to arms control. the middle east will soon be crisscrossed. a region would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. when we get down that road, we will face a much more dangerous iran, a middle east littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen, i have come to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and the world. [applause] [applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. first, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [applause] second -- [applause] second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [applause] thank you. if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change its behavior for a deal -- change its behavior before a deal is signed, they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [applause] if iran changes its behavior the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change his behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [applause] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [applause] my friends, what about the argument that there is no alternative to this deal, that 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 essentially what 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. a pilot without a plane cannot fly. 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 in the price of oil. [applause] if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often happens, call their bluff. they will be back. because they need the deal more than you do. [applause] and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business with iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. my friends, for over a year, we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. this is a bad deal. it is a very bad deal. we are better off without it. [applause] now we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [applause] a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time. a deal that keeps the restrictions on the nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. [applause] a better deal that will not give iran an easy path to a bomb. a better deal that israel and it's neighbors may not like but with which we could live literally. and no country has a greater stake than israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us in a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. one path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for a while. but it will lead to a nuclear 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, nuclear ized middle east, and the consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know, you have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the middle east, and the peace we all desire. [applause] [applause] standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner elie wiesel. [applause] your life inspires us to give meaning to the words "never again." [applause] and i wish i could promise you elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [applause] not to sacrifice the future for the present. not to ignore aggression in hopes of gaining an illusory peace. . the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. [applause] we are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. we have restored our sovereignty and our ancient home. the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. for the first time in 100 generations, we can defend ourselves. [applause] this is why as prime minister of israel, i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [applause] [applause] but i know that israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel. you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors. [applause] facing me in the gallery overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promised land. before the people of israel entered the land of israel, moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. [speaking hebrew] "be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them." my friends, may israel and america always stand together, strong and resolute. may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. may we face the future with confidence strength, and hope. may god bless israel and the united states of america. [applause] [applause] [applause] thank you very much. [applause] thank you, all. you are wonderful. thank you, america. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> israeli president benjamin netanyahu speaking to congress about the nuclear negotiations going on with iran. we want to get your comments. if the democrat -- if you're a democrat -- independence 202-748-8972. you can also join us on twitter at #cspanchat. in a couple of minutes we will show you reaction from house democrats. a number of them did not attend the speech today. the washington post headline, "decrying insult, house democrats seethe after netanyahu address." you will hear from some of them in just a few minutes on c-span. in silver spring maryland on our democrats line. >> i am a strong supporter of president obama, i am a loyal democrat, and i am concerned that the timing of the speech, the place of the speech, was not good for the u.s. but the content of the speech i think we should all listen to. i think i ran is a real threat -- i think iran is a threat to the region and the world. i think the analysis of the threat and what is happening now in the middle east in syria and iraq and other places where iran has had enormous influence should be taken very seriously. hopefully the negotiations that are occurring now can be stronger. >> let's go to kay in mississippi. >> i was appalled that our president and many of the democrats, especially nancy pelosi, could stand up and turn their back. i have a southern baptist and i stand with israel. >> checking twitter. this one says, "it is no mystery where bb netanyahu stands -- where netanyahu stands concerning a run. the mystery is where our president stands." >> i am a first-time caller, but i could not remain silent after hearing the prime minister's speech. i think prime minister netanyahu is a real patriot will stop i wish we had more of those in our country -- a real patriot. i wish we had more of those in our country. yes, there was controversy as to whether he should come. but i think he came because he could lose his deal -- he could lose the election and this could be his last opportunity to speak to the american people. i have relatives who died at auschwitz and i know that this should never happen again. israel is standing alone and we need to help her with whatever we have. i encourage everyone to pray for that israeli people -- pray for the israeli people, the jewish people, and all those in great danger in the middle east. israel is standing alone right now and we should be her greatest ally. >> mary mentioned the timing of the speech, one of the reasons that the white house had given for the president and vice president not attending the speech. biden is out of the country in central america. but the white house says their policy is not to meet with foreign leaders within weeks of their election, and netanyahu is facing election in the coming weeks in israel. here's a call from the democrats line. >> i want to say that benjamin netanyahu sounded so presidential and i am very embarrassed with the way that barack obama has handled our situation with israel. israel is a stepping stone for religion, our religion and our beliefs. once they get crushed, they are going to come over here. benjamin netanyahu is standing with us, the american people, and i think we need to back israel. >> how do you balance the prime minister's praise for the president at the beginning of his speech with the criticism of the nuclear negotiations and what he anticipates being the deal cutting out of those negotiations? >> i think eventually they are going to get the bomb, and once they do they are going to attack. it will be a danger in the middle east and what's that a robs, that danger -- and once that erupts, that danger will come here. we need to support israel as much as we can. >> some tweets here from leaders in congress. harry reid tweeting: the speaker tweeted this evening: and he posted on instagram a photo from his office of receiving those gifts. back to calls, this is mark in pennsylvania on the independence line. what did you think of the speech? >> i am quite conflicted. i come from mixed descent. i actually have jewish and catholic heritage in my family. i have been to israel, been to jerusalem and tel aviv, cross the border over into the sinai. i have felt the experience. i love israel. i have descendents in my family who were slaughtered in chambers. yet i hear all this talk about standing alone and presidential precedents yet very is this constant drum that is beating in the background. it is this drum of war. i guess part of me wants to stand back on my perch and looked down and say i am in suburban philadelphia, how many generations removed from this and i live a comfortable life with two beautiful children and a wonderful life. i go to work and i drive a nice car and i am worried about the snow tonight. mi worried about a bomb coming into my backyard tomorrow, no -- and my worried about a bomb coming into my backyard tomorrow? no. however, in that same breath is a double-edged sword. as much as i do want to understand that this is an imminent threat that he is dealing with, i truly question how it is that a leader of another nation can stand in front of those individuals that you and i have elected to office and tell them how they should think and how they should feel. i will tell you what, it's great -- it gives me great pause it shakes me to the core, and i am scared for all of us. >> appreciate your comments. he mentioned the snow in pennsylvania. and on the east coast. it has caused congress to cancel the plan -- to cancel the session on thursday. headline on the hill: that is about senate republican leaders hoping to go on offense next week with legislation that would prevent president obama from lifting sanctions with iran before congress reviews the deal. we will look for that debate in the senate on c-span2. just a few more minutes before we hear from the house democrats. >> i think it was a wonderful speech, and we really can't stand on ceremony at a time like this. i don't think it has anything to do with netanyahu's that he is facing. iran has for many years espouse to violence against --espoused violence against the united states and israel. we have to prevent them from the capability of nuclear warfare. we need to take a tougher stance. we had a boycott, and now we are helping them with the centrifuges. >> do you think a tougher stance means military action? >> not right now. i am personally against military action against a country that has not taken military action against us or harmed us in any way. so not right now but i think that we should do anything in our power to make sure that they don't have the capability to develop a nuclear bomb now or in the future. >> let's hear from springfield, tennessee on the republican line. >> all the democrats are more outraged by protocol. i watched the press conference with all the democratic members of congress. it seems like they were more outraged with the speech than with iran's nuclear weapons. my opinion is that barack hussein obama is a muslim. if it walks like a duck and >> like a duck, it is a duck -- locksley duck and --walks like a duck, it is a duck. what was speaker boehner supposed to if you said it no, he is just supposed about down to our president? i think boehner had the guts to do what he did. this deal is a bad deal. all it does it relate -- is d elay iran's nuclear arsenal by 10 years or so. we ought to be negotiating a deal which keeps the rent from even getting a nuclear weapon in the first place. i appreciate your call. host: for the democrats who didn't show up, shame on them. here is another one that says how can america allow benjamin netanyahu to come out on the four to speak? this is very one-sided. there is more on c-span's chat and a few more of your phone calls. we will hear from democrats next and their reactions to the speech. steve, go ahead. caller: tough call to follow-up after. first of all, on concerns that people boycotted the speech. the biggest point earlier was when it netanyahu mentioned the collapse. now is the time where iran is under more pressure to negotiate and come to the table and conceived more. -- and concede more. when they are under pressure they have more to lose than they did before. that should be really pressed. they are in a vulnerable position, and we should really be pressed to give up more. host: do you think that means that the prime ministers advice was bizarre? he said walk away -- if you think that is an option for the u.s.? i think so, especially now. host: iran is under enormous economic pressure. now is a time when we can get more from them. host: appreciate your comments. this is a lead editorial in the new york times. we'll go into it more tomorrow on washington journal. "benjamin netanyahu's unconventionalincing speech" is the headline. host:caller: i am aghast that netanyahu thinks he can dictate to the american people his well. president obama won the election. she is entitled to an act the policies he feels our best. how dare people think he wouldn't have the american people's best interest at heart? contrary to what a lot of americans would like to believe yes. it is outrageous that he was allowed to speak. a precedent with set -- was set. it would never have been done if president obama was not an african-american. thanks so much. host: later this year, pope francis will be speaking to a joint meeting in congress. thank you for all the calls. will have more on washington journal tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. if you missed the prime minster's speech, it airs again later tonight on c-span. we want to show you the reactions. house democrats, many of whom did not attend the speech today. >> you all know what that is about. >> you don't pay attention to them anyway. thank you all for being here. gathered with me our colleagues, of whom opposed the appearance of prime minister netanyahu today. some who attended the event some who didn't, but all who have something to say about his appearance. first of all, these remarks are only attributable to me. everyone can speak for him or herself. first i would like to congratulate speaker boehner and prime minister netanyahu on a very impressive political theater. now the prime minister can go home to his campaign and say he lectured congress and the american people on things that apparently we didn't know. i think the speech validated all of the reasons i said i was supposed to the speech. i expected the prime minister to speculate on and missed turks write the negotiations and a potential deal. -- and mischaracterized the negotiations. for instance, he said the deal ends with no restrictions on really ran after the deal expired. that is not the case, as we have been informed by the white house. but again, this is part of the strategy he uses. the condescending tone he used indicated that he didn't anyone in congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear weapon i ran opposes to his country, to the region, and to the world. i think the president has made it clear that we understand that threat. i don't think there is any doubt that anyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region, that it has sponsored terrorism, that it has done things we would like to see changed. we all know that. it is nice of him to remind us. i also resent the fact that he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and its representatives have been at this for two years now. with the cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. this speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook. this was fear mongering at its ultimate. phrases like saying "nuclear war is inevitable" if this deal is to be accepted. phrases like "this will pave the way to iran having a nuclear bomb." these phrases that are, again, what dick cheney would have done and have did. this is the prime ministers pattern. is gone to the u.n. and did the same thing. i know people care very deeply about israel's security. they perceived the threat differently than we might. there is no much and that the ministration has -- that the administration understand that threat and is doing the best you boarded -- is doing the best to thwart it. benjamin netanyahu said the only deal would be a perfect deal. a child says i want to go to disneyland every day, eat ice cream and go tonot go to school. that would be a nice life for a child. but this is business and it is done in a real-world. idealism is fine as william f buckley once said, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive. i believe that insisting on the "ideal deal" in a real world where things can't only change is something -- where realities change. the cost would be a lost opportunity to put an end to iran's nuclear program. with that, i would like to introduce david price of north carolina. >> thank you john, and could morning. -- and good morning. we each made our own decision in attending the speech, but we are united in learning from this controversy in the speech and to move on to reinforce the u.s. is 's role to protect against a nuclear armed iran. speaker weiner should have never extended this invitation at this time, given the proximity of this speech to israel's national elections, and the fact that delicate international negotiations, which the prime minister really wishes to append, or hanging in the allen's -- hanging in the balance. prime minister netanyahu should not have excited this invitation which was extended without bipartisan leadership or consultation with the president. for these reasons, the invitation and speech set a major president whereby congressional leaders by one party can invite a foreign politician to publicly oppose the policies of the sitting president on the house floor. in doing so, we not only tarnish the grand tradition of the joint session, we also run the risk of politicizing relationships in this case, a very special relationship dedicated to israel's security and prosperity. but that speech has happened. now we have to determine the best way forward. we must give new consideration to what the prime minister said, which is not dependent on the form in which he said it. we must also subject his charges to extend -- to intense scrutiny. especially the notion that everything must be solved in for negotiations before anything can be solved. for instance, the discretion 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. but there are no good alternatives to bringing a comprehensive, strong, and enforceable agreement to fruition. it is extremely important or us and the international community to stay on the course. throughout this, our commitment to a safe and secure israel must remain firm. open dialogue is critical to that process. all of us i think stand ready to engage with israeli leaders from across the political spectrum. this speech today wasn't about whether we agree or disagree -- it was about the circumstances of this invitation, the lasting damage it could do. but it is our job now to get past this controversy. to focus on the task at hand -- securing the relationship with israel and securing an international enforceable agreement that will prevent a nuclear armed iran. >> thank you david. would like to introduce one of the icons of commerce -- john lewis of georgia. >> thank you very much. in this congress, i take a backseat to no one in my amendment and support of israel and the american-jewish community. on many occasions, we haven't worked side-by-side to strengthen our democracy and fight for equality and justice in this country. their commitment -- that commitment will not change. i worked consistently threat might career -- consistently through my career to fight anti-semitism and to secure the jewish state. however this nation is currently involved in its own negotiation with iran. election in israel is just about two weeks away on march 17. the speaker of the house of representatives would allow floor of this chamber to be used to conduct a negotiation that the president of the united states is partisan. it is not right. several ambassadors, as well as the leader of the permanent jewish organization called upon the prime minister to cancel his speech. the speakers action is an affront to the president of the united states, to the democratic leadership of congress, and the department of state. it is meant to represent undermine the work of our elected and appointed representatives, who are responsible to protect the interests of the american people. the floor of the house is a centerpiece of public debate in our democracy. it should not be used as a partisan tool. i am saddened that the speaker would threaten those historic positions, bipartisan support by israeli brothers and sisters by this action. it is for this reason why i chose not to attend this morning's address. i hope that this partisan political flow will never be repeated again on the house for. -- on the house floor. thank you. >> next is jan schakowsky of illinois. >> thank you very much. i agree very much with the goal that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the president could not be clearer. that has been the point of the negotiations with five other major powers in order to make sure that happens. i agree with the prime minister that the united states is israel's best friend. sometimes as often before the united nations, israel's only friend. i agree with the prime minister when he said that we have to learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes of the past. and so, i want to recount for you some of the words of the prime minister when he was a public citizen, not an elected official in israel. in 2002, when he made a major address -- it was testimony before dan burton's community. he says if you take out saddam's regime i guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. and he went on to say "i think that people sitting right next door to be run -- next door to iran will say the time of such regimes is gone." it did not quite turn out that way. in fact, the big winner of the iraq war was iran. just last year, the prime minister said -- anyway, the prime minister said last year " the joint plan of action" -- that the jpla enacted last year has not made the world a safer place/ " like the agreement with north korea in 2005, this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place. in fact, the joint plan of action has made the world safer right freezing iran's nuclear weapons plans and has been abided by iran. it seems to me that we are faced right now with a speech that as congressman what it out, has many falsehoods about it. the intelligence and security agencies of this country and our allies do not support the idea that iran can somehow unlearn to build centrifuges and have a nuclear infrastructure. and that the kind of proposals that the prime minister was suggesting are absolutely impossible, even destroying the current info structure -- the current infrastructure of iran's nuclear capacity would not do the job. the only thing that will do the job the kind of negotiated, carefully negotiated agreement that has vigorous oversight intrusive inspections and monitoring, that is where we are going. we should be able to lock down and roll back and a verifiable way iran's ability to achieve nuclear weapons. that is the goal. we can't achieve it bibi netanyahu's way. >> next up is g.k. butterfield of north carolina. >> thank you mr.. i represent the first district of north carolina. the width of the house democratic caucus and the chairman of the congressional black caucus. today i speak in my individual capacity as a member of the house. my first reaction was to come to this is conference this afternoon and essentially remained silent, keeping my opinions personal. that is contrary to my personality, so i will sadly lay out some facts. [laughter] i was a judge for 15 years in north carolina, 18 years before that i was a lawyer. before something we would do is establish the facts. then we would draw on the facts and reached our conclusion. fact #1 -- democrats in my opinion supported the right of israel to exist free of annihilation by iran or any other state. that is a fact. fact #2, i personally support the right of israel free to exist with the threat of annihilation from any country. the state of israel has the absolute right to feel threatened by iran's conduct of a sibling a nuclear arsenal. i support president obama's responsible effort to negotiate with iran, short of imposing additional sanctions. the president is a strong negotiator. that is my opinion. secretary kerry is a strong negotiator. ambassador rice is a strong negotiator. we need not inhibit their ability to attempt resolution protecting the state of israel and the world. it is the protocol and custom of international policy that heads of state have a understanding to invite other heads of state to their respective countries for the poetic visits were speeches to the parliamentary assembly. in this case, the speaker of the house extended an invitation to the prime minister with full knowledge that the invitation would be viewed as an insult and a rebuke to the president and vice president and secretary of state. the speaker, in my opinion, did not consult with the executive branch. i think that is acknowledged. the speaker did not consult with the executive ranch, was is on precedented. i believe it was intentional. i have received numerous calls from strong allies around the country commending me from my decision to not attend the joint session. a few left my office a while ago. i hope you understand that i have the ability -- i am an intelligent and six he seven-year-old man -- i have the ability to separate my support for israel for my disdain of the protocol used by the speaker for the joint session. i received a very delightful call a few days ago from the investor -- from t hehe ambassador telling me that the prime minister needs the support of the caucus. during the call, i pleaded with the investor to seek a postponement of the joint session. but he dismissed the idea. notwithstanding, i pledge to israel my continued, personal support. i explained that israel has many friends in the congressional black caucus. i do not think speaker banners conduct will interfere with our relationship. based on all of these facts, might position was to -- my position was to watch these session on television and not attend. i believe it was a politically motivated invitation. the speech made a convincing case for continued u.s. support and made clear that which we already knew -- that the country of iran is threatening and unacceptable. thank you. >> next is jim mcdermott of washington. >> thank you, and good morning. i concur in the remarks of most of my colleagues, but i want to take a somewhat .2 talk about so as not to repeat. -- a somewhat different point to talk about so as not to repeat. the first and foremost responsibility of the president is to protect the u.s. in so doing, he has to deal with all kinds of things. we were in more when he came into office. we were at war in iraq. he has gradually tried to bring those situations down to a situation where we can withdraw and let the forces into those countries began their evolution of whatever government they choose. in the case of iran, we have had the president leading a negotiated effort, consistently pushing forward in spite at a constant barrage of efforts to undermined, even before he got off the ground. and here we are again today seeing that same thing. what you are witnessing today was a very old concept. if you can make the people afraid, you can make them do anything. that is what prime minister netanyahu is doing. he is trying to make people afraid. in somehow it saying that the president wasn't doing his job. there is no evidence whatsoever that the president does not have our safety first and foremost in his negotiation and his thinking about the future. in that sense, this was a very sad display of clinical activity being -- display of political activity brought into the house of representatives to demean what the president has been doing under great stress for the last years. not only directly, but even before that. how do you get things on a safe position with iran? the president deserves our support and did not need this today. john boehner ought to be ashamed of himself from having rotted on -- from having brought it on. >> surely, the prime minister's strong speech satisfied his political objectives to survive in a very desperate election in the next couple of weeks. i certainly do agree with him that we all stand with israel. it is no more anti-israel to criticize and challenge mr. netanyahu that it is any american to criticize and challenge dick cheney. if you look at what happened today, it is the first time in american history that as many as 60 members of congress deliberately chose not to participate in this campaign pep rally. far more than that, a questioning the approach that the prime minister is insisting upon. what we know today that we did not before he gave the speech -- there is only one thing. he is a rejectionist. there is no agreement that this administration could achieve with iran that would be good enough for him. he wants to resolve all of the many wrong things that all of us have opposed that iran has a part of today in one agreement that should be focusing only on nuclear issues. i believe the prime minister thinks that inspectors, no matter how intrusive and careful they are, may not be able to locate all of the nuclear facilities that iran has underway. if the inspectors cannot locate them, how can he bomb all of them? the only alternative he offers in declining, is complete and total surrender by iran. that is not going to happen. i believe we need to continue to pursue their file -- pursue verifiable, intrusive inspections. we cannot give mr. netanyahu a veto power over what will protect american and is merely families -- and israeli families. he was wrong in the u.s. about an israeli breakout. he is wrong today. i do not trust for at the best way to prevent iran from -- i do not trust war is the best way to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. the only way to get a verifiable agreement that the ministration worked hard to achieve. we need to make every effort to achieve it. thank you. >> earl blumenauer of oregon. >> thank you. i was, six weeks ago made it clear that i would not take the fight what i think is a political charade and be part of netanyahu's next campaign commercial like his last appearance was. nothing that i heard as i watched the speech on television suggests that the majority of israeli people who thought it was a mistake for him to come, work the majority of americans who make it was a mistake to go through this exercise. i thought nothing to suggest that they were wrong. our friends in the news media to the deeper life -- depereper dive. i have listened to netanyahu. i heard him when he first came. i listened to his alarmist actions. i listened to the united states -- i listened to him cheer on the iraq war which cost hundreds of dollars and millions of lives. the extent to which he is accurate that iran now controls four countries. i think there's question about that. but the extent to which they are outside influence is a direct result to that disaster and his florida judgment. -- and his flawed judgment,. he suggests there is no alternative. . listen to that speech and go back again to gave no alternative path forward. just a series of demands. nothing that suggests that it would have any greater success. i think people ought to challenge his assumption that uranium and -- iranians and americans will always be enemies. think about that. all of my friends who visited iran as private citizens are struck by how friendly and outgoing iranians are. all of us represent people from iran war here in the united states and who are not necessarily friends of the regime. but they reject that category, that there can't be warm relations between our countries. surveys tell us that iran is the only country in the middle east where average people still have positive feelings towards the united states. we have a rich history of cooperation with the iranian people dating back to over a century. i was struck that the prime minister took all this time, to come all this way all the pomp and circumstance -- i listened very carefully. there was not one word from the prime minister about how he would deal with his failure to move his country forward with a peace process with the palestinians. some of us were in israel recently. the majority of israelis favor a negotiated settlement in moving things forward. prime minister netanyahu repeatedly has failed in that objective, and had not one word about how he would do any differently. he is lecturing us about how we ought to conduct ourselves in the future when we have unparalleled progress with the potential of negotiations with five major countries aligned with us. and who thinks they are going to continue to be with us if we take his hard-line and try and go it alone? i respectfully suggest that this was a mistake. i respectfully suggest that congress ought to take a deep breath exhale, and a lothian ministration it to see if they can bring this agreement across the finish line. then they can always go forward with more extreme sanctions or war, if they wish. of thing is lost by attending to make diplomacy work. -- nothing is lost. >> steve cohen of tennessee. >> thank you. i chose early not to be in favor of this speech and ask to be put off because i thought it would be political theater. indeed it was political theater. worthy of an oscar. this publican leadership team has used the gallery in the house to advance a political gender's give favors to folks who come to washington. in january, they had a pro-life crowd come up on the anniversary of roe v. wade. they scheduled a 20 week fetal pain bill to vote on to say look how good we are, become much we love you, to be strong with the pro-life crowd. today they did the same thing with aipac. speaker boehner was successful in their relations with aipac and wealthy donors who were behind this entire speech, who were active in the republican party and opposed the democrats. i believe the prime minister was successful in getting reelected. i suspect this will play well in israel. as far as how this affects the world and reality -- i think it is harmful. the game is in geneva, not in washington or on television. it would have been better if he took his concerns directly to the residents of the state apartment behind the scenes to try and get a better deal. instead, he has given himself and his country further away from the president in our country. i agree with the 200 is really -- 200 israeli security officials who said this will hurt israel. it will make it weaker in the eyes of the nation and embolden iran it to be even tougher at the bargaining table. it is more likely that there will be an agreement that is less than beneficial to israel. i think the political game was won, but the world game of peace was lost today. i had misgivings at times listening to the speech as a jewish american whenever the holocaust is brought up. threats to the jewish people -- i am concerned. i feel that everybody is trying to do the same thing and beyond israel's side. the president has israel's best interest at heart. negotiations are the only way to do it. there is not a alternative except for more sanctions. i watched the speech on television with a bunch of aipac folks from memphis. we agreed that this regime was rather bizarre in its ambitions. with that as a given, i don't think that additional sanctions would drive them to their knees. it would just embolden them and make the world less safe. >> peter welch of vermont. >> think you very much. i attended the speech. i have a strong relationship in support of israel. strong opposition to iran. i voted 10 times 40 sections and to enhance existing sanctions to condemn the government of iran for its human rights violations, signed letters, basically everything i can to support the strong israel and to challenge illiterate run. -- to challenge be literate iran -- belligerent iran. i wanted to know why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the white house speaker boehner. i want to know why he made the decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach. he turned it into a partisan battlefield. frankly, i came away from the speech disappointed. a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, distrust, but dvverify. his position -- no deal is bettea deal is better than no deal. i heard no plan b from the prime minister what would happen if we had no negotiations. does that mean the military strikes? does it mean we fall in vice prison respect to iran that he gave us with respect to iraq. the biggest long-term mistake that i think the prime minister made was in embracing a boehner-led effort while he directly snubbed the president of the united states. a strong u.s.-israel relationship has the support of congress. it needs the continued support of the administration. why would a friend of america act this way towards the president, whose record itself is one of enormous support for israel? under president obama, israel has received over $20 billion 10th 2009. under president obama, u.s. has provided israel with over $1.3 billion for the iron dome system alone. that was after gaza. totaling $2.9 billion under president obama. prime minister netanyahu directly challenged the president, who has directly and steadfastly been the friend of israel. he did not offer an alternative to negotiations, but repudiated those negotiations before we even know what the final deal maybe. this did not help. it is unfortunate that the prime minister chose to make this speech at this time. thank you. >> last, but tallest, jared huffman of california. >> thank you. i attended this speech, but i might well have joined my colleagues in not attending but for the fact that every day there's something outrageous going on on that floor. i get myself into a truancy problem pretty quick if i started not attending every time i had frustrations and concerns. i am pro-israel by any measure. i have consistently voted to support israel and the u.s.-israel leadership. i have family in israel. my eyes are wide open on iran and the current regime in iran. i do not want them to have nuclear weapons. i understand the threat they pose, not just to israel, but to broader security concerns. i feel like we have to give the informatics prop consulting track a -- problem-solving track a chance. what we had was netanyahu telling us not to try. knocking down a strawman a deal that does not exist, certainly not informed he characterized. there's a real danger when we say we will not pursue it to the medic solutions anymore. i want to add one more thing. to hear it from a foreign leader who has a real judgment problem, a real credibility problem on these issues makes it that much more troubling. whether it is the joint plan of action mischaracterizations about whether it was last year when he wanted us to go to war in syria whether, it was the iraq war, we have a credibility and judgment problem. for him to tell us that the enemy of our enemy is our enemy and that we must always be enemies of the ran is just too much for me to stomach. this was a step backwards, unfortunately in our relations with israel. it doesn't shake my support for israel but it does give me more and more reason to be concerned about the current government of israel. i hope in the future, whether it is pension netanyahu we will have a prime minister that not only says he respects the president, but treats our president with respect. >> thanks to everyone. questions for everybody. >> those who did not attend -- what did you achieved by not attending the speech? >> i wasn't part of the charade. >> i thought it was political theater and a wrong use of the congressional chamber. i got to share at least a dozen or more aipic members from congress to agree with an interchange. >> the house of representatives is the most procedures venue in the world. use it for political purposes for something that i do not want to be part of. >> let me just underscore -- this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker. we have open to speeches by foreign leaders in the chamber which we partly agree and disagree with. including prime minister netanyahu's prior speeches. this is a matter of abstaining from a speech that should never have occurred. that is what is different about it. >> make no mistake occasionally the house of representatives is involved in political the ethics --- political threatics. this is unusual in terms of how it undercut it our government. > i listened to every word of the speech. the 25 members of aipac from atlanta. and then i talked with them. i think i did the right thing. >> when the prime minister said israel cannot stand alone, can i get your takes on that? >> he made the same argument over the iraq war. that it was time for the united states to not pay attention to any world opinion, but just to go it alone. what i heard today felt to me like an effort to stampede united states into war once again. that we should break from the p5, and i believe it was too considered wa -- to consider war. >> let me say he apparently tried that once before. one of the only bush demonstration agreements that i agree with -- they said no according to reports. we need to be clear that that is not an acceptable approach. the israeli people will decide in this election if they think it is an acceptable approach. >> i think that is delusional. they have nuclear weapons. netanyahu presumably could unleash dozens of nuclear weapons. israelis know they can't go it alone. that is why all of us have voted repeatedly for money and assistance sometimes when they do things that give us heartburn. like a reckless settlement policy. but the notion that he somehow thinks israel can just bull through this on their own against the world i think based on my limited experience in israel -- israelis don't believe that. that is why they think their country is on the wrong path. regardless of how their audit math works out in the final election. -- their odd math works out. >> what is the white house going to do both publicly to respond? >> i think it is the white house's decision. we are here today because this was in our body and our house. none of us supported that activity. i do think what you will see in the coming days is a white house that is committed to pursuing these negotiations. i don't think they are going to let this speech distract them from that. that is the most important thing they have going right now. i think they will move on and let their actions the the response. >> let me just say at the very least the intention the hope of the prime minister was to enforce the ministration to -- the adminstration to make the case for diplomacy. to raise questions that the white house has to vote itself to explain. i thought that susan rice did a magnificent job at her aipac s peech yesterday laying out with those choices are. it was not made on the house of representatives with every media outlet right there. i think that right now with the secretary of state in geneva, that the white house will have to respond in some way that wouldn't have happened had the prime minister not made the speech. >> i want to add to that, if i could. i think the white house needs to keep it high on the ball. -- its yee on the ball. the white house says is an uphill fight to get a guest on iran. to let this be a distraction from what is already a tough mission would be unfortunate. i think they will move forward. this is a prime ministers who has never seen a war that he didn't want our country to fight. they need to finish a tough job. in a not lead to a deal, but if there's a possibility that it can, we need to stay focused and give it a shot. >> you mentioned earlier the prime minister mentioned the holocaust and genocide to congress. this a question for any other jewish members -- what is think of the decision to use that? >> i think it is an overreach, by far. i think he knew that. maybe everybody sees this, but in political theater what you had today was everything that the state of the union is -- a packed house, all the conkers minute representatives. -- the congressman representatives. he took the place of the present. it was putting him on an equal level on congress. that was wrong. and that was why i didn't attend. >> thank you. >> president obama responded to is really prime minster netanyahu's speech to covers during the meeting with the new defense secretary, ashton carter. this is 10 minutes. >> this is going to be the first opportunity i have to get an extensive the briefing from secretary carter, who took a trip last week to afghanistan and other parts of the region. he will be giving me some impressions about how we are planning our drawdown and transition in afghanistan and talk about some other regional issues. one issue we will be discussing is iran. obviously that is a topic of great interest today. let me just make a few comments. i do not have a chance to watch prime minister netanyahu's speech. i was on a videoconference with our european partners with respect to ukraine. i did have a chance to look at the transcript. as far as i can tell, there was nothing new. the prime minister i think appropriately pointed out that the bond between the united states and america is unbreakable. on that point, i thoroughly agree. he also pointed out that iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activities that are contrary to the interests of the u.s., to israel, and the region. on that, we agree. we he also pointed out -- he also pointed out that iran has repeatedly threatened israel and engaged in the most venomous of anti-somatic statements. no one can dispute that. -- anti-semitic statements. but the core issue, which is preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which is far more dangerous and would give its far greater scope in the region -- the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives. let's be clear about what exactly the central concern should be, both for the united states and for israel. i have said since the four i became president that one of my primary goals in a foreign policy is to prevent iran from getting clear weapons. with the help of congress and our international partners we constructed a sanctions regime that pressure iran to come to the table to negotiate in a serious fashion. they have now been negotiating over the last year. during that period, iran has in fact frozen its program rolled back some of its most dangerous highly enriched uranium, and subjected itself to the kinds of verifications and inspections that we have not previously seen. keep in mind that when we shaped that interim deal, mr. netanyahu made almost the precisely same speech about how dangerous that the deal was going to be. and yet over a year later, even as israel he intelligence officers and in some cases members of the israeli government, have to acknowledge that in fact it has kept iran from further pursuing its nuclear program. the deal that we are trying to negotiate that is not yet completed would cut off the different pathways for iran to advance its nuclear capabilities. it would roll back some elements of its program. it would ensure that it did not have what we call "a breakout capacity" that was shorter than eight years time. it would subject iran to the most vigorous inspections that have ever been put in place. the alternative the prime officer offers is no deal. in which case iran will immediately start pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program without us having any insight into what they are doing. and without constraint. his essential argument is that with we doubled down on sanctions, iran won't want to do that. well, we have evidence from the past decade that sections alone are not sufficient to prevent iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. and if it does not have some sense that sanctions will be removed, it will not have an interest in avoiding the path that it's currently on. the bottom line is this -- we don't yet have a deal. it may be that iran cannot say yes to a good deal. i have repeatedly say that i would rather have no deal than a bad deal. but if we are successful in negotiating a month and in fact this will be the best deal possible to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. nothing else comes close. sanctions will not do it. even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we have put forward. i think it is very important not to be distracted by the nature of the iranian regime's ambition when it comes to territory or terrorism -- all issues which we share concerns with israel about and are working with israel on. we know that if in fact they obtain a nuclear weapon, all of those problems would be worse. we are staying august on the central issue. how do we prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon? the path we propose ask successful, i far is the best way to do that. that is demonstrable. prime minister netanyahu has not offered any kind of a viable alternative that would achieve the same verifiable mechanism that would prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i urge the members of congress who are there to express their support for israel's security to express their strong interest in providing the materials israel needs to prevent attacks. i think it is important for members of commerce on a white person basis to be unified -- on a bipartisan basis to be unified. these are all things on which this and ministration and iran agrees. when it comes to this nuclear deal let's wait until there are deals on the table at which point everyone can evaluate. we don't have to speculate. what i can guarantee is that if it is a deal i signed off on, i will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. for us to pass up on that potential opportunity would be a great mistake. it is not one i intended to make, and i will take that case to every member of congress once we actually have a deal. alright? [chatter of questions] >> now that you had a chance to read the prime minister's remarks, to feel like a speech gave an appropriate consideration to the upcoming election? didn? >> all the folks on the call today share my position that we should see if we can get this deal done. it was not a topic of conversation. with respect to the decision of the speaker to offer up the house chamber two weeks before mr. netanyahu's election, that should be directed to them. it is very important for us not to live size the relationship between -- not to politicized the relationship between israel and the united states. is important to recognize we have a system of government in which foreign policy once through the executive branch and the president not through other channels. and i think it is important for us to stay focused on the problem at hand. and the specific problem that is being debated right now is not whether we trust the iranian regime or not we don't trust them. it is not whether iran engages in destabilizing activities. everybody agrees with that. the central question is -- how can we stop them from getting nuclear weapons? what we know is that if we are able to get a deal, not only do we caught off all of the various pathways for iran getting a nuclear weapon, but we also know we will have a verification and inspection mechanism where if they cheat and engage in a covert program, we are far more likely to see it in time to do something about it. what i also know is if we don't have a deal, as prime minister netanyahu suggested, if he is right that they are not trustworthy, they intend to pursue a program, and the cheat -- we'll be far less aware of what i also know is that they mean the same argument before this deal. even as officials in his own government have had to acknowledge that iran has maintained their end of the bargain. so, what i am focused on right now is solving this problem. i am not focused on the politics of it, not the theater of it. my strong suggestion would be that members of congress as they evaluated, stay similarly focused. thank you guys. appreciated. >> former cia director david pretorius reached a plea deal tuesday over giving classified data to a woman with whom he had an extramarital affair. the new york times reports that mr. petraeus, the four -- former commander of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, pled guilty to one hundred authorized removal of classified materials. he is eligible for one year of reason. prosecutors recommend two years of probation. he handed over personal hand -- handwritten notes over intelligence capabilities and the names of cover officers. he lied about the notes when questioned by the fbi during an investigation. coming up on c-span, the u.s. has debate on the homeland security funding bill. that is followed by a briefing with has democrats after the vote to fund the dhs to the end of the fiscal year. later, another chance to see israeli prime minister benjamin nine -- netanyahu's speech before the congress. >> the supreme court is set to hear the oral arguments in king versus burwell, challenging federal subsidies for the purchase of health care through the affordable care act. on the next washington journal just-- jess bravin is here to talk about the potential outcome. more on this with someone from kaiser health news. washington journal is like every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the hundred station with phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern wednesday, we will be outside of the supreme court for the site and sounds as justices hear the oral arguments in the king the burwell case, a challenge for the subsidies under the affordable care act. the arguments will be released friday but we will have reactions from attorneys on both sides and reaction from the crowd outside, life on c-span3. we have received more than 22 hundred entries from 400 schools across the country in this year's c-span student video competition. wednesday morning at 8:00 eastern during washington journal, we will announce the grand prize winner and show their winning documentary. you can see all 150 winning documentaries at studentcam.org. >> the u.s. house passed a bill to say to find the department of homeland security to the end of the fiscal year, without managing the president immigration bill. the debate on the house for his 35 minutes. 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

Related Keywords

Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Alabama , United States , Vermont , Tel Aviv , Turkey , California , Syria , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , Arizona , South Carolina , New York , North Carolina , Iran , Afghanistan , Texas , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Kentucky , Florida , Illinois , Georgia , Virginia , Oregon , Springfield , Tennessee , As Iran , Az Arbayjan E Sharqi , Mississippi , Jordan , Oklahoma , Iraq , New Jersey , Idaho , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Gaza , Maryland , North Korea , Ohio , Americans , America , Iranians , Turks , Iranian , Israelis , Israeli , American , Roe V Wade , David Pretorius , Nancy Pelosi , Dan Burton , Bibi Netanyahu , Steve Cohen , Peter Welch , Harry Reid , Elie Wiesel , Ashton Carter , Earl Blumenauer , Barack Obama , Jared Huffman , Morgan Griffith , Jim Mcdermott , John Boehner , Dick Cheney , Benjamin Netanyahu , Barack Hussein Obama , Jan Schakowsky ,