reform trade, transportation and infrastructure, things that are going to help create american jobs and improve our economy. it's time to move forward and stop playing these silly games. these times of -- may i have an additional -- mr. simpson, may i have an additional 30 seconds. mr. simpson: i yield 130ekds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 130ekds. dentdent at these times of global uncertainty and brutal acts of terrorism it is imperative that we maintain -- mr. dent: at these times of global uncertainty and brutal acts of terrorism, it is imperative that we maintain our homeland. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. it's a bill we supported last summer. it would -- with strong overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. it deserves that same kind of support here today. let's prove the american people we're serious about protecting this homeland and that we have the capacity to govern. these cliffs are disastrous for all of us. time to move on. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanry serves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. clawson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. clawson: this is america. everybody matters in america. i grew up with somebody who seemed to have bad luck from day one. where i seem to catch breaks he couldn't get none. and recently mid last year because of a move, he needed to find a job. he went months without funding full-time employment. never got benefits. never got stability that he looked for for him and his wife and i love him very much. when the president made his edict he called me on the phone. he said curt, i don't understand what y'all are doing in washington. i want to know what's going on right now is going to help me get a job or not. and i said, unfortunately you got a lot of new competitors in the labor force. i say this is america and everybody matters. i say the unemployed folks, the 18 million underemployed and unemployed, they haven't been a part of this conversation like they needed to be. i say that unilateral actions by a leader that doesn't take all stakeholders into account makes those that aren't taken into account not matter. i say we need to have to do this conversation again. this is america. everybody matters. not just those that came over the border illegally but those that have been here looking for jobs for long periods of time. i say we can do better. i say we can have a broader conversation. i say everybody matters. you all know these people that are unemployed. they're in your family. they're your close friends. they are the people you see every day doing the jobs that some of us wouldn't want to do. i say those people matter. i say, mr. president, before you do a cramdown of the law for the benefit of one group of our society, i say all the groups of our society, particularly the unemployed also matter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clawson: and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. you know, last week ms. brown from florida she said, why are we here? she got all upset. let me tell you why we're here. the president of the united states violated the constitutional separation of powers. regardless of how you feel about immigration or immigration reform or even amnesty, surely you believe in the united states constitution that you swore an oath to. surely you believe in this institution that we're debating in today. he said 22 times he did not have the power to unilaterally make law or change the law, but yet that's in fact what he did. that's why this debate is so important today. it really has nothing to do with d.h.s. funding, amnesty or immigration. that's the vehicle we're using, sure but it has everything to do with the united states constitution and that sacred separation of powers says the executive branch executes the laws, we make the law in this chamber we have the only constitutional authority to do that and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. remember why we're here. 22 times the president said he couldn't do what he turned around and did. something legal scholars have said is unconstitutional. more importantly, something a federal judge said is wrong. six weeks ago we sent a bill to the united states senate to fund d.h.s. at the levels the democrats agreed to. we just said, don't have any money be used for something unconstitutional and the federal judges ruled it wrong. we can't debate it, amend it. then at the last hour, 11th hour on the last day they bring it up, debate it, amend it and sent it back. without the language stopping the unconstitutional activity and something the only court to rule on has said is wrong. this is unconstitutional. we all know it. this is the wrong way to go. fund d.h.s., don't let this wrong act the president took in november something he couldn't do stand. more importantly or more importantly is the unfair nature of the action. it's unfair to taxpayers that illegal noncitizens are going to be able to get tax refunds. it's unfair to seniors that illegal noncitizens will be able to participate in our social security system. it's unfair to voters as our secretary of state testified that now they will have the documents that will make it potentially much easier for four million to five million people to participate in our election process. and most importantly, mr. speaker, it's unfair to legal immigrants who did it the right way, who followed the law, who came here, want to be part of this great country, the greatest nation in the world as we just heard from mr. netanyahu talking about how great this country is, it's unfair to legal immigration. legal immigrants. mr. speaker this is unconstitutionally wrong. most importantly, it's unfair. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: as i inquire as to the balance of my time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. massie: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i would now yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i share the outrage of my friends over the president's actions because i don't think there's any question that's why we're here. the president did something that many of us on our side of the aisle most of us, i think, on our side of the aisle believe was unconstitutional illegal and ill-advised. second i share my friends' anger at the united states senate. you know, i think it is reprehensible not to pick up a bill, act on it, not to go to conference. that's exactly the way we're designed to work. we know that frankly the democratic now minority, thankfully, in the senate has operated that way for four years. i'm not surprised having operated that in the way in the majority they continue to operate that way in the minority. but every now and then you need to take a step back and recognize we're not the only place where these issues get thrashed out and we're not the only players in this drama. indeed, we've been very fortunate on our side in this debate. we've been joined by 26 state attorney generals who hold exactly the same view we do and have taken the president of the united states, the administration to court and have prevailed in the first court case. as my friends have pointed out. in addition, they have won an injunction so that the president cannot do the very things my friends are concerned about that he wants to do. so we not only have it -- have the court at least to this point on our side, we have it in a venue where you can actually win in the end. we're not likely to be able to do that in the congress given the democratic control of the filibuster in the other body and the presidential veto at the end of the process. in the courts you can actually win. it's a constitutional issue. it ought to be settled constitutionally through a judicial process. since we stopped the president, since we're prevailing in court, it seems to me the logical thing to do is what my friend, mr. dent suggested and look at a bipartisan compromised bill that protects the american people from real and physical harm and danger at the moment that we're sorting out our constitutional and political differences in the appropriate format. that's all this bill is about. it was agreed to in a bipartisan fashion. it was agreed to in a bicameral fashion. the reasons why we were concerned about it or used it have now been addressed by the courts, so i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's set aside our differences. they will be resolved in a appropriate way, in the appropriate fashion and in the right forum and let's do the right thing for the american people, pass this legislation and make sure that our fellow citizens stay secure. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania who spoke earlier was absolutely right, people back home want us to do things. so i think the important thing to do now is why we can't do anything and i lay the blame firmly at the feet of the seven democrats in the senate who have said to their voters they thought what the president did was wrong yet, they have voted time and again to continue the filibuster. that's wrong and those are the people who are preventing the country from moving forward. beyond that to the extent those seven senate democrats continue to want to abuse the rules, it is incumbent upon our conservative republican colleagues in the senate to change the rules. conservative republicans, mr. chairman, who have been very quick to try and tell the house what to do, should now be over there making the case that if the senate democrats are going to use a rule to undermine the constitution, then the rule needs to change. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. look last december we were told that the best way to approach, despite some of our thinking on the contrary, was to fund everything but d.h.s. we were told this is the play. well, some of us were afraid if we did that that we would come to this point and totally cave and would allow at least a congressional statement that we're not going to defund illegal unconstitutional amnesty. i stand with those veterans who believe that they should get health care before people who came illegally, that they should get a hot line to call before those who came illegally. i stand with the seniors that believe they deserve the social security they paid into rather than people that have come illegally and are even going to get tax refunds that they didn't put any taxes in. and i stand with the speaker of the house of representatives, at least where he was last week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. the issue before us today is in fact security. as a member of congress from the fifth congressional district of new jersey, my constituents in new jersey like most americans, understand the devastating impact of a lack of security in certain areas. we live in the shadow of the twin towers and understand when security is not a paramount interest of this government. . with that said an equal responsibility of this congress and government is the security as being a nation of laws and abiding by the fundamental law of this country which is the constitution. we can achieve both of those. be a security nation by funding homeland security, which this house has done twice now. and we can also become a nation by following the rule of law and following the constitution which this body has done twice now by sending full funding of homeland security to the senate. and simply asking them to do what all americans want washington to do today. is to conference on this -- these issues, discuss these issues, and come to a resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: where the constitution is upheld. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: i thank my friend. constitutional attorney turley once said since roosevelt we have made the executive branch stronger and stronger and stronger. but they have actually had a dance partner and that's us. that's us, the legislative branch, both the house and senate. when are we going to stand up for the rule of law? how do i go back to arizona where they define the rule of law? where we allow anybody go past go, collect $200, and go to the front of line. how do we accomplish that without standing up for something? this is that time. this is the time to stand up and not leave everything to the courts. i yield that back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: e gentnes. the gentleman from aho is recognized. mr. simpson: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky ready to close? mr. massie: mr. speaker, i have more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. speaker. there was a comment about this, this is about governing. it is it's about governing actually. we are not three separate but equal branches of the government. the abuse of the exec testify order has diminished congress and the abuse of the senate rules has diminished this house. we are now reduced to passing what the senate will allow us to pass. and we are -- and the senate's reduced to passing what the senate will not veto. this is about the constitution. we have three more days in which we can consider legislation that upholds the rule of law, that restores the balance of powers. we should take those three days. ladies and gentlemen this is a day that we will remember for the rest of our lives, that the country is looking to us right now to make a decision whether or not we will uphold our oath of office. i call upon every member of this house to be an oath keeper. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for two minutes. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you gentleman from kentucky. this fight today is not about emgration. this fight today is about the -- immigration. this fight today is about the separation of powers. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to cede some of our power to the executive. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to allow the president to make decisions like this on taxation, on e.p.a., on any other agency that this president decides he has the executive authority to take over the powers of the congress. today we all sat here and i think every republican stood up when netanyahu talked about leadership. when he talked about what it was important for a leader to do, he said we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal, speaking about the deal on iran is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is just a better deal. every one ever our republicans stood up when he said that. but today we are being told by our leadership that the only alternative to this bad deal is a government shutdown. that is not true. the alternative to this bad deal today is a better deal. it is to force the senate to actually go to conference so both the house and senate can speak the will of the american people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. brat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wrath: -- mr. brat: thank you very much. i think everyone in this body knows what it means to run for office. we each represent 700,000 people. we each take that job very seriously. and so it's a sad day today -- everybody in this body has fought very hard to try to come to agreement. unfortunately members in the other body have not allowed us to do that. the fault lies in the u.s. senate. we have asked and we have trusted our leadership to come up with a strong fight, strong messaging. whatever we can do to solve this constitutional problem for the last two months. and at the last minute of the day, the senate has delayed and delayed and delayed and so what is really going on is they are not standing up and representing their people at home. we in this body owe it to the american people to represent their views and the senate will not even allow a vote to bring up a debate. i imfloor everyone back at home, in my district and across the country ask your kids, your ninth graders, college kids everybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: it's fairly simple. the congress and the senate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie: 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. brat: i think the truth in ethics is easy to see. go to your ninth graders in high school civic class and ask them how these bodies are supposed to operate and to investigate. i think when our kids go home and investigate and we investigate what's been going on in the last two months, they'll find the answer. that is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: the senate will not do its job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my friend from kentucky. all right, for my friends on the left you are going to support this unconstitutional expansion of power. when there is a republican president, are you going to sit there and continue to applaud saying yes, we did not support the separation of powers when we had the chance and look the other way? one of my heart breaks here is i believe there were creative things we could have done. we are completely dearth of the willingness to try. this is trying about defending the u.s. constitution that we all raised our hands, and yet we are going to allow a vote to go forward to walk away from that fight? this should break everyone's heart in this body. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls 3 1/ minutes. mr. massie: at this point i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to look around this body, what are we asking to you do? we are asking to fund d.h.s. 14u7bd%. we are asking to put safeguards in there so that we don't move with an executive order that's been deemed illegal by a federal judge. that's all we are asking. and we need to have that language in this bill. i don't know anybody here that doesn't want to fund d.h.s. for us to vote for this without that funding -- without that language in there blocking what this president wants to do, and if we vote for that. we are voting against our constitution. article 1, section 8 is very clear that we have the authority for naturalization. and i say we vote against funding without that safeguard. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. height. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. we are in this mess because of the unconstitutional, unilateral decisions from the president to ignore our constitution and the only thing standing in the way of that progressing is a stay from the courts and as thankful as i am for the courts, the reality is, we must stand up and defend our constitution. mr. heist: it is a constitutional issue, mr. speaker, and we have the responsibility to stand for that cause. this is not a time to watch this body be obstructed from multiple attempts to make it dysfunctional. it is a constitutional issue. this is a time to stand upon the constitution and i urge this body to do so. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: parliamentary inquiry what order is the closing when there are three speakers and only one opposed? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize members in reverse order. mr. massie: at this point i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. we have no other speakers and prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky will be first to close. mr. massie: may i inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 1 1/ minute. mr. massie: in closing, congress and in particular the house of representatives, has the power of the purse. our constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. this means that the president cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the house of representatives, let him. if today we agree to just give the president all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the american people ever trust us again? they'll realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. they'll realize we don't actually care about the best interests of the american people. and that instead we are just care about going along to get along. even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch. today we heard mr. netanyahu say this is the most powerful legislative branch in the world. organization in the world. i would say it is. except for when the senate decides that it's not. we need to stand up, use the power of the purse exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities. i urge my colleagues to vote today in the best interest of the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to recede and concur and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks for the spirited debate we have had. i agree with many of the comments made by my colleague from kentucky and the people that have spoken during his time. the problem is i don't see a path to victory with what they are looking at. what they want to do will result in not defunding the president's actions, because there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. everybody knows that, don't we? what it will lead to is a close down of the department of homeland security. and that is not a victory. that is dangerous. you know, there's a difference of opinion between republicans and democrats between the administration and congress, as to the actions that the president made. whether they were constitutional or not. i have actually voted for something in here that -- in this body several years ago that i thought was perfectly legal perfectly constitutional. the court later found out it was unconstitutional told us it was unconstitutional. that's why you have a court. when there are differences of opinion as to what's constitutional and what's not constitutional, a court makes that determination. it's happened since the founders who wrote our constitution disagreed about what they had written. marbury vs. madison. it was up to the courts to make the determination of what the constitution said. as for voting for this, hurting our case, that is -- it's not our case it's the attorney general's case of the states, that is before the courts currently, if this voting to defund homeland security, that doesn't have any funding for the president's action, hurts our case then i would say that any law that passes congress can't be declared unconstitutional because we all voted for it. that's not reality. again, let the courts do their job. now, it's true that a majority in this congress and in the senate voted to defund the president's actions. but because of the senate rules it didn't pass. we didn't even get to go to conference because of the senate rules. some people suggest, maybe we ought to change the senate rules. we ought to insist that the senate change their rules. for the for the last four, eight years, i was kind of glad the way the senate rules were. they prevented what i believe a lot of bad stuff from coming over from the senate. so i don't know that i would go that way because, remember, at some point in time in history -- i hope it's not soon -- but at some point in time in history my party is going to be in the minority over there. and it's going to be nice to be able to control some of the agenda. let's remember the underlying bill is a dang good bill -- almost said it -- not quite. is a darn good bill, and we need to pass it and we need to pass it for the security of the american people and for the employees that work at the department of homeland security so those are -- that are considered essential don't have to go to work without way. that's irresponsible. that's us not doing our job. i will fight with anyone and i will stand on their side as long as they can show me a path to potential victory let's get this bill passed. it's a good bill and i would encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the motion offered by the gentleman from idaho. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion -- for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. massie: i request a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman asking for the yeas and nays on the previous question? mr. massie: i withdraw that request. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from idaho. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. massie: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states houf repntiv. any usofhelopt covagofheou proceefoti comiaoss expresslb u.s. hsef ens. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 257, the nays are 16. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it the journal stands approved. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. smith of missouri for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is accepted. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. does any member seek recognition for a one-minute speech? under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. the house will be in order. mr. rokita: i thank the speaker. it is my honor to, on behalf of a lot of our colleagues who cannot be here right now and on behalf of our colleagues who are going to speak, to talk about the budget of the united states federal government. mr. speaker, the house isn't in order. mr. speaker, i rise this afternoon after our legislative business for the day because it's the concern of many of us and perhaps it's the concern of all of us who ran for office, who got elected, who honorably serve in this body, to say, to make sure perhaps, that our priorities are in order. and mr. speaker, if you look simply at any number of quote-unquote debt clocks that run on all kinds of different websites including one that continues live in my office you see, perhaps i hope it's clear to you, mr. speaker that our priorities are not in order. we are over $18 trillion in debt as i take the microphone right now. and mr. speaker, that's not the half of it. over the next several decades, we are scheduled to have over $100 trillion in debt. and that is not acceptable. in fact i can't think of too many things that are more immoral than the present-day majority than our present-day citizens leaving this burden to future citizens, people who do not yet exist. talk about taxation without representation. but that's what we're faced with. that's what we do every day around here that our intudget not in balance and that our priorities remain out of order. now to be clear mr. speaker, we're able to get to this point as very few other countries are because of the fact that we are the world's reserve currency. because of the fact that we continue to be able to print money. and because of the fact that despite all our problems when compared in a relative fashion to all the other countries of the world, we simply aren't as bad yet. but over time that can very easily change, mr. speaker. and the solution to this isn't all that complicated. we have to stop spending more than we take in we have to keep growing our economy. we have to simplify our tax code so that it can actually generate more revenue than it's doing right now. and of course we have to reform what's driving the debt and that is our spending. and that's what the republicans in this chamber at least, are trying to achieve. we are trying to put our priorities back in balance. washington doesn't have a revenue problem mr. speaker. washington has a spending problem. in terms of revenue, we take in over $2 trillion a year. these are rough figures. but we spend generally over $3 trillion. that's simply not sustainable. that simply can't go on. if we're to have any credibility on this issue. and if we're going to remain a strong country, best of nations in the 21st century and continue to win. so the house budget committee and specifically the republicans on the house budget committee are about getting our priorities in order. frankly, to our credit, for the last four years mr. speaker, we have done just that. every year we've proposed, since 2010, we've proposed balanced budgets that if followed will have led us on a path to prosperity, would have made it clear that we are best class in the world again and the best investment going. all we had to do was take the steps outlined in that budget and it would have become. so this year, we're going to try again. we're going to balance this budget, we're going to have a markup in a week or so. we're going to propose and present ideas to the american public, most of these ideas they've seen before over the last four years. there may be some new ones. we're still writing our budget, taking input from members and nonmembers alike. but one thing the american people can count on, it within an honest budget, it will be credible, it will balance, and it will fulfill the promise we've explicitly and implicitly made over and over again to future generations that their generation will be better, we'll be better -- and will be better off than the generation before it. isn't that what we're all about? is that night -- isn't that what we're supposed to be about? but as i speak with you here today the facts tell a different story. in fact this current generation is the first one in american history that is destined and will, by any objective measure, to leave the next one worse off. never happened before in american history it's happening now. i know several of us on the budget committee refuse to let that happen on our watch. and so we come to you tonight with several ideas. i want to first recognize a very good friend of mine a professional came from the private sector, practiced accounting as a certified public accountant for over 25 years, has added tremendous, tremendous value to all the work we're doing on the budget committee and aside from budget issues, is a tremendous asset to nearly every issue debated on the floor of the house. i'd like to yield the floor mr. speaker, to my good friend, congressman rice of georgia. mr. rice: i thank the gentleman for yielding. south carolina, thank you. and what an honor it is to stand here before this group to talk about the federal budget. these are a couple of slides that were actually handed out to the budget committee that illustrate very wonderfully the challenge that we face. the total revenue for the federal government for fiscal year 2014 is $3.0 trillion. most of it from individual income taxes and then social insurance is the payroll taxes that we pay for social security and medicare. and then the spending. you can compare the two. revenues $3.02 trillion. spending $3357b9 trillion. our deficit is a half a trillion dollars, roughly, projected this year. that sounds terrible. of course, two years ago or three years ago, just before i was elected to congress, it was $1.4 trillion deficit. so it has in fact been cut well down. it's about 40% of what it was. i'll take all the credit for that though actually, it has come down dramatically but it is -- we are still on an unsustainable path and it is projected to rise. largely because of demographics. the baby boomers are retiring. the needs for social insurance is going to rise in the coming decade. the coming decades. and it will overwhelm us if we do not prepare for it. everybody will tell you there is no disagreement, republicans, democrats, congressional budget office, the office of management and budget, and any known economist will tell you that if we don't deal with this issue, it will overwhelm us. we are on an unsustainable path. we are piling billions and billions of dollars in debt on our children and our grandchildren every year. right now, we stand at $18 trillion in debt and on our current path i believe the number is $25 trillion is what they're projecting at the end of 10 years if we don't do something to deal with it. if you look at the spending, you can see the red areas is what they call entitlement spending or mandatory spending. social security being the biggest part of that. medicare. medicaid. and then interest on the debt is here, $229 billion a year. and then other mandatory, which would be unemployment, welfare, insurance the obamacare insurance subsidies will be in that. you can see that red area is about 2/3 of our total spending of $3.5 trillion. the blue area is what they call discretionary spending. discretionary spending is the only part that congress has a play -- or a say in every year. and if you break that down further the discretionary spending, defense is this parking lot here in dark blue, about half of it. nondefense discretionary is the remainder. nondefense discretionary is the thing most people think of as government. the f.b.i., the c.i.a., the white house, the department of the interior park service, e.p.a., army corps of engineers. all these things are nondefense discretionary. and people think, you know, gosh, we should cut the department of education, we should cut the e.p.a. that's great if you cut every dime of nondefense discretionary spending out of the budget, every cent of it we would still have a deficit. . if you eliminated every part other than defense, so you see how severe the problem. is you see -- another thing people don't understand is, because of sequester defense and nondefense discretionary have been whittled down over the last several years and in fact nondefense discretionary spending is below 2008 levels right now. it's as low as it's been since president barack obama has been in office. because of the sequester spending. and defense spending has been cut to the bone. it is below levels that the pentagon is telling us is necessary to maintain our readiness in this troubled world. the point of all of that is, with these things -- there's always ways and there's always further room to cut, but with these things having been whittled as low as they have, it's very obvious that we will not be able to handle our budget problems. we will never be able to reach a balanced budget unless we deal with this area in red, what's called mandatory spending, the entitlement programs. there is no way to fix this problem without dealing with those. you say, well, why don't we just raise taxes? right now we're taking in about i believe it's about 17% of our gross domestic product in tax revenues, it's more money in real dollars than this government has ever received. we're getting more revenue than we ever have. and it's a higher percentage of our gross domestic product than has been received on average over the past 40 years, so we're already at a higher level of revenue. revenue is not the problem. the problem is that spending is out of control. for the last three years the house budget committee has issued its own budget. it's been called the ryan budget, it's been called the house budget committee budget, it's been called the pathway to prosperity. and that budget takes reasonable steps to balance the budget over a 10-year period. now, the president issued his own budget this year. you know, the way this is supposed to work is the president is supposed to issue his budget by the end of january. this is the first time since he's been in office that he's actually done that. we actually got it on time. the house is supposed to issue its budget, i think it's about march 15. it goes over to the senate, they do their version. the house and the senate conference, then we send it to the president. for the first time since the president's been in office we're on track to actually have a budget. it's an amazing fact to me that since president barack obama's been in office, we have not had a budget. you can't run your household without a budget. you can't run a bakery without a budget. and here we are trying to run the most complex institution on earth without a budget. i mean, it's not just a lack of long-term planning, it's a lack of even planning for the current year. you have to have a budget. anyway we're on track to have a budget. the house budget committee has put one out for the past three years. the president issued his now. the house budget committee's budget over the last three years would have balanced in 10 years. and i anticipate that we'll do the same thing this year. we will put forth a budget that has reasonable adjustments and balances in 10 years. and stops piling mounds of debt on our children and our grandchildren. the president's budget on the other hand increases spending from $3.5 trillion a year to a little over $4 trillion a year. it adds $2 trillion in taxes over the next 10 years, and it never balances ever. continues -- it continues to pile debt on our children and grandchildren. the house budget committee's budget doesn't raise taxes and it does balance in 10 years. this is the projection by the congressional budget office nonpartisan, not democrat not republican of the path that we are currently on. and the cutoff of the blue area there is where we are today and you can see, with the demographics and with the burden that we're going to be placing on our social safety net and our entitlement programs, social security and medicare well right now where we are, if you look back in history, this goes back to 1941, never in the history of the united states has the debt, as the percentage of our gross domestic product, been as high as it is right now. the debt is about 70% of our gross domestic product. the debt held by the public. the only other time that it was this high was in world war ii. we can adopt changes we have time. we can adopt some modifications to bring this back under control. but if we do not, you can see the mushrooming effect of the additional debt, interest rates climbing, the interest that we pay on our debt rising, the effect of the entitlement programs, running our debt to over 100% of our gross domestic product, which will make it difficult for us to recover from. yes, sir. >> i thank the gentleman for showing not only members of congress but the american people this chart right there, that you just have. that one that you have right there. i think you're hitting the nail on the head. mr. rokita: this is exactly the problem. and if i could just add a few things to it. miss rice: i wish you would. mr. rokita: -- mr. rice: i wish you would -- mr. rice: i wish you would. mr. rokita: if you go back to world war ii, you see our debt level was there as a result of that war, but what's different about that period in our history, from our current situation, is the fact that as the gentleman knows, world war ii, one way or the other, was going to be a one-time event. and thankfully, because of this country's courage and the men and women who served for our country, it ended the right way. and as a result the event ended and we immediately began paying down our debt. so some might say, well, week of been there before -- week of been there before. what's -- we've been there before. what's different? why can't we solve the problem this time? we can solve the problem because, number one, we're americans. but what makes the situation different mr. speaker, and what the gentleman alloweds to is what a -- alludes to is what's driving our debt. what drove our debt in world war ii was a one-time event. what's driving the debt now is not scheduled to end. has no end really in sight. unless we reform the programs that are driving it. so that's what's -- one of the things that's strikingly different in terms of the current path we're on from where we've been before and that's why we have to arrest the debt. there's also a difference between now and world war ii. it's exemplified in this chart that i have. and that is who owns our debt. of course back in world war ii, the gentleman will remember the bond posters that you could see all over the country. where we asked our private citizens to finance the war. now, as you can see from this chart, the people we're asking to finance our debt not only are our own citizens, but increasingly and alarmingly more so other countries. who by the very definition of being other nations don't have our best interests top of mind. so that makes this a very different situation as well. we are increasingly, over time, becoming beholden to other countries to finance our spending problem. with that i would like to continue yielding to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. rice: thank you, mr. rokita. you know, were you aware that by the year 2030 according to c.b.o.'s projections, that our spending just on social security, medicare medicaid and our interest, just those four things will take up the entire revenue of the united states government? leaving nothing for other mandatory programs like welfare, like unemployment, like food stamps, like all those things. also leaving nothing for other discretionary spending like the f.b.i., like the park service, like border security and the c.i.a. but even more importantly, leaving nothing for defense. nothing for the army, the navy, the coast guard, nothing to buy the first bullet. by 2030. just those four programs, social security, medicare medicaid and the interest on our debt, will take up every dime that the united states government brings in if we don't change. now, the president's budget adds $2 trillion in taxes, but it adds even more than that in spending. and what does he spend the money on? well, you know it's a lot of additional programs. he has a -- add as little bit to defense, he add as little bit across the board to discretionary -- adds a little bit to defense he adds a little bit across the board to discretionary. but he has other programs. like his proposal for community college. which is a nice idea, a wonderful idea. but the problem is that we can't pay for the promises we've made already. so mr. speaker shouldn't we, before we make new promises, find a way to pay for the promises that we've already made? the president's budget, in addition to more taxes and more spending and more government programs it's just another big growth of government. which we've seen over and over again during this administration. from dodd-frank to obamacare and other things you've seen a huge explosion in government. now, what's the effect of that been? the president loves to say mr. speaker, that he's for the middle class. well i want to show you an interesting graph. this is -- this blue line here, going down, is the median household income in the united states. this is the middle class that the president is always saying he's for. you can see from 2008 when he took office until today, that blue line has gone down 8.7%, median household income in the country has dropped 8.7% more government programs bigger government, more intrusion on government in your life, more intrusion of government in this, our national economy, and you can see the stifling effect that it has on our economy, you can see -- i think it was 2% growth last quarter. here we are seven years after the great recession. we have should have had a huge snap back. all we're doing is muzzling along trying to swallow this giant additional of big government that's been created. middle class income's down 8.7%. but look at this mr. speaker this purple line here represents the consumer price index for medical care. over that same time it is up over 10%. this red line represents consumer price index for gasoline, which is now turning down, but it's still above where the president took office this green line is the consumer price index for food and besks -- food and beverages. because you see gasoline and heating oil and electricity all go into the cost of food. you have to fertilize it, you have to prepare the seed you have to transport it. all those things go into the cost of food, so you see food's gone up 20%. gasoline's gone up 10%. health care's gone up 15%. all these additional costs on the middle class. at the same time the median household income has dropped by 8.7%. so when the president gets up and talks about how the stock market's doing and how the economy's recovered i can tell you, mr. speaker, you can look at this chart and very easily see why the average middle class family doesn't feel it. they don't agree with it. . and the president's proposed government by add manager taxes and more government programs will do nothing but exacerbate this problem. the middle class squeeze. we're going to squeeze the middle class until there's nothing left. i cringe when the president says he's for the middle class. don't look at what he says look at what he's doing. so mr. speaker i believe in the house republican -- the house budget committee's budget that balances in 10 years, that makes responsible adjustments to our social safety net, that makes responsible adjustments to our discretionary programs and brings our budget into balance in 10 years. when i came to congress, i thought our debt was the biggest problem we faced. i no longer believe that. i know we can handle it, i've been through the budget committee, all we have to do is start now to make responsible adjustments. the longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes. my tenure in congress is and will continue to be focused on american competitiveness. i think we have given away a lot of our competitive edge to the rest of the world. i think if we decide we want to compete, that nobody can stop us. the only people stopping us is us. we've tied a noose of tax and regulation around our own neck and we are running our businesses and our jobs overseas. that is my focus. we cannot fix this problem with our budget unless we have growth. and the way to increase greth growth -- to increase growth is to increase our competitive nature status in the world. s that list of things created by a harvard economist and good friend named michael porter. he's been to congress more than once, talked oto over 100 congressmen about how to make this country more competitive. these are eight items, one of them is, in fact, the most important one is to create a sustainable federal budget. because you see, my friends, without a sustainable budget, you remember, the office of management and budget that works with the white house says we are on an unsustainable course. congressional budget office, we are on an unsustainable course. step number one to make this country competitive and bring jobs back to this country, create a responsible federal budget. i submit to you, mr. speaker, that the president's budget fails miserably in that regard. just as his policies are failing the middle class miserably this budget wull make us less competitive in the world. second, it says simplify the corporate tax code. simplify and streamline regulations. the house budget assumes many of these things that make this country more competitive in adopting its budget. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman again. he hits the nail right on the head, middle class economics is a term and it's just that watch what the president does to see how he affects the middle class. mr. rice: not what he says. mr. rokita: exactly right. i also want to talk about what the gentleman has on his poster there, the eighth point, sustain the -- create the federal budget. it seems obvious to every american family that must do this within the walls of their own dwelling but for some reason it escapes the federal government. i draw the royce's attention, the speaker's attention to the wording that appears after that comma. including entitlement reform. create a sustainable budget, comma including entitlement reform. we touched on this a little earlier in the hour that we have. at this point i'm worried, mr. speaker, that some who are watching this discussion may think, wait a minute, wait a minute. i put my hard-earned money into these programs, being medicare and social security, primarily, every two weeks or whenever my paycheck comes. and i see the government taking out a lot. and that's my min. that's my property. -- my money. that's my property. so what is congress thinking? what are these two gentlemen from south carolina and indiana and others who are going to speak here in a minute saying when they say entitlement reform. i put in therefore i should get out. and i want to take just a minute to address that. because of course in a very real sense that's what every working american has done. but in another equally real sense, and more important sense we haven't. we haven't. and that's what's driving our debt. now the gentleman had a pie graph up earlier that easily showed, and he'll put it back up, the fact that most of our spending at the federal government level is on programs that are on auto pilot. so we as congressmen can't vote on these priorities through the budget mechanism itself we have to affect the underlying law. that is to say congressman rice and congressman rokita don't get to determine through the budget process year after year what someone's social security check is going to be. what medicare services people are going to get or not get. it's not done necessarily through the budget. we talk about the need to reform those in the budget document but it's not done through the budget language only. you have to reform the underlying law. 10 2/3 of our budget, again, as the chart shows, is on auto pilot. it goes year after year after year and gets worse and worse. this is what's driving our debt. now, to my point about have we paid for those programs or not? this is a chart that describes the average american working couple. and it shows this is a medicare example. so this is not social security, this is medicare. it shows that a couple making a combined $71,500 a year on average over a lifetime has put in roughly about 30% of what they're taking out of medicare. let me say that again. they're putting in 30%, we're putting in, the average american couple, putting in 30% of what we're going to take out of medicare. and the rest, mr. speaker, goes on the debt. and that is the crux of the problem. if you go to the second set of bars you see that the problem only gets worse. as a percentage of the amount we're putting in is only going to go down. and that's what makes this a moral situation a moral case that we're making the children of tomorrow pay so that we can have more on our plate now, quite frankly. it's just not medicare, social security is in a much better position than this, but it's on the same trend. and it's not just our health care and other social entitlement programs. it's the highway trust fund, for example. which i hope we address not only in our budget document but throughout the congress and to date the president hasn't done that. so that's really the problem here. and i yield briefly back to my good friend from south carolina congressman rice, and then move swiftly to mr. womack. mr. rice: in close, my friend i want to point out what the house budget committee does to bring the budget within balance within 10 years. it's not all this, but three major things. one, it repeal os ba macare chst costs $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. two initiates what's called premium support for medicare. what you're talking about. and it doesn't do away with medicare, and it doesn't affect anybody who is either retired or within re-- or retiring within eight years. but what it does for people that are outside that window, medicare still offered and they'll allow four other insurance companies to bid for medicare coverage. the government won't pay for the cheapest, it'll pay for the second cheapest. if you want to buy a cheaper policy, you can. and you'll get money. if you want to buy a more expensive policy you can, but you'll have to pay a little bit more for it. but that is a huge savings in medicare. something that we have to do. so premium support for medicare, repeel obamacare and third, it doesn't cut discretionary spending, defense and nondefense, but it slows the growth a little. those three things go 80% of the way to bringing our budget within balance within 110 years. let me tell you my friends we don't have a choice. we're piling debt on our children and grandchildren. c.b.o. o.m.b., they'll all tell you, social security trust fund, it'll be broke in 2030 or thereabouts. medicare trust fund broke. 2030 or thereabouts. the problem with federal trust funds they're not funded and you can't trust them. other than that, they're great. so with that, mr. rokita, i'm going to yield back. i appreciate you allowing me to participate in this. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman for his leadership. the gentleman is exactly right. if we act now no one who is on or near to be on any of these programs has to be affected. we can easily take care of the promises that were made and that these folks again who are on these programs or near to be on these programs have rightly relied on. and that's because we are still a world -- still the world's reserve currency. we are not greece. if we make these reforms now, we're talking about the reforms affecting folks a generation away. those in my age pract or -- bracket or younger who would have time to prepare for the new situation. people who are having kids today who will live probably past 100. they'll have the time under a new program that reflects the realities of living in the 21st century and frankly how long we live in the 21st century. with that, i want to recognize a good friend of mine former mayor of rogers arkansas, a decorated military office who is also a great friend and great leader in this congress, mr. steve womack. i yield. mr. womack: i thank the gentleman and first of all, for his great leadership on this subject. the gentleman from the hoosier state and i came in together back in 2010. we were elected to this congress. and i can't speak necessarily for the gentleman, i can only speak for myself but i'd almost bet that my friend from indiana would agree that we came up here to tackle the nation's biggest problems. mr. speaker, the framers of our country were visionaries. they got it right on the formation of the country and the established government that guides our every decision. they not only had the foresight to establish constitutional principles and processes that address the challenges of the day but that sustain and guide our nation now two and a quarter centuries later. what you have just heard in the last few minutes, and i've been witness to the presentation made by my friend from south carolina with commentary from the gentleman from indiana, i'm going to present many of the same arguments in the time that i have before you today because i think they are worth repeating. and my chart may show it a little bit differently. mr. speaker, i came to the congress and was immediately placed on the appropriations committee and as a member of that committee, one of my jobs is to look after the discretionary piece of the federal budget. and as has already been mentioned, the discretionary piece of the federal budget is getting squeezed. there was a time in the not too distant past that discretionary spending was the largest share of spending, as was mentioned by my friend from south carolina, things that you recognize your federal government for. and he articulated a number of those. but when you look at this particular chart and this end of the chart would represent 1962, the other end of the chart is just about three years from now in 2018. you can see in case you have trouble seeing, let me just go through the color coding here. the purple at the top is the amount of money that we have to pay year in and year out to service our debt. those of you at home that mr. speaker -- that have a credit card bill that comes in every month, there will be a category there a block there that says minimum payment due. the minimum payment is usually the reflection of interest due on that account and not necessarily a reduction in the principal amount owes. and that's exactly what this purple is. the minimum payment due year in and year out we have to make in order to satisfy the creditors, the people that have given money to this country, loaned money to this country for governmental purposes. as you can see, mr. speaker, this chart shows that that area in purple has grown down through the years. it tightened up a little bit back a few years ago but now if you look at that last piece of it right here you'll notice that it's taking a dip and if we extended that chart out for many more years it gets progressively worse. the next can -- color is red the reflection of mandatory spending talked about by the gentleman before me that constitutes how much money that we have to spend year in and year out to pay for the programs that people all across this country are entitled to. . the biggest driver of the long-term consequences of mandatory spending is medicare. and there are many charts that will show you the path that medicare is on. something happened last night at midnight that affects the ongoing cost of that piece of mandatory spending and that is 11,000 people celebrated a birthday as we rolled into a new day. 11,000 people aged into that program. now mr. speaker tonight at midnight something else is going to happen. it's going to influence the growth of that area in red, and that is another 11,000 people, thereabouts are going to age into this program that they automatically qualify for when they turn 6 . and thank -- 65. and thankfully more and more people are living beyond 65 and i'm glad for that. if you look at that red coupled with the purple, you can see that since 1962, it has commanded a much larger share of federal spending. and if it is putting a tremendous squeeze on the programs that people like me as an appropriator have to work with to fund the other essential forms of government. i have a lot of people say to me when i go home, you know, mr. womack you are an appropriator and you ought to be able with your vote and leadership on that committee, you ought to be able to see that the books of the federal government are balanced. if you look at the last two colors, the green, which is nondefense spending and the blue, which represents defense discretionary spending these two colors have gotten smaller and smaller and smaller, so small that now they represent about a third of our spending. and you do the math. the gentleman from south carolina, i would be happy to yield. >> you are raising a fundamental point with regard to government spending and it raises the cross roads that we are at because in my mind i keep going out to 2025 and at that point, we will have money for interests without either raising taxes, cutting benefits or running large deficits going forward and ultimately there comes a point of no return. mr. sanford: the world financial markets won't lend you anymore. it underscores the degree to which we are going to have an important debate in this chamber in the next month because what the president has essentially said is that i'm not going to deal with this. if you look at the white house budget at the core it abandons this notion of financial discipline and adds $2.2 trillion in new taxes $8.5 trillion in new debt and runs from $500 billion deficits to $1.1 trillion deficits with no end in sight. getting onto the mandatory component and interest component of government spending cannot be underscored enough. it hit me as you were talking. mr. womack: to carry our colloquy a little bit further, the gentleman from south carolina is the former governor from south carolina and had dealing with dealing with budgets and live within your executive means. so you have a great appreciation for how important it is to be able to craft budgets that live within your means and address the major drivers of what could be deficit spending at the spending level. mr. sanford: it's so interesting that ultimately it's not just about balancing budgets because i think a lot of people across this country look at the goings-on of congress and say it's about trying to balance some numbers, no. it's sustaining this republic. mike mullen was asked what is the biggest threat to the united states, it wasn't china. he said the national debt. and if you look a whole host of different folks across recent history. paul kennedy wrote a book called "the rise and fall of great powers." economic supreme asy is bigger than military force. we heard prime minister netanyahu lay out some things. and america's vulnerability engaging in engaging with israel or other whole hosts of things, our ability to impact those things will be driven by the economic numbers. i mean you know, i think it's been maligned, but professors from university of maryland and professor from harvard wrote a book called "this time is different." . but the larger premise was in that title this time it's different. no. it's never different. math always works. and there is something fundamental about our civilization, not to balance budgets for balanced budgets' sake but to maintain power and maintain a way of life that we love is underlying these very charts that you are showing. mr. womack: reclaiming my time. i just want to say before i go to my next chart that this isn't an option for us, to allow this to continue on this path without the interaction of this congress and solutions offered by this congress, many of which are going to be big deals because when you get this far along in the problem, the solutions to the problem get much larger, going to require a lot more political courage. but we have to address it because if we don't in just a few years beyond the 2018 time frame that this chart shows, there will be no money left for the items that you see in green and blue. and the items in blue is national defense. and -- mr. sanford: would the gentleman yield for one more second? mr. womack: i will. mr. sanford: i love keeping strange jotted knots notes in my office. again, the number you are getting at because you are now touching on national defense spain defaulted on all of or part of its debt. pre-war revolutionary france saw 62% of its revenue going to war payments. and britain interest payments and a.m. or tiation 15% of its budget to 50% in 1875. this music has been played before with disastrous consequences and that's why i think it's relevant. lenin's quote was this no settler, no sure means of overturning the existing basis of a society than to debaunch the currency and does it in a manner that not one man in a million is diagnosing. with the chart that you have laid before the congress. i appreciate the gentleman perspective. mr. womack: i want to show you this one. i was fortunate to get elected in 2010 by a significant majority of the people in the third district of arkansas. i consider that area of our state to be the most dynamic in all of our state. it's got a lot going for it. it's got great jobs, great health care, great educational institutions, effective governments, the university of arkansas, i mean a lot of great things you can say about the area that i represent. and it's different than a lot of places around our country, i will submit to that. and while i made a promise to the people that elected me, the biggest promise that i made, the one that i hold closest to my heart and the promise that drives all of the decisions that i make particularly to my friends that have joined me here in the chamber today regarding budgets, deficits debt, long-term spending, are the promises i made to these two young men right here. this is liam. he's 8 and that's caden. he's not even two yet. these are my grandkids. when i look into the eyes of these two precious little boys i see the innocence of youth but i also see something that they can't see, i see a tremendous burden that is growing every day, every week, every year that these two kids have had nothing to do in creating, and that is a mountain of debt and interest payments for borrowed money that go as far as the eyes can see. mr. sanford: would the gentleman yield on that point? i think you are capturing in essence, the totality of this debate, there is a guy at the university of boston who wrote a book called "the coming generational storm" and he says that the tax child born into america today is about 84%. 84%. our civilization won't work, a market-based economy doesn't work with an 84% tax rate. and that's what he said is coming those two young children's way in the event that nothing is done to change the course and trajectory of the way washington is spending money. the debt is $2 trillion. it hit me as i was looking at your two grandchildren's eyes. and i yield back. mr. womack: i want to give you some perspective. the only budget we have laying out there right now is the president's budget. arrived on time. never balances, never and continues to add a lot of taxes, debt and interest burdens on the generations of these two kids right here. but here's what's ines cabble. the net interest on the debt and i might need some help on this -- about $250 billion? it's a lot of money. build a lot of roads and bridges. $250 billion. the president's budget if you roll it out for 10 years in the 10-year window before this young man can vote and before this young man turns 12, the net interest on the debt will rise to $785 billion a year. that is not a sustainable path. and that's why i was pleased to accept the appointment to the budget committee as one of the three appropriators assigned to this committee. i enjoy the work that i do and i appreciate so much my friend from indiana, my friend from georgia, my friend from south carolina and the others that will parade down here and talk about these issues. they are the most serious things that affect domestic america today. and out of deference to these two young men and their two parents, it is my hope and my prayer that we will find the courage to support the solutions, large as they may be to save america's next greatest generation. with that, i yield back my time. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman from arkansas. clearly, mr. speaker, you see why he was elected, you see why he is a leader. and you see how and why he leads on the floor of this house. i want to again thank congressman tom rice from south carolina for speaking today, congressman mark sanford, former governor of south carolina, congressman from the 1st district for speaking today and congressman steve womack and with the time i have remaining, i yield the rest of the hour to a good friend of mine came in at the same time as me and steve womack and a wave of 87 new congresspersons. a new crew, rob woodall and member of the budget committee to put some icing on what we have learned over the past hour. . mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership. mr. speaker, i don't know if you've thought about it, but you came here -- you have not been here very long. the gentleman from indiana, vice chairman of the budget committee. he's been here four years. whey love about this institution, what was once a seniority based institution if you could just hold on to your little piece of power long enough you might one day rise to a place where you can be influential. when we came in, that big class of 2010, a new leadership structure was swept in here, folks said, no more. we want to find folk who was talents, who have skills, who have the ability to lead, and we're going to put them in places where they can do that. i'm so proud that the gentleman from indiana is able to fill that role. for me, i sit on the budget committee too and i get to take advantage of his leadership. the gentleman from arkansas was down here earlier and i don't think i'm telling secrets out of school i'm sure the vice chairman will correct me if i am, but he raised his hand in one of these closed-door meetings and said, i want to do the big things. i don't want to nibble around the edges, i don't want to just rearrange the dollars here and there i want to solve the problem once and for all. and i'll do whatever it takes to make that happen. i know that's always been the philosophy that the gentleman from south carolina has brought to bear. that i want to do the big things. let the political chips fall where they may. it's a funny thing, turns out if you do the right thingers in right reasons sometimes elections take care of themselves. you can spend all your time about worrying about elections or you can do the right thing for the right reason. this chart, i brought it here so you could see it too the blue line charts the revenue in this country. the red line charts the spending in the country. it's there as a percentage of g.d.p. there's no set of circumstances where revenue will ever match spending, mr. speaker. the president didn't provide that leadership. my friend from indiana is. that's why i'm so proud to be on the floor with you today. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. costa is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costa: my name is congressman jim costa from fresno, california. since i was first elected over 10 years ago, i have been a member ofheludocaus. this afternoon members of the blue dog caucus that stretch the width and breadth of this great country of ours are going to speak about what brings us together. about the passions that they have and the people that they advocate for and why they believe that their efforts as being a constructive and very positive member of the blue dog caucus adds value to their ability to represent their constituencies and to the vision that i think we as americans all share together which is to make our congress, to make our representative democracy a more functioning system. because clearly today the american public after poll after poll after poll demonstrates their frustration. with the inability of the united states congress to come together and to work on common solutions for our country. solutions that share our common values. but also involve the art, the art of the political compromise. too often, i believe, an art that has become lost here in our nation's capital in washington, d.c. so among the first of the members of our caucus that will speak is the gentlewoman from arizona's ninth district a colleague of mine who always is advocating for her constituency in the most positive ways kirsten sinema. -- -- kyrsten sinema. ms. sinema: thank you for organizing this opportunity for us to come together and show our bipartisanship can fix our broken sim. at home in arizona, i hear from everyone that washington is broken. there's too much time spent playing political games and too little time spent working together to get things done. you know, most people are sick and tire of congress failing to do its job because of partisan politics. and that's why i joined the blue dog coalition. because they prioritize the people they represent more than their party leader shitch. everybody knows that congress is not working effectively and the blue dogs are trying to change that. they are focused on ending political polarization, reforming congress, stopping reckless government spending and creating economic opportunities for americans who have been left behind by this recession. i come to work every single day to get things done for arizona and i have a proven record of reaching out to members of both political parties to find common ground on issues ranging from jobs and the economy to reducing spending an government waste. as a co-founder of the united solutions caucus and a no labels problem soover, i worked with members of both parties to get things done. at home congressman matt sand and i worked together to help arizona veterans get the care they deserved. i worked with congressman michael mccal to pass legislation that puts an end to automat -- mccaul to pass legislation that putance end to automatic pay raises for members of congress. both parties are often wrong. it's time to listen to each other, work together, grow our -- to grow our economy help our nation's families and help our veterans. recently we came together to pass bipartisan legislation to prevent veteran's suicide and help services for veterans. just this week, we agreed on legislation to expand college savings plans and make higher education a reality for students and their families. we need more of these kinds of accomplishments in congress. in arizona, the votersest tablied an independent redistricting commission that allows for a more open and transparent process, that creates competitive districts where neither party has a monopoly. we have proposed similar reforms to create impartial districts across the country, to cut back on the polarization that cripples our system. the american to people deserve lead who do whatever it takes to move us forward. it's time to focus on areas of common ground and come up with real answers to our country east most pressing problems. so let's put aside the finger pointing and the fighting. let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work. i yield back. mr. costa: i thank the gentlewoman from arizona and our next blue dog colleague who will speak is a gentleman who i have served with both in california's state legislature as well as here in congress, he and i are good friends, we both represent wonderful parts of california and he is one of the longer serving members of the blue dog caucus, the gentleman from northern california congressman mike thompson from california's fifth district. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman and my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, members, i came to the floor this afternoon to join my blue dog colleagues in calling for all of us in congress to come together and do the work that we've been asked to do. the work that we've been sent to washington, sent to congress to do on behalf of the people that we represent. i came to congress to get things done, to get things done for the people i represent and to get things done for the great country we're all so privileged to live and to participate in. as mr. costa mentioned, he and i served together in the state legislature in california and i'm very proud of the work we kid there. we were able to get a lot of things done. the time that i was there, the majority of the time, i chaired the senate budget committee. that was one of the reasons why i was so proud to be a blue dog. the common thread that holds all blue dogs together is the issue of fiscal responsibility. in my time in sacramento chairing the budget committee, we always had a balanced budget fiscal responsibility was important and it's equally as important here in congress. nobody likes the fact that we have huge deficits or huge debts. we understand that some things are unavoidable. but there has to be an understanding of and an intentional effort on the part of all of us to make sure that we are fiscally responsible and that we manage that debt and manage that deficit and we bring it down to a level that won't burden our children and our grandchildren in the years to come. and so i was stunned when i came to congress and found out that it was very, very difficult to get anything done, to get people to work together. and as jim pointed out, i'm one of the longer serving members soifs stunned a long time ago in what you can probably refer to today as the good old days when we were actually able to work together and get things done. but we didn't have a high level of that cooperation even back then. last week, i was with the aspen institute on a trade conference and anybody who is familiar with them knows that they're able to bring together a bipartisan and bicameral representation of congress. members from the senate, members from the house democrats, and republicans. and they also bring together some of the most famous scholars to talk about whatever the issue of the conference is. and i was struck at this trade conference when one of the new members that we serve with, now starting his sophomore term, after the scholar spoke and he was recognized, he said, i came to congress to involve myself in this type of problem solving. when people came together, talked about issues, talked about problems, and talked about solutions. he said, this is the first time since i've been here that we've been able to engage in that type of dialogue. and that's not right, members. and we all know that. we're here to work on the problems that face our great country and we need to get down and do that work. mr. costa: would the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: i'm happy to yield. mr. costa: i appreciate you explaining your experience in the california legislature bauds we not only worked together in a bipartisan fashion but we also worked together with the lower house and the state senate because you could never get anything done if you didn't work together with both houses and that's part of our problem here today. mr. thompson: reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. that's how the legislative process works. you don't just punt something over to the other chamber and say we've done our job. because you haven't done your job until the president, in the case of congress, signs his name on the line making that bill, or that job, come to fruition making it the law. and you're right, in the state capital, we did that we knew we had to work together because the same piece of legislation had to pass both houses and had to meet -- had to get the governor's signature and the same thing happens here. i know it can be done. one of the things i did in some of my earlier years here, i was successful in getting the wilderness bill passed. the wilderness bill that protected into perpetuity 350,000 acres in my district in california. and wilderness bills have passed before so that in itself is not the biggest thing that's ever happened here. but i'm particularly proud because i was in the minority then, the chair of the natural resources was richard palmbo of california, someone i consider a friend though not a political ally and he was not someone who was favorable to approving wilderness legislation. but i worked with him and his committee, he had the bill up -- in for a markup. we had it on the floor, we passed it. i compromised he, compromised that bill went through the house, the companion bill went through the senate as mr. costa was explaining has to be done and it went to then-president george bush who signed it into law. it's incongruent with the way we work today. today we start by saying, an unfriendly chairman, an unfriendly president, we can't get anything done. that's not true. if we come together if we work together, we can -- we can find solutions to the problems that we face. and there's any number of issues that need to come together and be put on this floor for a vote. you can look at immigration reform, tax reform, gun violence prevention and certainly one that everyone can agree with, an infrastructure bill. there's not a person that any one of us represents who doesn't know that we need to invest in america's infrastructure, in our roads and highways and broadband and in our overpasses and our bridges and now with the new panama canal coming online and the bigger ships coming into this country, we have huge investments that need to be made in our ports and our harbors. . these investments not only put americans to work but better jobs and make our economy stronger than it's ever been before. i submit members, that these are things that we can do, as has been said before. the things that bring us together, the things that bring us together as americans are far greater than the things that divide us. and i will plead, let's get together, let's roll up our sleeves, let's work together on addressing the major issues that face america. i thank you, mr. costa, for bringing us here today, and i yield back. mr. costa: i thank congressman from california. congressman thompson indicated why he is a blue dog and over the years, his efforts to bridge the gap and reach across the aisle and he recognizes that the political disfunction that is occurring here in our nation's capitol. it is preventing our country from solving the problems that our constituents send us here to solve, whether it's the economic recovery that could be stronger. whether it's fixing our nation's deficit, whether it's fixing a broken immigration system or an array of other issues that are pressing that are important to the people back home. the next gentleman who would like to address our congress is a colleague of ours from the great state of illinois, my colleague and classmate, congressman lipinski from illinois' 3rd district. mr. lipinski: thank you for putting this together today. the reason i came to congress, the reason i ran for congress, was to get things done. i think that's what all our constituents are expecting us to do. unfortunately when i'm at home, i'm constantly reminded that my constituents are wondering why we don't get more done. what's happening in washington. people come up to me and say, why can't everyone work together there in washington? they know that i have been doing that. and that's why i'm part of the blue dog coalition, because we want to bring people together here in washington in the house, the senate, bring everyone together to work out the many, many problems that our nation has. we just had mr. thompson talk about a transportation bill. everyone talks about the need to fix our transportation infrastructure. we have roads and bridges that are crumbling. our public transit also has infrastructure that's crumbling. we all need a good transportation system to get wherever we need to go during the day. our nation for the sake of having an efficient economy needs a good transportation system. we can put people to work immediately fixing our transportation system. yet we haven't been able to come together to solve this problem. that's one thing that we need to do and something that i think that we can do. we just seen all the trouble that we run into here with the homeland security bill. an issue that should be easy. we all want to protect our homeland. we all know the threats that we are facing, and although we may have have disagreements on many issues, protecting our nation is not one of those. yet, unfortunately, we do run into issues. and we really need to instead focus on what can we work together on and what is possible? we have divided government now. it used to be that after an election that everyone would come together, look around and say ok, this is who is in the majority in the house, majority in the senate, who's in the white house, what can we agree upon, how can we cork together to solve problems? where can we find agreement? instead we focused on how can our party get control of everything in the next election. mr. speaker, this is not the way that the american people want us to work. they want us to come together. now as some of the previous speakers who talked about electoral reform, redistricting reform those could certainly help and could support and the blue dogs are working to get done. but even before we get those things done we can work together and accomplish get things here. the american people are demanding that of us and demanding that we change the way that washington is working right now. and that's what the blue dogs are doing. that's the only way we are going to be able to face so many of the problems that we face, including the issue that is really at the heart of the blue dogs, has always been and continues to be, is dealing with our fiscal situation. we need to be fiscally responsible. the american people understand this. they know we need to make the tough choices here in washington to get our fiscal house in order. the blue dogs have always led on that and continue to lead on that, but it's going to take bipartisan cooperation to get that done, because we have divided government. but we need to do it. we need to take care of these issues. and the blue dogs continue to work on these things and we really need the support of everyone to come together here in washington, across the country to solve these great problems that we have that we face. mr. speaker, i'm sure there are people who are maybe out there watching this on c-span and probably a lot of people who are just so happy to finally hear turn on c-span and hear people talk about working together not talking about what's wrong with the other side, how i'm right and the other side's wrong. but we need to work together. that's what the blue dogs are about and will continue to be about, and that is the way that we are going to make america the greatest nation on the face of the earth. the nation faces many issues, many problems, just as our families are facing many issues right now. but by working together, we could make our nation even greater and only by working together, will we get there. i'm very happy to join my blue dog colleagues tonight and every day working to help make america a better place to live. let us all come together, mr. speaker and work on some of these problems. compromise. i know sometimes it's a dirty word. you don't have to give up your principles to compromise. compromise and get done what we have to get done and make this nation a greater place. i thank my blue dog colleagues very much and mr. costa and we will continue to bring the message to the american people and get things done. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman from illinois, my classmate for his good words. clearly i think he speaks on behalf of not only the blue dogs and the majority of americans who believe we need to be working together to solve problems whether it's our budget, our fiscal deficit or whether it's our transportation system, as the gentleman from illinois pointed out. it could never be my way or the highway because if that is the case we will never get anything done, as has been witnessed here for the last couple of months. when we work together as the compromised bipartisan vote this afternoon we saw on homeland security, we can get something done. my next friend and colleague is the representative from georgia's second district congressman sanford bishop and a member of the blue dog caucus and represents some of the best parts of georgia, fort beening agriculture, like i represent. and we are glad to have you here this afternoon to tell us the thoughts of the people of the 2nd district and the terrific job you do on their behalf. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for pulling together this special order and i thank the gentleman for yielding. martin luther king junior said an ultimate leader is not a consensus but a molder of consensus. gridlock on the other hand ash -- sitting down with those across the aisle is not only placing faith in political adverse sears but placing faith in our democratic system, a system that was founded on the art of creating consensus in order to move forward. all of us here speaking from the well this hour believe in working together for better government working for responsible government working for transparent government. the moderate blue dogs are here not only to find common ground between lawmakers but to forge an understanding of what it is to truly work together. the blue dog coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics. we represent the center of the house of representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the american public. the coalition developed substantive proposals and positions distinct from those advocated by the extremes in both parties. needless to say, we, blue dogs, are less swayed by the leadership of either party and more persuaded by the needs and the concerns of main stream americans. this is nothing new. 20 years ago the blue dog coalition was formed after the 1994 election. many of our proposals were positive additions to a congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic. the blue dogs have been solving problems. tell the truth. govern for the future. put the country first. be responsible. work together. my job is to represent the interests and the values of the people in my district in middle and southwest georgia. as a blue dog democrat, i pushed for commonsense measures that will make government work better for my constituents. the people of georgia's 2nd congressional district, like all americans, deserve a government that puts their needs ahead of partisan politics. we seek to use the legislative process to create a higher, better quality of life for all of our citizens, eliminating government waste and efficiency are crucial to achieving this goal. we work with our colleagues on the right and the left on both sides of the aisle to pass commonsense reforms that will make government work for our people. it is our responsibility to ensure that government works for the american people. i'm committed to working together with my colleagues to pass legislation that eliminates federal waste and inefficiency. if we can do this, it will give us a better chance at getting things done. and that's how we build trust with the american people by showing them we are doing the job we were sent to do. today, many folks might suppose that bipartisan is dead. the blue dogs have been here and are still here to say that it's not dead. we are committed to working not to finger point, not to fight, but to fix. and i believe that problem solving together across both sides of the aisle we can make that happen. i'm so delighted that my colleague mr. costaville come together with the special order so we can say to each other and the american people that we cry out for a government that will work for the people to get the needs, the common goals, the common hopes and common aspirations addressed. we may have differences, but we have more similarities than we have differences, and if we find those common deep nominators that bind us, we can get the job done for the american people. so i thank you for this time. mr. costa: i could not have said it better, for the people and by the people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california will suspend. the chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the messenger: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives, messages in writing. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: thank you mr. speaker. for those watching on c-span this afternoon, we welcom inpu wweoo comments. for those of you who are interested, please sign on to our website, www.bluedog schrader.house.gov. we all have our websites. not only our constituents from our respective districts but people from throughout the country, we would urge you to weigh in. let us know how you feel. which is an appropriate segue for our next speaker, the blue dogs have every two years select three leaders to represent them and to organize our agenda. we have a policy individual who will be speaking in a moment, congressman jim cooper. we have the communications director, which is the position i serve, and thenve chairperson. our chairperson is a gentleman i have the honor and privilege to serve with, he is my friend he, is doing an excellent job, the gentleman from oregon's fifth district, representative schrader. mr. schrader: thank you very very much. i want to thank the gentleman for hosting this special order. i think it's important for america to realize we don't hate one another. we get along really well on a personal level. and there are those of us on both sides of the aisle who want to work together to solve our country's problems. you've heard a little bit about that already. i think at this time more than ever it's important for congress to come together. the little debate we had last week, week and a half, on the department of homeland security i think drives that point home. oftentimes, within families there's disagreements. whether it's a republican family or democratic family. we're not going to agree on all the issues all the time. that doesn't make one side wrong and the other side right. what it does -- but it does mean there's an honest difference of opinion. the way our forefathers set the system up, we're supposed to work through that. there are checks and balances. no one party, no one chamber, no one individual is supposed to have ultimate veto over the rights of everyday main street americans. so what we in the blue dog coalition try to do is bridge those differences. provide a forum to find ways to agree. not disagree. with the other team. the homeland security bill, whatever you think about some of the attachments to the bill, or some of the actions by the president of the united states, it's important to fund homeland security. more now than ever. the stuff that's gone on overseas that could possibly threaten our own shores makes it imperative to work together. i'm actually proud derek spite the sausage making look of it in the media and perhaps to a lot of americans, that it was republicans and democrats that came together to solve that problem. we lived to fight another day on immigration reform and some of the other issues. we have genuine, legitimate differences of opinion on. but it should be not be lost on the american people that it was democrats and republicans coming together to solve a very basic problem that our congress and nation are charged to do which is provide for the security of the american people. the blue dogs have been doing this for years. you've heard our reception after the 1994 elections when blue dogs felt they were getting choked, regular southern democrats if you will, at that time. it's branched out like mr. costa indicates to include the whole country but yellow dog democrats were -- felt that they were not being represented by their leadership. out of that came the blue dogs. the body has grown and decreased in number with every election cycle. there's been a consistent drum beat, however, for folks like us, moderate districts, not just on the democratic side but on the republican side. we actually have quarterly meetings with a republican group called the tuesday group where we try and get together and share ideas about things we can work together on. not in opposition to, but work together on. boy, i wish leadership would work in that same veen. mr. costa: would the gentleman yield? mr. schrader: yes i will. mr. costa: we've talked a lot about this among our fellow blue dogs but the point you raise is worth repeating. frankly, i think there are a lot of members on both sides of the aisle if they had the opportunity would like to figure out how they could work together. i know as the chair of the blue dog caucus, it's your desire to reach out and continue to make that effort and i just want to applaud you for that. but i also want to ask, are there other ways in which constituents can make their congresspeople feel more comfortable about doing that? because this notion that it's my way or the highway i think the majority of my constituents wonder what's going on there? what are you folks thinking in washington. that's not the way we're we do it at home. mr. schrader: reclaiming my time, i totally agree with the gentleman from california. sometimes that bubble we operate in here in whito., w sometis rg that the people back home are not watching c span. they're busy trying to put food on the table, seeing if their kid can get a good education frankly, in recent times just keep their bloody job. we forget that this is their chamber, this is their building. it is important for us to sit down and represent what they're talking about. when i go home, this last election cycle and frankly every election cycle, the big issue the big issue for americans and congressional fifth district in the great state of oregon, it's not any one issue. it's will you please work together. i mean this is complicated stuff. some of these bills are pretty darn complicated. i think everyday americans understand, ok, that's why i hired you. work it out. figure it out. to their credit they don't give me a lot of excuses, i'm not in the jerrett. kurt, i elected you -- not in the majority. kurt, i elected you, figure out how to do this. the farm bill is an example. you couldn't tell a democrat or republican based on what they were talking about because they were representing different areas around the country, lobbying hard for the programs they felt passionate about. that's the way congress is suppose to work. that's what the blue dog coalition is about. if you notice in the 114th congress, in the first two months, d.h.s., the affordable care act, sometimes choice or abortion gets a lot of the headlines from the media, i urge you to look at the votes for the big, important bills that came forward. there are a number of bills that leadership, and i give the republican leadership credit for this, they brought forward that moderate democrats voted for in past congresses or expressed interest in. and they got overwhelming, and sometimes significant, democrat support. that's not talked about by the media, folks, but you've got to realize there are many opportunities like that that go below the radar screen. my not be the sexiest topic in the world but stuff like making sure the affordable care act works. making sure that small businesses are able to function properly. making sure that the dodd-frank financial reform actually is workable and respects the interests of the different members of the community out there. even the keystone vote. i mean, we have to be thoughtful about, an democrats and republicans need to work together find areas you can agree on. we have tried to do that time and again. it's a heart beat of the blue dog coalition. basically what we're standing for, as you've heard is fiscal reform, fiscal responsible. been a hallmark of blue dogs over the last 20 years. where generally a government efficiencying or -- we're generally a government efficiency organization. we don't believe government is evil but it sure could work better. every one of the folks out there in america understands that government is making a rule that doesn't work for them, shouldn't have to happen. we as blue dogs try to cut through that regulation. we're also business friendly. democrats can be business friendly, they're called blue dogs. there's another group called new democrats. there's another group that is called no labels. there's another group that works together, democrats and republicans. there's a lot of people in this congress very interested in trying to work together to make your congress work and deal with your lunch bucket issues that mean the most to you. job creation, educational reform, infrastructure, as was alluded to. these are values i think every american holds dear. and those are the issues we should be working on. senator lieberman said at one point, it's kind of ironic that everyone is interested in bipartisanship but if you don't agree with somebody 100% of the time you don't agree with them any of the time. the real world is, life is complicated and you're going to have times when you agree and times when you disagree. one of the basic ax yops of politics is you don't have enemies or friends, you have allies and adversaries at the end of the day. because issues change. issues change over time. you'll find that the ebb and flow of interest will conflate with party, geography, all those issues. the blue dog coalition is dedicated to trying to bring people together across this country. republicans and democrats. business interests, individuals. trying to make your government more responsible more efficient. electoral reform, congressional reform, getting back in this great august chamber to regular order to where your interests are represented, through the committees through the elected representatives you have that's what's important here. and that binds democrats and republicans liberals and conservatives and moderates like us. that's the hallmark of the blue dog coalition. i'm a -- i won't belabor the point. i thank the gentleman for bringing us to the noor here. i think it's important for america to be inspired to cut through the politics, go against our respective leaderships to try to solve the problems you want us to soft. i think at the end of the day that's where america is. to get back to a greatness that was alluded to before it's going to require more members of blue dog coalition, the tuesday group on the other side of the aisle, to be elected to congress, to -- i hope america gets mad as hell and starts to hold their members accountable for working together and making america great again. with that, i yield back. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman from oregon for your leadership. as chair of the blue dog coalition your efforts to reach out to the tuesday group, no labels caucus your efforts to take difficult positions and cast hard votes i think, are all examples of political profiles in courage. we commend you for your lead cher -- leadership and your efforts. the next blue dog coalition member who will speak is one of our newest members. he hails from the great state of nebraska. we are honored to have him as one of our newest members of the blue dog coalition, brad ashford from nebraska's second district. the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1029 to amend the environmental research development and demonstration authorization act of 1978 to provide for sin tisk advisory board member qualifications public participation and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1030 to prohibit the environmental protection agency from opposing finalizing or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not prans parent or reproducible. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate the majority's efforts with the rules committee. once again i'd like to reintroduce my colleague, one of our newest member of the blue dog coalition, a gentleman who distinguishes himself from nebraska's second congressional district, a lot of agriculture and a lot of good people congressman brad ashford has the opportunity to represent, and we appreciate the fact that you're here. mr. ashford: thank you, mr. speaker, and mr. costa. i'm privileged to have the opportunity to speak today. you mentioned just briefly the concept of profiles of courage. and john kennedy in writing that book wret about a great nebraskan, george norris. george norris was a senator from nebraska, prior to that time, he served in this house. in 1908, he led a bipartisan effort in the house to change the rules of the house to make the house more transparent and more accountable to the american people. and in that regard, john kennedy, in his book, wrote about congressman norris and then subsequently senator norris. and in the 1930's senator norris who had worked to create the tennessee valley authority who had worked across the aisle with f.d.r., he was a republican worked with f.d.r. to pass the rural electrify case act that electry fied the country he, did so working across the aisle. and in the 1930's, 1934 specifically he, reached out to the people of nebraska and said to them, you know, we can do better. we can have a more transparent government. we can have a bipartisan nonpartisan government, that will address the tough issues of nebraska in the depression of the 1930's. and he recommended to the voters look let's have -- let's do this. let's have a unicam ral, bipartisan -- unicameral, bipartisan legislation. they said go back to washington. this isn't going to work in nebraska. the voters of nebraska in 1934 voted for a union camera, nonpartisan -- a unicameral, nonpartisan legislature and i'm proud to say we have such a legislature today. i am so proud and honored to be here and there was discussion earlier by prior speakers about relationships. and what's so interesting to me and amazing to me, not amazing really but gratifying are those relationships. . the relationships that i've been able to achieve through my association with the blue dogs and relationships with republicans and democrats alike. it's very, very gratifying that that exists. that's what i'm used to in nebraska. when i first arrived here, i went to a democratic caucus. i've never -- i served in the nebraska unicameral legislature for 16 years. i never went to a caucus. in my life. i didn't really know exactly what a democrat and republican really was. i didn't know, i suppose i'd have to look, but of the 49 members of the nebraska legislature, i'd have to think long and hard about what party they belong to. and in the 16 years that i served there we had many tough issues. in fact, one of the toughest issues that we had in our state was the pipeline issue, and that was referenced earlier. the transcanada pipeline. well, it goes through nebraska. and as originally routed, it would have gone through some of the most sensitive areas of our state the sand hills area and the aquifer. but we spent a year together, the 49 of us not every day, not every day, we'd kill each other if we spent every day together. but we spent a lot of time. and at the end of the day, we came up with a process to reroute the transcanada pipeline, to take it away from -- to move it away from the most sensitive parts of the aquifer. we did it with a vote of 49-0. 49-0. environmentalists, those on the other side of the issue, coming together to pass a routing bill. so, the idea that george norris had was, number one be transparent. let the people of nebraska know exactly what you're doing. what's interesting about the 16 years that i was there, and quite frankly we -- if you do count republicans and democrats in the unicameral legislature, you'll find there are a lot more republicans traditionally than there are democrats, at least during the 16 years i was there. but i don't think at any time that i was there, any year, any legislative session that i was there, that there were not the equal number of committee chairs, republican and democrat. there was no magic about that. it was just the way we balanced things out. in our state. we do it -- did it and do it intuitively. we do it intuitively. i don't suggest that we're going to decide tomorrow or even next year or 10 years from now to have a unicameral, bipartisan, nonpartisan legislature. but the lessons that i learned -- learned there are the lessons that i have brought here. and when i had the opportunity, when i had the opportunity to meet the blue dogs, it reminded me of home. it reminded me of the nebraska legislature. the idea that republicans and democrats make that decision for themselves, but as my good friend and former senator from nebraska used to say, is there are no republican senators or democrat senators, there are only american senators. u.s. senators. it's in the water in nebraska. that's how we think. that's how we are. and what's great about this place is those same relationships, those same committed people are there to make those kinds of relationships work in a bipartisan way. and we've heard examples of that today. when i ran for this office, i said to my -- to the voters of the second congressional district of nebraska, the two most populous counties, i'm going to go to washington and i'm going to make 25 friends because in nebraska if you make 25 friends, get 25 people to vote for a bill, you pass it. it passes. you know what? i found more than 25 friends. i found a lot of friends. a lot of great people who sit in this body, this place, every single day. republicans and democrats. i just got back -- and then i'll conclude, mr. costa, i just got back from a trip to afghanistan and iraq and jordan. and the emirates and kuwait. and i went with three other members. a freshman member, republican from new york, joe wilson, who is a veteran member from south carolina, and seth moulton who is a freshman from massachusetts. what great people. what great committed americans. to have gone on that trip. so mr. speaker i commend the blue dogs to the country to those that are watching. in furtherance of the old nebraska tradition of transparency and working together and making things happen. thank you. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. ashford: yes. >> during your bipartisan basis in iraq and afghanistan and jordan you were visiting some of the most challenging hot spots in the world today. mr. costa: and i suspect you got an opportunity to visit and see american men and women serving abroad. and the heroic and difficult jobs that they're doing. and the great sacrifices to them and their families. i suspect you had an opportunity to tell them that in washington we're trying to do all we can to support them. mr. ashford: thank you very much. yes, i had the opportunity to talk to nebraskans who were serving in iraq and afghanistan. i was on a c-130, we were traveling over the straits of hormuz area. the navigator in the c-130 said to me, sir, because he had to call me sir, that's the protocol, he said, sir, he said you know, get behind us. we're doing the best we can over here. and we need your support. and they're going to get our support and have our support. and i was -- thank you for the question. and i was so deeply appreciative of the opportunity to meet with my fellow nebraskans who were there as well. mr. costa: i've made that trip several times and we can never say thank you enough to the american men and women who serve on our nation's military. i would just ask you every week, i know you go back to your district and the good people in nebraska, and that good water you're drinking there, bring more of it here to washington because i think if we can drink some more of that water, it certainly wouldn't hurt us here in our nation's capital. mr. ashford: thank you. i yield back. thank you, sir. mr. costa: i want to thank the gentleman from nebraska for his good words and as i prepare to close i want to thank my fellow blue dog colleagues for coming down to the well of the house of representatives this afternoon to talk about the common interest that we as blue dog coalition members have. the efforts that we are making to reach across the aisle. the efforts that we are making to work with the no labels group, as well as others on -- others, on a call to service, to repair the engagement of civic dialogue understanding that,frankly, if we tone down our -- that frankly, if we tone down our rhetoric and have a better understanding of how the different congressional districts that we all represent are, that we can find the common threads the common bonds to bring together solutions that we can agree upon for all of america. after all, we all believe that's why we've been sent here . i believe in one way or another. another effort that the blue dog coalition is engaged in, with no labels and others, is congressional reform. clearly many americans, when they look at washington and they see the news of the evening, they think, jeez, there must be something broke there, it ain't working right, it's not working the way we read in our textbooks. and so we're trying to restore efforts in congressional form in terms of regular orders, in terms of our budget process and producing all 11 budget bills every year and then go to a conference, as we're supposed to do. we haven't done that in 12 years in congress. whether it's the democrats in the majority or whether it's the republicans in the majority. so there's a lot of fixing and obviously finger pointing doesn't fix the problem. in addition to that, we have electoral reform. i think we all know that last year, last november, we had the lowest recorded turnout in america since 1942. and what's that tell you? what's that tell you when the majority of americans regardless of whether they're registered as republicans or democrats, identify themselves as independents. it tells you that america's looking toward people in washington to provide the leadership to solve problems. they don't expect us to solve all of them. they're not unrealistic. but they'd like us to prioritize, prioritize on getting a budget on time. getting our fiscal house in order. on trying to fix a broken immigration system, produce a five-year transportation bill, improve government accountability and transparency. that's what they would like us to work on. as i said when i began earlier this afternoon, i'm congressman jim costa. i represent the 16th congressional district in california. including all of merced county half of the flat land of madera county. a lot of agriculture there and fresno county. fresno is of course, my home. and the wonderful people that are a part of the valley that i've had the honor and the privilege to represent over the years are what all americans are like. they're some of the best and the brightest. they're tenacious. they're hardworking. they represent the story of america. what's that story? immigrants past immigrants present. people coming from all over the world striving to have a better life a better opportunity for themselves and for their families. and that's why we're working to solve the water problems in the valley. because if we can solve the water problems in california and in the west with the planet clicking seven billion people last year and soon to have nine billion people by the middle of this century, our solutions to water problems in california can be a template to solving water problems around the world. because where water flows, food grows. and clearly we know that that is a daunting challenge. just like our energy problems are. but guess what? we're making progress on our energy problems. you know, when i first came to congress 10 years ago, we imported over 6 to% of our energy need -- 60% of our energy needs. today we import a little over 40%. and if we continue on the current path, in the next 10 years we will be importing around 20% or less. by using all the energy tools in our energy toolbox, just as we must use all of the energy tools in our water toolbox. i mean, all our water tools in our water toolbox. so there's a lot to do. and i'd like to thank my colleagues of the blue dog coalition for their time today, their continued efforts over the years clearly we have a lot of work to do together. and we want to reach out to work with everybody in the house of representatives. the people's house. and the blue dog coalition is ready and willing to work with everyone. we look forward to creating bridges not culled sacks, working with our -- cul-de-sacs, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance commonsense, commonsense policies that are fiscally sound, that benefit our entire nation. i mean you could also call the blue dog coalition the commonsense caucus. because we reject the notion of gridlock in washington. it's embarrassing, it's inexcusable, and every day when we put politics ahead of policy, we put our nation at risk and we stand to lose. therefore congress must come together to address the critical issues, as i said before tax reform, immigration reform, and ways to further our nation's economic recovery. if we work together there is no problem in america there is no problem in america if we work together that we cannot solve. we are here to represent and advocate for our constituents. please, for those of you who enjoy the comments made by my fellow blue dog coalition members this afternoon, you can go to www.bluedog .schrader.house.gov for more information. the blue dog coalition will continue to work to make a difference, by advocating for sound legislation and working together with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis. that's what i have always done and today, as with my blue dog coalition partners, we have the honor and the privilege to represent our constituents from throughout the land and i would ask that my colleagues continue to make that effort, because i think at the end of the day that's what all of our americans want us to do. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act, 50 u.s.c. 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that national emergency declared in executive order 13288 of march 6 2003 with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the government of zimbabwe and other persons to undermine the democratic process or institution is to continue in effect beyond march 6 2015. the threat constituted by the actions of certain members of the government of zimbabwe to undermine the democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved. these actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain its force the sanctions to respond to this threat. signed, barack obama, the white house, march 3, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act, 50 u.s.c. 1622-d, provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that national emergency declared in executive order 13660 of march 6, 2014, is to continue in effect beyond march 6, 2015. the actions and policies of the persons that undermine democratic processes and institutions in ukraine threaten its peace security stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets as well as the actions and policies of the government of the russian federation, including its pour ported in annexation of crimea and use of force in ukraine continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 13660 with respect to ukraine. signed sincerely barack obama, the white house. march 3, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 15 u.s.c. 1024-a and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following members on the part of the house to the joint economic committee. the clerk: mr. delaney of maryland ms. adams of north carolina and mr. beyer of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. costa: mr. speaker, i move that on march 3 at this time the house of representatives adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour the opportunity to have a vote today. which was a very strong message that sent a message to our enemy, to the american people and to the workers in homeland security that we are there to keep the american people safe, to remove all doubt that our commitment to the homeland security of the united states. we're very proud of the vote that happened today and in that spirit i want to yield to our ranking member on the homeland security committee, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much madam leader. i think the question for a lot of us is why did it take so long? we are very happy that today you saw the process work. it's unfortunate that the men and women who are in the department of homeland security had to feel like their government did not care about them. today we put that to rest. but we also made a statement that we're here to keep america safe. it's unfortunate that it took us so long to get to this point. i'm happy about it. i want to thank our leadership for staying strong. we made it very clear democrats care about the security of this country and american citizens. >> as i yield to congresswoman lowey, again, our ranking member on appropriations committee, the full committee, i want to also say that, on the way here, mr. hoyer and received a call from the secretary of homeland security, jay johnson, where he was grateful for what had happened today, of course. but we thanked him for saying -- staying strong and being clear about why it was important for us to have the full funding bill until the end of the fiscal year. and nobody knows more about the appropriations committee and the fiscal year than congresswoman lowey. >> thank you. at the outset i want to thank our courageous leader for working with all of us to finally get this bill passed. it's really quite extraordinary that it's taken this long. way back in december appropriations democrats and republicans, worked together and passed a good bipartisan homeland security bill. this was december. but better late than never. it's march. and now i'm very pleased that there was a bipartisan effort to pass this bill and our firefighters, our police, our ports, t.s.a. workers, all those who are critical to the safety of our country will get paid and be on duty and i was very pleased that secretary johnson of the department walked around, talked to members, made it clear how important this bill and this funding is to the homeland security of our country. so congratulations again to leader pelosi and all those who work together. better late than never. glad we passed this bill today. now i'm very happy to turn the microphone over to the ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee of appropriations, ms. roybal-allard. >> thank you so much. i too want to thank our leader, nancy pelosi, bennie thompson, nita lowey, and steny hoyer, and all who helped to highlight just how important this bill was to pass. today's passing of this bill is really a victory for the safety of the american people and this country. we've all heard all the reasons why it was so important. but it is also important because now secretary johnson, his directors, his staff, can go about the business of not only taking care of the security of our nation today, but planning for the security of the future. and the men and women who put themselves on the front lines every single day to protect our country can do so knowing that they don't have to worry whether or not they're going to be able to make their mortgage payment, put food on the table and pay the bills. so once again i just want to say thank you to the tremendous work of the leadership in the democratic party here in the house, to secretary johnson who, as nita lowey said, was here talking to all the members, both sides of the aisle, to emphasize just how important this bill is. so now the people of the united states, everyone can feel confident that the department of homeland security is now on the right track both taking care of our security today and in the future. >> i want to commend all of the members. we're going to hear from our distinguished whip right now. we had hours -- we've spent hours in the office on friday on chocolate strictly chocolate diet, so that we could have the energy to have the staying power to get through all of the calls that it took to do this. and the lead on all of that was our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. >> thank you, madam leader. there is a time to debate and there is a time to decide. today was a time to decide. the senate had decided that it was time to decide and today the house did as well. this means that over approximately 230,000 people who we ask daily to work for the federal government on behalf of america's security and the safety of our people will have the assurance for the next seven months that they will have a funding stream and the resources to allow them to protect our country. i am glad that we came together on this bipartisan vote. clearly there are differences. there are differences on immigration reform. we ought to put a bill on the floor on that subject and talk about it in a bipartisan way. everybody says immigration is broken. let's fix it. let's put a bill on the floor. and we can do for immigration reform what we did today for the funding of homeland security. this is a good day for america. the congress worked today. let us hope we use this as an example for the congress tomorrow and the days thereafter. thank you very much. >> we'll take a few questions. >> do you feel by providing -- >> let chad just get in there. >> with such an overwhelming vote by democrats for this bill, do you feel in some ways that democrats are holding all the cards or that you are in fact the de facto speaker these days? >> i'm going to tell you something. if there's ever an oxymoron it's de facto speaker. you're the speaker or you're not. so let's not even go to that place. i am proud of the democrats and let me tell you one other reason why. because when the republicans were putting out these bills to say we're going to keep government open for this three weeks it's very hard for a member to vote against a bill that will keep homeland security part of government open. unless you're seeing a longer view, a more enlightened view of what can be better in a matter of days. so the important thing for us was to put our members -- was that our members had the currently to say, i don't want government to be shut down, but i'm not falling for this three-week plan, which really cripples the ability to plan for homeland security, even if it would keep government open for -- in relationship to homeland security for three more days, so that's where our strength sprang from, was the unity of the house democrats. it was also important to acknowledge the senate. in a bipartisan way they defeated the motion to go to -- didn't give cloture to the motion to go to conference and they also defeated a motion to table, which enabled the bill to come back here when we were in disagreement, house and senate to enable us, congresswoman lowey and congressman simpson, to call the bill forward. and that was what we were depending on, so it wasn't about anybody giving us anything. it was about the regular order prevailing in the house of representatives. so this was bipartisan in many respects. >> you were physically agitated during the prime minister's speech and obviously afterwards -- >> excuse me i'm happy to answer -- not happy, but i'd be willing to answer any questions about the prime minister's speech but first can we deal with this? because this is the point. >> we had some other big deadlines coming up with the highway bill. can you offer -- are you offering the speaker of the house right now democrat votes -- >> we can't offer anything until we see wlat bill is. but i will say that highway infrastructure that's never been partisan. week of always acted in a bipartisan way on infrastructure and the highway bill and all of those kinds of issues. it was only recent in opposition to president obama, republicans did not support those initiatives. but hopefully we can come back to where we've always been transportation and infrastructure has always been really a nonpartisan committee. i don't know if anyone else wants to speak to that. >> 2/3 of the senate and now the overwhelming members of the house decided this was the commonsense, right thing to do. on all those other bills, if we can come to agreement that this commonsense, right thing to do, i'm sure that democrats and republicans can vote together to do those kind of things. that's what we want to do. that's what we came here to do. >> i think it might be easier because 167 republicans voted to keep government shut down in terms of homeland security today. i think that's probably the high number. i think on issues like transportation, there might be more cooperation. >> i was just going to mention something because it's so current. rosa delauro's the ranking member of the committee that funds the national institutes of health and many other very vital programs. we had an excellent hearing this morning and several of us referenced a time when jon porter, the republican chair of the committee worked with the democrats and we doubled the funding for the national institutes of health. helpinging to cure diseases, creating jobs, good for the economy, so i hope today's action, and frankly our hearing this morning, where there were many bipartisan positive comments will lead to more cooperation, because that's what we're here for. rather than have all kinds of arguments aboutmy unusuala. let's -- about minutia. let's get on to the future. >> if your question is, do we stant ready to cooperate, we most certainly do. >> [inaudible] >> i put out a statement. i was near tears because -- i'm just speaking for myself here. others may have a different view of this speech. i was near tears because i love israel very much. i value the importance of the relationship between israel and the united states. my granddaughter had a ceremony on sunday at the u.s. community center in san francisco. this is something that means a great deal to us. not only as an issue, but as a value. i thought that part of that was undermined by the tone of the prime minister's speech. why don't you just read my statement, ok? >> do you regret going? >> no. if i regretted going, i wouldn't have gone. if you can follow that. >> [inaudible] >> no, well, it didn't matter. i went, i lisped, i was disappointed -- listened, i was disappointed. but i don't -- you know, i think that -- many of us have worked part of our official lives to stop nuclear proliferation. it's been a real -- it's a core principle of our foreign policy. whether israel never existed. i happen to think the establishment of israel was the greatest political accomplishment of the 20th century. a terrible century. that was a bright star. but even if israel never existed, the united states of america has as one of the pillars of its national security and foreign policy, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. and that's what we do. and that's what president is doing in the negotiation. if a deal isn't good enough, he won't accept. it i don't think we needed any lectures on that. that's just my deal. >> [inaudible] >> i hope not. >> thank you. >> thank you. [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 vote on the homeland security spending bill was 257-167, with all democrats voting yes and most republicans voting no. before that vote israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu this morning addressed a joint meeting of congress in the house chamber. he called on the united states and other western powers not to make a quote, bad deal with iran over the country's nuclear program. his speech was about 45 minutes. >> mr. speaker, the israel. speaker boehner: members of congress, i had the distinct honor of introducing to you his excellency, benjamin netanyahu. prime minister netanyahu: speaker of the house, john boehner, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and house majority leader mccarthy. i also want to acknowledge senator democratic leader harry reid. harry reid, it is good to see you back on your feet. [applause] it is true what they say to you cannot keep a good man down. i am deeply humbled for the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive me being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you democrats and republicans for your common support for israel, year after year, decade after decade. i know no matter which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with israel. the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics and it must always remain above politics. because america and israel, we share a common destiny, of a promised land, church freedom, promise land that chose freedom and offers hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents, from harry truman to barack obama. we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. some of that is widely known. like strengthening security corporation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well-known. i called in 2010 when we have the forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011, we had our embassy in cairo under siege and again, he provided vital assistance in crucial moments. support for more centers during operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. in each of those moments, i called the president, and he was there. some of what the president has done for israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between american presidents and an israeli prime minister. but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. and israel is grateful to you, the american congress, for your support. for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including iron dome. last summer, millions of israelis were protected from thousands of hamas rockets because this capital dome -- capitol dome helped build our iron dome. thank you, america. thank you for everything you have done for israel. my friends, i have come here today because, as prime minister of israel, i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country in the future of my people. iran's -- for nuclear weapons. we are an ancient people. in our nearly 4000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the george people. -- jewish people. tomorrow night, on the george holliday, we read the book of -- tomorrow night, on the jewish holiday, we'll read the boost of esther. we will read of a powerful persian who plotted to destroy the jewish people some 2,500 years ago. but a courageous jewish woman, queen esther, exposed the plot and gained for the jewish people the right to defense themselves against their enemies. the plot was foiled. our people were saved. today the jewish people face another attempt by yet another persian to destroy us. iran's supreme leader spews the oldest hatred of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be annihilated. in iran, there is not exactly free internet. but he tweets in english that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe iran threatens the jewish state, but not the jewish people, listen to the leader of hezbollah, iran's chief terrorist proxy. he said, if all those juice -- the jews gather in israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. but iran's regime is not merely a jewish problem, any more than the nazi regime was merely a jewish problem. the six million jews murdered by the nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in world war ii. so too iran's regime poses a great threat, not only to israel, but also to the peace of the entire world. to understand just how dangerous iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are a very talented people, they are heirs to one of the world's is great civilizations. in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. that year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for iran. it directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime's founder exhorted his followers to export a revolution throughout the world. i am standing here in washington, d.c., and the difference is so stark. america's founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. iran's founding document urges death, tierney and the pursuit -- tireny and the pursuit of jihad. the states are collapsing. iran is charging into the void to do just that. their goons in gaza, its lackeys in lebanon, it's revolutionary guards, are clutching israel with three tentacles of terror. backed by iran, assad is slaughtering syrians. backed by iran shiite militias are rampaging through iraq. backed by iran yemen is being threatened at the mouth of the red sea. along with the straits of hormuz, that would give iran a second choke point on the world's oil supply. just last week, near hormuz iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock u.s. aircraft carrier. that is just last week. while they were having nuclear talks with the united states. unfortunately, for the last 36 years, iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock and the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage in tehran, murdered hundreds of american soldiers in beirut, and is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american service men and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle east, iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the community center american embassy in buenos aires, it helped al qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in africa. it even attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador right here in washington, d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals -- baghdad, damascus, beirut. if iran's aggression is left unchecked, more is certain to follow. at a time when many hope iran will join the community of nations, iran is busy gobbling up the nations. we must all stand together to stop iran's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. two years ago, we were told to give foreign ministers a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. the government hangs gays, persecutes christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before. last year, the same who charms western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of the terrorist mastermind who spilled more american blood than any other terrorist besides saddam hussein. -- osama bin laden. i would like to see someone ask him a question about that. iran's regime is as radical as ever. it subscribes to death to america, that same america that it calls the great satan, as loud as ever. this should not be surprising because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. that is why this regime will always be answermy of america. -- an enemy of america. do not be fooled. the battle between iran and isis does not turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. one calls itself the islamic republic, the other calls itself the islamic state. both want to impose a militant islamic empire. first in the region and then on the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for america or israel, no peace for christians, jews or muslims who don't share the islamist medieval cede. no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. so when it comes to iran and isis, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. the difference is that isis is armed with butcher knives and captured weapons whereas iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember, i'll say it one more time the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. we cannot let that happen. but that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it will all but guarantee iran gets those weapons -- lots of them. let me explain why. while the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. you do not need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran. the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure providing it with a short breakout time to the bond. breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of sent funals used to enrich -- centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. because iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's breakout time would be very short, about a year by u.s. assessment and even shorter by israel. -- israel's. if iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that breakout time could still be a lot shorter. true, certain restrictions would be imposed on iran's nuclear program and iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. here is the problem. inspectors document violations. they don't stop it. inspectors knew when north korea had the bomb. but that didn't stop anything. north korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. within a few years, it got the bomb. now, we are warned that within five years, north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. like north korea, iran is to -- too has defied international inspectors on at least three separate occasions. 2005 2006, 2010. like north korea, iran broke the locks, shut off the camera. i know this is not going to come as a shock to any of you. but iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide and cheat with them. the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the iaea, said again yesterday that iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was also caught twice, not once twice, operating secret nuclear facilities facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed. right now iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about. the u.s. he said, if there is no undeclared installation in iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one. iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. and that's why the first major concession is a source of grave concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakup. that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. but the second major concession creates an even greater danger, that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal, because virtually all the restrictions on iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. now, a decade may seem like a long time in the political life but it's a blink in the eye in the nation blink of an eye in the name of our children. we all have the responsibility to consider what will happen when iran's nuclear capabilities of virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs. iran's supreme leader says that openly. he says iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that iran has today, but 10 times that amount. 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. with this massive capacity, iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks once it makes that decision. my long time friend, john kerry secretary of state, confirmed last week that iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. now, i want you to think about that. the former sponsor -- the foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enrichede uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy. and by the way, if iran's intercontinental ballistic missile is not part of the deal, while iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far reaches of the earth and every part of the united states. so you see, my friends this deal has two major concessions. one, leaving iran with a vast nuclear program, and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's passage to the bomb but the path to the bomb. why would anyone make this deal? because they hope iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. well, i disagree, i don't believe that iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years and its appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. this deal would only whet iran's appetite for more. would iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger. if iran is gobbling up four countries right now, how many more countries will it devour. would it fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash to fund more terrorism? why should iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds, aggression abroad, prosperity at home? this is a question that everyone asks in our region. israel's neighbors iran's neighbors, know that iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and given a clear path to the bomb. and many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. so this deal won't change iran for the better. it will only change the middle east for the worst. a deal that is supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal won't be a fair well to arms, it would be a far fair well to arms. a region where small squirmishes contribute to big wars and would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone things, anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road think again. when we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous iran, a middle east litered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen i have come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world in the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [applause] >> before lifting those restrictions the world should demand that iran do three things, first stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [applause] >> second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] >> and third, stop threatening to annihilate, my country israel the one and only jewish state. [cheers and applause] >> if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran changes its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least, they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [applause] >> if iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [applause] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country let it act like a normal country. [cheers and applause] >> my friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced is delay the inevitable which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do. well nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. a race car driver without a car can't drive. a pilot without a plane can't fly. without thousands of centrifuges or heavy water facilities, iran can't make nuclear weapons. [applause] >> iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. [applause] >> if iran threatens to walk away from the table and this often happens in the persian bizarre, call their bluff, they will be back. because they need the deal a lot more than you do. [applause] >> and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business with iran you have the power to make them need it even more. my friends, for over a year we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well this is a bad deal. it's a very bad deal. we are better off without it. [applause] >> now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that's just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [applause] >> a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure in such a short breakout time, that a better deal that keeps iran in place until aggression ends. [applause] >> a better deal that won't give iran an easy path to the bomb. a better deal that israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live literally. [applause] >> and no country has a greater stake than israel and a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. ladies and gentlemen history has placed us at a faithful crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. one path leads to a bad deal that will at best occur -- curtail iran's nuclear ambitions in a while but will lead to a nuclear-armed iran whose aggression will inevitably lead to war. the second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal that would prevent a nuclear-armed iran, a nuclearized middle east and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know you have to live life, to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the middle east and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire. [applause] >> my friends, standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner, eliweisel. -- eliweisel. [applause] >> your life and work inspires and gives meaning to the words never again. [applause] >> and i wish i could promise you, that the lessons of history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [applause] >> not to sacrifice the future for the present, not to ignore aggression in the hopes of imagining an illusory peace. but i can guarantee you this, the days the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. [cheers and applause] >> we are no longer scattered among the nations powerless to defend ourselves. we have restored our sovereignty in our ancient home and the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. for the first time in 100 generations, we, the jewish people, can defend ourselves. [applause] >> this is why as prime minister of israel, i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [applause] >> but i know israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel. [cheers and applause] >> you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to histories hard. [applause] >> facing me right up there in the gallery overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promised land and before the people of israel entered the land of israel, moses gave us a message that has resolved for thousands of years. i leave you with thinks message today. [speaking hebrew] >> be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them. my friends, may israel and america always stand together, strong and resolute. may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead and face the future with confidence, strength and hope. may god bless the state of israel and may god bless the united states of america! [cheers and applause] >> thank. -- thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you all. you're wonderful. thank you, america. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> more than 50 democrats skipped prime minister's netanyahu meeting. after the speech, a group of democrats responded to the prime minister. one of his remarks called his remarks worthy of an oscar. >> you don't pay attention to him any way. >> thank you all for being here i'm john yarmouth of kentucky. gathered with me are colleagues, all of whom opposed the appearance of prime minister netanyahu today. some who attended the event and some who didn't and all of whom have something to say about his appearance. first of all these remarks only aterroristable to me. everyone can -- attributable to me. i would like to congratulate speaker boehner and prime minister netanyahu on a bit of political theater and the prime minister can say he lectured he american people on things we didn't know. i think the speech validated all of the reasons i said i was opposed to the speech. i expected the prime minister to speculate on and mischaracterize the negotiations on a potential deal. for instance, he continually said that the deal ends in a certain period of time and there are no restrictions -- would be no restrictions on iran's nuclear program after the deal expired. that is not the case, as we have been advised by the white house. but, again, this is part of the strategy that he used. i resented the condescending tone that he used that he didn't think anybody in congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear weaponized iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world. i think the president has made it very clear, we understand that threat. i don't think there's any doubt that everyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region, that it has sponsored terrorism and has done things that we would like to see changed. we all know that. it's nice of him to remind us and i resent the act he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and their representatives have been at this for two years now. with the cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. this speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook this was fear mongering. phrases like saying nuclear war is inevitable if a deal were to be accepted. phrases like this, this would pave the way for iran having a nuclear bomb. these are things that i think are part what dick cheney would have done and did. this has been the prime minister's pattern. and has gone to the u.n. and did the same thing. and i understand and all of us do, all of us who support israel and care very deeply about israeli security that israel perceives its threat differently than we might. but i don't think there is any question that the administration and all of us understand that threat and trying our best to thwart it. the -- my final comment prime minister netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable deal was a perfect deal or an ideal deal. it's like the child who says, i want to go to disneyland, every day and drink coca-cola and not go to school this would be a nice life for a child, but this is very serious business and being conducted in a very, very real world. eyed israelism is fine as william f. buckley once said, but when it approaches relatey the cost are prohibitive. insisting on the ideal deal in a real world where things constantly change and reality commange, the costs would be prohibitive and that would be lost opportunity to put an end to iran's nuclear program. and with that, i would like to interviews david price of north carolina. >> thank you john, and good morning. as john said the members here individually made our decisions about attending the speech. but what we're united in is our determination to learn from this controversy, the controversy that surrounded the speech and to move on to reinforce the u.s.-israel security relationship and protect the world against nuclear-armed iran. speaker boehner should have never extended this invitation at this time given the proximity to israel's national elections and delicate international negotiations which the prime minister clearly wants to upend are hanging in the balance at this moment. and prime minister netanyahu shouldn't have accepted this which was extended by the house majority. for these reasons, the invitation the speech sent a dangerous precedent where one can invite a foreign politician and in doing so we not only tarnish the grand tradition, but we have political relationships in this case, a very special relationship dedicated to israel's security and prosperity. but the speech has happened. but we have to determine the best way forward. we must give new consideration to what the prime minister has said. we must also subject his charges and claims to intense scrutiny. for example, the notion that everything has to be solved in terms of our bilateral issues before anything can be solved. for example, the description of the deal which makes an agreement seemingly, totally out of reach. we must redouble our efforts to protect israel, the region and the world from a nuclear-armed iran. these are tough negotiations. of course, they are tough. but there are no good alternatives to bringing a comprehensive, strong and enforceable agreement to fruition. it is extremely important for us and for the international community to stay on that course. through all of this, a commitment must remain firm and open dialogue is critical to that process. i and all of us stand ready to engage with israeli leaders from across the political spectrum. this speech today wasn't about whether we agreed or disagreed but about the circumstances of this invitation and the lasting damage it could do. but it's our job now to get past this controversy to focus on the task at hand, securing the relationship with israel and securing an international

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Montana , Charleston , South Carolina , Alabama , Syria , Kansas City , Kansas , West Virginia , San Francisco , California , Mexico , Merced County , Arizona , Egypt , Massachusetts , Tehran , Iran , Fresno County , Spain , Portland , Oregon , Damascus , Dimashq , Germany , Missouri , Afghanistan , Atlanta , Georgia , Indiana , Virginia , As Iran , Az Arbayjan E Sharqi , Puerto Rico , Iraq , New Jersey , Idaho , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , North Korea , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Buenos Aires , Distrito Federal , Argentina , Louisiana , Chad , Fresno , China , Zimbabwe , Russia , Washington , Ukraine , Wyoming , Sacramento , Ireland , Madera County , Switzerland , Greece , New York , North Carolina , Texas , Kentucky , Boston , Florida , Illinois , Lebanon , Jordan , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Beirut , Beyrouth , Tennessee Valley , Nebraska , Oklahoma , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Tennessee , Aspen Institute , Baghdad , South Dakota , Gaza , Colorado , Geneva , Genè , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Yemen , Kuwait , Americans , America , Saudi , Mexican , Greek , Nebraskans , Iranians , Iranian , Israelis , Russian Federation , Israeli , American , Syrians , Nebraskan , Britain , German , Palestinian , Irish , Kirsten Sinema , Lee Rosenberg , Roe V Wade , Nancy Pelosi , Ronald Reagan , Jim Cooper , Seth Moulton , Joe Wilson , Google Netanyahu , George Bush , Michael Porter , Bennie Thompson , Paul Kennedy , William F Buckley , Mike Mullen , John Kerry , Morgan Griffith , Al Qaeda , John A Boehner , Yom Kippur , Dick Cheney , John Boehner , Bob Cohen , Brad Ashford , George Norris , Benjamin Netanyahu , Rosa Delauro , Lillian Pincus , David Drucker , Jay Johnson , Martin Luther King , Steve Womack , Karen L Haas , Kyrsten Sinema , John Yarmouth , George Holliday , David Ben Gurion , Queen Esther , Craig Kaplan , Mike Thompson , Harry Reid , Jon Porter , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Mitch Mcconnell , Nita Lowey , John Kennedy , Hamas Muslim , John F Kennedy , Elia Wiesel , Steny Hoyer ,