Signed, john a. Boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. The chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a. M. The chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. Gutierrez, for five minutes. Mr. Gutierrez id like to congratulate the speaker and the republican majority for coming to their senses and allowing the house of representatives to pass a bill funding the department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year. Seems odd i would have to come to this well to congratulate the majority for funding one of the largest and most important departments in the u. S. Governme
A couple of months ago and we were talking about current rules of engagement as it pertains to afghanistan, with this train, advise and assist mission. Isil is networking. We know they are recruiting in afghanistan. So my question was under this current operation youre under was if isil is identified by american troops or after began National Security forces in the assist mode we are in, can we absolutely destroy isil and the answer from the state department no, maam. My comment was i would consider the fact that we are at war with them means we should destroy them. In your role right now, what is your understanding when isil is identified. Are they taken out because we are at war with them or given a path . General campbell we dont talk but rules of engagement. I would just answer that and say im comfortable with the authorities that i have today that i can prosecute the mission both from a c. T. Perspective and train, advise and assist perspective and protect the forces that i have.
The definition gets cloudier not more specific in my view. And in fact, you know, if we end somewhere like three out of the seven, that would be clear too, wouldnt it . Wouldnt it be just as clear to say navigable waters are waters that are navigable for interstate commerce and why wouldnt that be we have been the area that lacks clarity right now is not the issue of navigable waters. The Supreme Court actually spoke very definitively that navigable waters need to be looked at in a way that isnt the traditional definition. We havent been looking at navigable waters the same way. It is a recognition that navigable waters in their ability to provide the functions that we look for, are really severely impacted by the waters that flow into them. So the challenge we tried to face in the clean water rule was to take a look at how do we identify those rivers streams tributaries, wetlands that feed into those navigable waters that we need to understand and protect so that they wont degrade tho
Only 16 states run their own exchanges. The federal government runs extend his for the remaining 34 states that opted out of setting up their own. The court is expected to rule on the case before the end of the term in june. This is an hour and 20 minutes. Well hear arguments this morning in case 14114, king v. Burwell. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, this is a straightforward case of statutory construction where the plain language of the statute dictates the result. Mr. Carvin, will you please back up, because before we get to a question of statutory construction, as you know, each plaintiff, or at least one plaintiff, has to have a concrete stake in these questions. They cant put them as ideological questions. And we have as four plaintiffs. As to two of them, there is a declaration stating i am not eligible for Health Insurance from the government, but theres a question of whether they are veterans eligible for coverage as veterans. Yes. One of those is m
The federalism values are promoted by our interpretation because if that is, indeed, what a state thought, if a state really would have preferred that not to have the State Government participate in the implementation of this act, for reasons that your honor identified, the structure of the act that congress put in place and that were advocating for today fully vindicates that concern. They can decide not to participate without having any adverse consequences visited upon the citizens of the state. And thats why our reading is the profederalism reading. Its their reading that seems to me that is the antifederalism reading, and thats a powerful reason to reject it. And if i could go to the second statutory point, which is related to what were talking about, Justice Kennedy, which is section 1321, says that this statute is designed to afford state flexibility. State flexibility. It would be an orwellian sense of the word flexibility to use it in the manner that petitioners say the statut