it, to be quite frank with you. we gave it to my office to research it. it turns out, mr. speaker, stunningly it's absolutely true. absolutely true. it's not just a radio station or television station in the midwest. it's the i.r.s. admits this is true. the nmentor general looked into this and -- the inspector general looked into this and said we're spending $4,000 million every single year. over $4 billion last year on these types of programs. they admit it's true and the i.r.s. asked us to act and we have done nothing. this is an outrage, mr. speaker. i'm surprised to hear anybody defend this system. this is the type of waste, fraud and abuse that undermines confidence in the way we do business in this town. this is the type of thing that gives people concern that we don't have any idea what we're doing about anything. . the good news is here for a change we can do something about it. we could pass the gentleman from texas' bill, mr. johnson's bill, but we could also do something today.

we don't have to wait to fix this type of abuse. we could pass this reconciliation bill today and stop this program and at least take a small step towards restoring confidence in the way the american government provides services to its people. i hope we do that. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts on the ways and means committee who knows a lot about this issue, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. we just heard a moment ago from the gentleman from south carolina that there was an illicit or perhaps illegal addition that was taking place somewhere in the country across the midwest. the answer is to notify the u.s. attorney's office. the answer there is to notify the authorities. this is not about illegal immigration. this argument today is about once again asking the wealthiest people in our society just to

sacrifice a bit. when the gentleman talks about $4 billion of fraud, there isn't anybody on the democratic side that encourages the idea of fraud. telling the american people where the expenditures go. a million new veterans have been created between afghanistan and iraq. you're 20 years old and you have been wounded in iraq or afghanistan, you're going to be in the care of the v.a. system for the next 50 or 60 years. we are obligated to take care of them. that's where the money goes. we cut taxes in this country by $2.3 trillion during the first years and my republican pals were all culpable in that argument. you can fight two wars in afghanistan and iraq, now both north of $2 trillion, and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, and people wonder why we are in the predicament we are in? 12 successive years of tax cuts at the same time asking nothing of the people at the very top, who incidentally during the clinton years, were not asking

for a tax cut. their argument was, pay down the debt. we are being asked to revisit with this budget what went awry during the bush years. we are being asked with this budget to go back to the policies that got us into this predicament during the bush years. we are being asked at this time once again to ask the poorest people in our society to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for the wealthiest in america. tax cuts that have not paid for themselves, tax cuts that will not pay for themselves, and tax cuts that do not take us on a sound path to fiscal stability in the near or long-term future. this should be about balancing the budget and it should be done, democrats and republicans, not with a sledgehammer that's being proposed only this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i say, mr. speaker, this is not a tax bill it's a spending cut bill. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise in strong support of h.r. 5652 the sequester replacement reconciliation act. i commend budget committee chairman paul ryan for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. this reconciliation legislation will make necessary and strategic reforms to a number of mandatory programs to better ensure that those most in need of government assistance receive it. instead of individuals who are not eligible or indeed may be gaming the system. with these reforms we will find nearly $328 billion in sanchingse over 10 years. furthermore, h.r. 5652 will offset $78 billion in cuts to the department of defense as a result of sequestration. mr. speaker, i am pleased to see there are two provisions that i offered that have been included in h.r. 5652. the first is h.r. 5, which seeks to address the rising cost of health care through meaningful,

fair, and balanced medical liability reform. the second is h.r. 1683, the state flexibility act, which seeks to correct a problem created by the failed stimulus and obamacare. this provision gives states the opportunity, gives them the opportunity to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicaid program. i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support h.r. 5652. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the challenging times we live in force us to make difficult choices about our priorities. the reconciliation bill before us today is an example of choosing the wrong priorities. while we must address our deficits and emergency sequestration, the republican

reconciliation bill does it absolutely the wrong way. it places the entire burden of deficit reduction on the most vulnerable while nothing -- while asking nothing of the best off. indeed, it asks for more from those who have less and less from those who have more. it harms seniors and children by eliminating social services block grants which provide for programs for our communities like child protection services and meals on wheels. they say they are getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, i have heard that for 31 years, while they added $6.4 trillion to the deficit. it slashes food stamp funding by $33.2 billion. they say that's waste, fraud, and abuse. c.b.o. does not agree. it's real assistance to families in need. furthermore, it cuts the pay of middle class workers who serve the public. the only workers who it

adversely affects. these are the priorities we have seen throughout the republican budget. ending the medicare guarantee, slashing jobs while cutting taxes for the wealthiest at the expense of seniors. the gentleman from wisconsin says this bill doesn't do that. he's correct. his budget did that. middle class families and those who are the most vulnerable pay the price. democrats have our own proposal. unfortunately it wasn't made in order. as the gentleman from maryland, my colleague said, you only had to waive run rule as opposed to three for your budget but you wouldn't do it because you didn't want the american public to see the real alternatives out there. i regret that to that extend you close down this rule which you railed so much against -- 30 additional seconds? mr. van hollen: another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: unlike today's republican bill, our proposal reduces deficits in a balanced way, prevented sequestration

through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenues. let me say something, nobody's asked to make a sacrifice in the richest country on the earth. what we have to do is make appropriate contributions. nobody's asked to make a sacrifice and certainly not the most vulnerable in our country as does this reconciliation bill. mr. speaker, i urge opposition to this bill. we can and should do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman from maryland. i rise in opposition to this bill. it should come as no surprise the republicans in congress do not take the budget deficit seriously. when they were in total control during six of the eight bush years, they did nothing to reduce the deficit. quite the opposite. republicans say they are all for cutting spending, just not the

spending they like. so here we have an attempt to replace sequestration so that they can continue to destroy the social safety net while protecting defense spending, big oil, and the wealthiest in this country. yet again asking the american middle and lower classes to bear the costs of cutting the budget. when they agreed to the sequester they would try to back out of the deal to protect their pet policies and that's what we see in this document. cutting food stamps, snap, hurting senior citizens hurting federal workers. i voted against the budget control act because it was an unbalanced budget and put the responsibility of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. but at least it was an agreement that put both defense and discretionary spending up for cuts. it was an agreement that both parties came to recognizing the need to cut federal spending. now the republicans are trying to book out of that and in backing out of that they are protecting the wealthiest among us, hurting the middle class. this is the wrong way to go.

it was a shameful document. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from wisconsin continue to reserve? the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: it's called a reconciliation act, but how do we reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread? how do we reconcile our nation's helping oil companies, arms merchants, war profiteers while cutting assistance to low and moderate income families? my colleagues are worried about abuse of food stamps. i wish they would have additional concerns and sympathy for the abuse of the middle class, for 10 million americans out of work, for millions losing their homes, their retirement security.

let's look for the real fraud in our government. over trillions of dollars, billions of u.s. money lost or stolen in afghanistan just in the last week, $80 million for a council which they are not going to use, they are going to close. we blame poor people using food stamps? the real difference that we are dealing with here is a moral deficit and it's time that we face the truth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to mr. baca. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this misguided budget that we'll vote on today. this package literally takes food off the table for millions of disadvantaged americans by cutting $33 billion from the snap program.

i ask my republican colleagues, where are your priorities? is it to take from the poor? give to the rich? snap is a life line for 46 million americans. we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to assist foreign countries. but we don't spend money to take care of the struggling families right here at home. it's a shame. this budget proposal not only cuts benefit levels, but it also keeps thousands of children from receiving school meals. can you imagine going to school on an empty stomach and having to take a test? in america this should not happen. i understand the value of the snap program because i once relied on food stamps. unless you have been in that situation, you don't know what it's like. you have no choice. you have no choice but to receive assistance to feed your family. i ask my colleagues to make sure that we vote against this and make sure that we put food on the table for the 46 million

people who are going hungry right here in the united states. vote no on this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has seven. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. as we said at the beginning there's no disagreement over the fact that we need to have a plan to reduce our deficit. the question has been how? and there's no dispute about whether we need to replace the sequester, the meat axe cuts that will take place automatically january 1. again the question is how? and the republican approach once again asks nothing of people who are doing so well in this country, people making over $1 million a year, and because they ask nothing of them their budget

hits everybody else. the figures we are talking about today, these are about real people. these are figures from the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the impact of their proposal, 300,000 kids will lose their health care coverage under chips. 22 million kids will see their food nutrition support under snap reduced. two million people will see all their food nutrition support eliminated. those are facts. i know people want to pretend, pretend that this doesn't impact real people. that makes it easier to say we are not going to ask big oil companies to get rid of their subsidies. that we can pretend the cuts don't have an impact, but they do. that's why every bipartisan group that's looked at this budget challenge has said we need a combination of cuts and we did a trillion more and we have cuts in our substitute, but also need to get some revenue by closing some of these tax loopholes.

mr. speaker, the democrats had a substitute amendment. the republicans won't even let us have a vote on it. they waived three provisions in their rules to bring up their proposal. they wouldn't waive one to hear an alternative. we keep hearing that it's all part to reduce the deficit. apparently not important enough to ask for one penny from people making a million dollars a year. we keep hearing that this -- impact of the sequester will hit the fence, but again not one penny from the oil companies to help take a balanced approach. i urge rejection of the republican proposal, i wish we could have an up or down vote on the democratic substitute. that would be democracy, but maybe that's asking too much these days. . i now yield the last minute --

ok. mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to a lady who has spent her life fighting for justice and trying to make sure that that is reflected in the budget that we present to the american people, the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to call to the attention of all of our colleagues and those who follow the work of congress the extraordinary contribution that congressman -- ranking member chris van hollen has made to this debate. he has led our members on the democratic members on the budget committee in a way that reflects the values of our country. how we can meet the needs of

our children, their health, their education. the economic security of their families. the -- when people ask me what are the three most issues facing the congress and i say, our children, our children, our children. and the family in which they live. i watch with great pride the debate and the strong distinction that's been made between a values-based budget put forth by the democrats and that supports a thriving middle class. and the ryan republican tea party budget that upholds millionaires over the middle class. we're here today because the republicans in the house have decided over and over again to walk away from bipartisan, bicameral agreement that we

reach to avert economic crisis and to reduce our deficit and to honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. walking away and punishing the middle class because they refuse to close even one special interest tax loophole to reduce our deficit. they are putting big oil and millionaires ahead of america's middle-income families. in recent weeks, house republicans have voted twice, not once but twice. here we go again, in the words of a great republican president-to-be, that gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest americans, while ending the medicare guarantee and increasing cost for seniors in the meantime. that is an absolute fact. today, republicans have voting to begin implementing their out-of-touch budget,

middle-class people, seniors, women and children will pay the price. consider these few things. i know that the members of the committee have made the case, but i just want to focus on a few things that affect people very directly in their lives. this republican-ryan-tea party budget will assault women's health by eliminating the prevention fund. 326,000 women would not get the breast cancer screening they are slated to receive next year. 248,000 women would not get the cervical cancer screening they are slated to receive next year. those are big numbers. but every individual case is important to the families that those women live in. so the numbers are staggering. but the specific cases are what

is important and this is hundreds of thousands. it would harm children, seniors, literally taking food out of the mouths of babies as nearly 300,000 children would lose free or reduced cost school meals. 300,000 kids. wait a minute. we are going to give a $400,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year and we're going to take food from 300,000 children to do that. 1.7 million seniors would lose meals on wheels. people are familiar with that in their neighborhoods, in their communities and other services. put wall street ahead of the middle class and working families by weakening the consumer financial protection bureau. in the wall street reform bill,

we not only had the biggest changes in regulation so that the recklessness on wall street would no longer cause joblessness on main street. the reckless of some. i don't -- the reckless of some on wall street would not create, again, massive joblessness on main street. and in that same legislation -- and they were the biggest regulation changes in a long time, decades. but the biggest change in history was in the consumer financial protection bureau. this budget weakens consumer protection. that's just not right. so here we are again with the republican budget to name a few, and contrast to this draconian republican bill, democrats are fighting for a balanced approach, creates jobs, expands opportunity, reduces the deficit, protects

the health and economic security of america's families. it honors the entrepreneurial spirit of america. republicans are focused on obstruction rather than solutions. americans have rejected republican obstructionism and made it clear over and over again, we must work together to find solutions. because this legislation will have a devastating impact, it's opposed by numerous organizations from easter seals to national women's law center, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and voices for -- of america -- for america's children. as the obama administration wrote in expressing their strong opposition to this bill, the bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test of fairness and shared responsibility. the same time as the house is advancing tax cuts that benefit the most fortunate americans, this legislation would pose

deep budget cuts that costs jobs and hurt vulnerable citizens, like senior citizens and children. let's come together in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way to cut our deficit by growing the economy, creating growth, creating jobs, bringing in revenue to reduce the deficit. to make the priority choices that is the values of our country, the values of fairness and opportunity, of sustaining a thriving middle class, for the middle class and all who aspire to it. it is the backbone of our democracy. for that reason i urge my colleagues to vote no on this devastating bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: first off, mr. speaker, let me thank those six committees that contributed to making this possible. over 60% of the federal budget is in a category of spending we call mandatory spending. it's a budget term of ours that means that part of spending is on autopilot and congress does not oversee or set the level in any given year. congress does address, we call discretionary spending, that's government agency budget, about 39% of the budget, every single year. we -- the last time congress actually looked at this 60% of spending on autopilot for savings was 2005.

it's important that we make sure that we're scrutinizing how we're spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and it's a shame that we haven't revisited this category of spending since 2005. we're doing that here. now, the president, the secretary of defense, the speaker of the house, the minority leader of the house, they all said this sequester is a mistake, it's bad, it's going to hurt. not only does it hallow out defense according to the defense secretary but creates an 8% across the board cut to domestic discretionary spending like national institutes of the health. and we think we should prevent that in a bipartisan basis. that's what we're doing. this is the only plan that says prevent that from happening and here's how you pay for it. here's our plan to stop that from happening. this event that everybody says should be stopped. now when we take a look at what

this package does, i think we want to look at, is our government working the way it ought to be? and in particular, we're hearing lots of comments about how this hurts people, how this hurts the poor. let's take a look at our poverty-fighting efforts. and so we measure our poverty-fighting efforts based on inputs or based on outcomes? should we measure or poverty-fighting efforts based on the number of programs we're creating, or should we think about how many people we're getting out of poverty? here's the problem. these efforts aren't working. one out of six americans today are in poverty. we have the highest poverty rates we've had in a generation. these programs aren't working. let's fix them.

let's pass reforms that instead increase the poverty rate which is happening these days and get people back in the lives of self-sufficiency. let's go back to the american idea of an opportunity society with the safety net that doesn't keep people in poverty but gets people out of poverty, underlines their self-sufficiency. and we are not going to be able to achieve that if we don't grow our economy. we are not going to be able to achieve that if we don't more opportunities in society so people on the bottom wrung of the economic ladder can climb up and out. we shouldn't be defining success as how many people we have on these benefit programs. we should be defining success as to how many people we're graduating from these benefit programs into lives of self-sufficiency, into jobs. that's the american idea. and so when you take a look at whether these programs are working well or not, we need to reform them. we haven't touched these programs for decades.

food stamps. we've grown from 17 million people to 45 million people in a decade. a 270% spending increase. $1.8 billion in overpayments last year alone. we're just saying, you need to qualify for the benefit to get the benefit. medicaid, if we think it's such a success, why are doctors filling out a survey saying they are mott taking any more patients? then why was $15.8 billion in overpayments made just last year? does this devastate medicaid? instead of increasing medicaid by 125% over the next decade, this proposal increases it by 123% over the next decade. hardly draconian. what we're saying is we need to make these programs work to achieve their intended results. give states more flexibility to customize the benefits to meet

the needs of the people in their states. that's what these medicaid reforms are all about. and when we hear the other side talk about no spending cuts but more tax increases, that's going to slow down job creation. where the first ones who came to the flor saying close these tax loopholes, but close these tax loopholes to create economic growth by reforming the tax code. treat people fairly in the tax code so that a company or a person who makes the same amount of money pays the same level of tax, you do that getting rid of tax shelters and tax loopholes, not to raise spending but to lower tax rates so american businesses can survive, can thrive and create jobs. upward mobility, economic opportunity, that's what we're trying to achieve here. mr. speaker, we should not be talking to each other in this society as if we're stuck in some class, as if this person's

lower class, that person is upper class. our ancestors formed this country which should not be a class-based society. it should be a society of upward mobility, where we can make the most of our lives based on our own talent and god-given effort. the government is here to help them cope with it. . if we have a debt crisis, if we keep on this path, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we are going to have a debt crisis. europe is in a debt crisis. what happens when you are in a debt crisis? immediate austerity. cutting benefits to seniors, cutting benefits to people in the safety net, raising taxes that slows down the economy, especially for the youth. look what we are doing right now . half of our nation's college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed.

half. it's not working. we need to change these policies. we need to grow the economy. and if we have a debt crisis because of this spending, then the people who need government the most, they are the ones who get hurt the first and the worst. we are leading. the president, no plan to fix this. the senate, no budget since 2009. and our friends on the other side of the aisle, tax increases, spending increases, no spending cuts. mr. speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. it's something congress should do every day. i urge passage of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 648, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the little? >> i am oppose in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: will mobe sack of iowa moves to recommit the bill h.r. 5652 to the committee on budget with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of title 5 add the following. section 504, prohibition on taxpayer funded pensions for members of congress who become highly paid lobbyists. a, in general, any former member of congress who is registered as a lobbyist and whose annual income from lobbying activities exceed $1 million shall not be eligible -- eligible to receive benefits either under the civil service retirement system or federal employees retirement system for the period of time during which such former member

is employed as such a lobbyist and receiving for lobbying activities an annual income that exceeds $1 million. b, definition, for purpose -- mr. loebsack: i ask unanimous consent -- to dispense. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection. the reading is dispensed with. there is an objection. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: for the purposes of this section the term former member of congress means an individual who becomes a former member of congress after the date of the enactment of this act. section 505, ensuring that members of congress pay their fair share for retirement benefits. a, civil service retirement system, one, individual contributions, section 8334-c of title 5, united states code is amended. a, by striking c, each, and inserting c-1, each. and b, adding at the end of the

following, two, notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the applicable percentage of basic pay under this subsection shall for purposes of computing an amount with respect to a member for a member's service, a, for a period in calendar year 2013 be equal to the upper percentage under this subsection for calendar year 2012 plus an additional 2.5 percentage points. b, for a period and calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017 be equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for the preceding calendar year as determined under subparagraph a or the subparagraph as the case may be plus an additional 1.5 percentage points. and c, for a period in any calendar year after 2017 be equal to the applicable percentage percent age under this subsection for calendar

year 2017 as dirmed under subparagraph b. two, government contributions, section 8334, a-1-b of title 5 united states code is amended. a, in clause i by striking except as provided in clause ii and inserting except as provided in clause ii or iii. and b, by adding at the end the following, iii and the case of a member the amount to be contributed under clause i shall with respect to a period in any year beginning after december 31, 2012, be equal to, one, the amount which would otherwise apply under clause i with respect to such period reduced by two the amount by which with respect to such period the withholding under subparagraph a

exceeds the amount which would otherwise have been withheld from the basic pay of the member involved under subparagraph a based on the percentage applicable under subsection c for calendar year 2012. b, federal employees retirement system, one, individual contributions, section 8422-a-3 of title 5 united states code is amended. a, by redesignating subparagraph b and subparagraph c, b, by inserting after subparagraph a the following. b, notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the applicable percentage under this subsection shall for purposes of computing an amount -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the read something dispensed with. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. loebsack: i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state the

inquiry. mr. loebsack: if my final amendment is adopt the underlying bill is amended and we immediately vote on final passage of the bill as amencheded? the speaker pro tempore: if a motion to recommit forthwith with adopted the amendment is reported by the chair of the committee and is immediately before the house. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, while i oppose the underlying bill i am offering this amendment to prohibit former members of congress who cash in to become million dollar lobbyists from ectcling their pensions. my amendment also stops members from congress from getting a better deal than everyone else by asking them to contribute the same amount to their pensions as other federal employees. we all know that americans faith in their government has been severely damage. if congress does not take action to stop the revolving door between capitol hill and washington lobby firms, there is little chance that that faith can be restored. it is time we take action and put a stop to these practices.

members of congress who choose to take this route, especially those making exorbitant salaries, as millionaire lobbyists, should forgo their pensions. it's that simple. it is patently ridiculous these members are finding a way to have their cake and eat it too. it's just another example of special washington privileges for out-of-touch elites, privileges that i have promised not to take and it should be ended. i have vowed never to use my public service for personal gain to become a lobbyist. i first ran for office because having grown up in poverty i know that iowa families need a strong voice and an advocate who will ensure their voices are heard over the voices of a special interest who dominate washington. i came here for one reason, to serve the people of iowa. i go back to iowa every weekend. and visit with my constituents so that i know what's on their minds and what they want to happen here in washington.

sadly some people come to washington to cash in. i think we can all agree this is unacceptable. i believe that former members of congress should become millionaire lobbyists, should never be able to collect their pensions. it's with with adopted the amendment is reported by the chair of the committee and is immediately before the house. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, while i oppose the underlying bill i am offering this amendment to prohibit former members of congress who cash in to become million dollar lobbyists from ectcling their pensions. my amendment also stops members from congress from getting a better deal than everyone else by asking them to contribute the same amount to their pensions as other federal employees. we all know that americans faith in their government has been severely damage. if congress does not take action to stop the revolving door between capitol hill and washington lobby firms, there is little chance that that faith can be restored. it is time we take action and put a stop to these practices. members of congress who choose to take this route, especially those making exorbitant salaries, as millionaire

lobbyists, should forgo their pensions. it's that simple. it is patently ridiculous these members are finding a way to have their cake and eat it too. it's just another example of special washington privileges for out-of-touch elites, privileges that i have promised not to take and it should be ended. i have vowed never to use my public service for personal gain to become a lobbyist. i first ran for office because having grown up in poverty i know that iowa families need a strong voice and an advocate who will ensure their voices are heard over the voices of a special interest who dominate washington. i came here for one reason, to serve the people of iowa. i go back to iowa every weekend. and visit with my constituents so that i know what's on their minds and what they want to happen here in washington. sadly some people come to washington to cash in. i think we can all agree this is unacceptable. i believe that former members of congress should become millionaire lobbyists, should never be able to collect their pensions. it's that simple. my final amendment would make sure that millionaire lobbyists aren't using their status as former members to line their pockets at the expense of middle class americans. in these tough economic times we have had to make difficult choices. though i might not like all the cuts that have been made or are being proposed, i know that we need to be on better footing with our economy is to recover. the unemployment rate remains far too high. and we need to get the economy moving again and get people back to work. americans need jobs. that is my number one priority here in congress and it is something i think about each and every day. with all the sacrifices that iowa families are making as a

result of the economic downturn and all the cuts that are affecting their communities, members of congress also need to find ways to tighten their belts. maintaining special benefits for members of congress at a time like this is both intolerable and inexplicable. that is why my final amendment would also increase the contributions that members of congress make to their pensions by the same amount that the underlying bill increases them for federal employees. this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill as amended would be immediately voted upon. i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in putting the interests of the american people before those of lobbyists and special interest groups by supporting my amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention. we just received the legislation about three or four minutes ago. a couple observations i would make. number one, i think this is an intriguing policy with respect to the members who become lobbyists and denying them pensions. i think the gentleman should introduce legislation and send it to committee like the legislation should be passed and we should give it proper review instead of springing it at the last minute. the second point i would make is, an area we completely agree, which is members of congress

should bear even higher burden than we are asking other federal employees. this bill does that. the underlying bill does that. the underlying bill says in addition to federal employees paying -- going from paying .8% to their fence, they go to 5.8% from their paycheck to contribute to their pension so that they pay half of their pension benefits as is required through most private sector arrangements. members of congress will pay 9.8% to their pension under this bill. so this bill has an 8.5% pay cut to members of congress and only a 5% pay cut to all other federal employees. so year already incorporating the idea which we agree with that members of congress in order to exercise more authority, they are the ones who should take the biggest pay cut and biggest pension contribution relative to everybody else. that's why we have it in this bill already. so while i understand the gentleman's interest, i appreciate it. it's something that we are already accommodating in this bill, and as a result i would urge a no vote. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. loebsack: yes. the speaker pro tempore: a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic votes on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 170. the nays are 232 with 11 voting present. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, on that i ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote shall rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 218 and the nays are 199. the bill is passed. with one present. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 4326 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 324. h.r. 5326, a bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013.

and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. ladies and gentlemen, please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. nadler: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. nadler of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. 5326 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthith. mr. nadler: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, the reading is dispensed.

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. please take your conversations off the house floor. the gentleman will proceed. mr. nadler: before i begin, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, if the final amendment i am offering were to be adopted, is it not the case that the bill will be amended and that the house will then proceed to final passage right away? the speaker pro tempore: as the chair stated earlier today, if a motion to recommit with fortith with instructions is adopted, the amendment is reported by the chair of the committee and is immediately before the house. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker.

whether it is to deny women of reproductive or other health services or achieve equal pay for equal work, many women in america today feel under siege. indeed -- the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. i say again, take your conversations off of the house floor. the gentleman will proceed. mr. nadler: thank you. indeed, many women across the country feel a war is being waged upon them by policymakers. today with this final amendment to the c.j.s. appropriations bill, members of the house will have a chance to say where they stand. this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill as amended will proceed to final passage. this amendment will increase by $20 million money spent on grants under the violence

against women act or have a with a. it is a land -- vaw with a. it is a landmark -- vawa. it is a landmark piece of legislation. they target domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault and rape. these are crimes many women know all too well. indeed, violence against women remain a national problem and a national tragedy. in 2008 over 1.8 million over the age of 12 were victims of violence and over 1,000 murdered many by someone close to them. we need to do more to stop this epidemic. we need to do more for america's women. i want to acknowledge what i expect the opponents of this motion may say. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please take your conversations

off the house floor. the gentleman will resume. mr. nadler: i want to acknowledge what i expect the opponents of this motion may say, that funding for the vawa grant programs in the underlying bill is a few million dollars above last year's level and above the president's request. i would point out that the money in this bill is hundreds of millions of dollars below the last authorized amount and $15 million below the appropriation for fiscal year 2010. additionally, this is not the last stop for this bill. when we conference with the senate, which has a higher total funding for c.j.s., we should have the highest possible funding level for vawa from which to negotiate. the amendment offsets the $20 million increase by cuts to administrative accounts. we have heard from our colleagues the need to cut government funding, to prevent the time of excesses we've seen recently in the g.s.a. and other agencies with las vegas conference extravaganzas. well, now is our chance to put our money where our mouth is and shift funding from these

types of administrative expenses to preventing violence against women. this is a question of values and priorities. what kind of message do we want to send women across the country? do we want g.s.a.-style wild, extravagant conferences or do we want to save lives of women? do we want to make sure we have the resources needed? i ask all members today, stand up for your mothers, stand up for your wives, for your daughters, for women everywhere. stop the violence. pass this motion to recommit. i'll now yield to a person, a former victim of domestic violence herself, the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. nadler. thank you, mr. speaker. i ask my colleagues to please see this request through the eyes of a child who is assaulted by a family member and comes forward at school to confide in a beloved teacher. the woman in an isolated rural

area where local law enforcement is underresourced or transportation or legal services may be lacking or nonexistent. the women on college campuses where rape of intimate partner violence are among the highest. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. i say again, the house is not in order. take your conversations off of the house floor. the gentlelady will resume. ms. moore: please, mr. speaker, see this through the eyes of the victims with disabilities who are at high risk of abuse and are often dependent on their abusers for care. in short, this vawa funding means that a woman and even men who've been victimized can step out of the shadows away from their abusers and get access to counseling, legal services or other services, and, mr. speaker, every single day for

three women this vawa funding is the difference between life and death. it is so true that the c.j.s. legislation before us has provided the requested level of support for victims and their families, but it's been chroniclely underfunded since the day they have opened their doors and there are thousands of men, women and children who are not being served. please, this is an opportunity to provide this small increase to fill the gap between available resources and the desperate need to serve folks. we must commit adequate resources toward these effective, life-saving programs and, mr. speaker, we must do it now. i ask my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, to summarize, we can devote $20 million to las vegas-style

conferences and administrative expenses or to services to prevent violence against women. that's the choice. vote yes on the motion to recommit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: you know, mr. nadler, you could have offered an amendment last night. we had a whole total open process, and mr. runyan -- where is mr. runyan? mr. runyan added money to this project, to violence against women. secondly, this is a bipartisan bill. there's been no political she in an begans at all -- she in an gains at all. i -- she in an gains at all. this bill has $420 million, $7.5 million above the current level for this issue. also with $7.5 million above president obama's request for violence against women. we're above it.

and then mr. runyan put it even higher. also, this administration has mott been good on sexual trafficking. we have language in this bill to direct the attorney general to have task force at every u.s. attorney's office for sexual trafficking. we are above the administration on sexual trafficking. so, i mean, it's kind of a political kind of a -- you know, we are above the administration and we have task force on this issue and so i could go on and on and on. but last night we had a totally open and we accepted a number of amendments. you could have come down here up to midnight last night. there is no disagreement about the importance of these programs and the need to stop it. it's a good bill, solid bill, bipartisan support. members on both sides of the aisle had ample opportunity to have their amendments considered. in fact, on floor

consideration, 63 amendments were offered and 36 were adopted. and again before members vote, i yield to the gentlelady from florida. we have above the president's request on violence against women. we were above the president's request on the issue of sexual traffic and also -- and i know some of you are concerned about it, the nist background check. we have above the administration on that and also language directing the attorney general to deal with that nist commission. the brady people supported it and the n.r.a. supported it. so all of those issues we were above the administration and i yield to the gentlelady from florida. mrs. adams: and i thank you. i'll again ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to quit making politics to an issue so near and dear to all of us. we are above what the president put in, just like the chairman said. we have constantly been above what the president has asked for, and you as well as i know that this has become a political issue when it should

have never been a political issue. we can no longer allow politicks to take control over good policy. we can no longer allow misrepresentation about amounts and this and that over good policy. we have a bill coming to the floor. we know we need to address this issue and it has been addressed even more than the administration has asked for. so with that i would ask that you do not, do not approve this motion to recommit. i yield back. mr. wolf: i think we have actually said enough. i think it's a good bill. i want to thank again mr. fattah and all members on both sides of the aisle. it was a good bipartisan bill and i urge a rejection of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this 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 will be a -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit which will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill and approval of the journal if so ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 181. and the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 247 and the nays are 163. the bill is passed. 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 shall 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 and the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, during roll

call number 248 on h.r. 4326 i mistakenly recorded my vote as nay when i should have voted yeah. i ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the record before roll call vote number 248. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. mr. lujan: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2668, an act to designate the station of the united states border patrol located at 2136 south meco highway in brizz bee, arizona,

as the brian b. terry border patrol station. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. heinrich of new mexico for today after 12:00 and mrs. napolitano of california after 1:00 p.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a

co-sponsor of h.r. 4004. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute to

inquire from the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank you very much and i now am pleased to yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. among next week's suspensions will be h.r. 365, the national alert act sponsored by

congressman michael grimm which will c could he inside with national police week. in addition, the house will consider two important rules under a rule. the first is h.r. 4970, the violence against women's act re-authorization, sponsored by congresswoman sandy adams, herself a former sheriff. on the second -- our second rule bill, which will take up the remainder of the week, is h.r. 4310, the national defense authorization act, sponsored by chairman buck mckeon. this bipartisan bill provides for the funding of our armed services prior to the memorial day as is the house is appropriately accustomed. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information and if i can on the violence against women's act, a very important piece of legislation, which we have re-authorized in the past in a bipartisan fashion, can the gentleman tell

me, it's under a rule, does the gentleman know whether it will be an open rule or whether there will be perhaps a modified open rule with amendments being printed, can the gentleman tell us? i have a lot of folks on my side of the aisle who are very interested in dealing with certain portions of that bill and they be interested to know whether or not it will be able to offer amendments and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i just tell the gentleman, as he knows, the rules committee is the one to decide the process by which bills come to the floor and the rules of those bills and the rules committee will be meeting on tuesday. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would tell the majority leader for purposes of his planning and anticipation, as he may well know, the bill that's been purported out of the judiciary committee is controversial. there was a bill that passed through the other chamber, that passed overwhelmingly.

almost more than 2-1 and is not like this bill and there are members that would like to incorporate the senate's provisions in the house bill and i know we would appreciate it if we'd be given that opportunity to offer that on the floor as an alternative and if the gentleman would take that into consideration, perhaps talk to mr. dreier about making such amendments in order, we would very much appreciate that. of course, we would also appreciate perhaps if you wanted to take up the senate bill as a substitute, we think we would have overwhelming votes for that on this side of the aisle. and in light of the fact that you and i have been working in such a bipartisan fashion lately, perhaps that would be a good way to continue that process. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. it has been a certainly improved sense of cooperation and i appreciate that on the gentleman's part in trying to deliver results and trying to

make sure we get america back to work. i would say to the gentleman, as he rightly noted, that this bill has traditionally been re-authorized and what the approach we took tried to focus on was to do what it is that the gentleman and i have been trying to do the last couple of weeks, and that is to separate out things that divide us, and try and unite us around the central focus of a particular piece of legislation. it is a program that calls for the commitment of taxpayer dollars to fund the appropriate services for abused women. this is a bill that is much-needed and it is one that i think deserves a bipartisan support and we tried to stay away from issues that divide us, we tried to listen to the g.a.o. in terms of its recommendations under this program, to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent at their most efficient level,

so that we can get more out of the dollars being spent. and that is the spirit with which we will bring this bill to the floor and again i know it's an important bill, we care, all of us care deeply about making sure that abused women receive the necessary services that they need. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his observations and clearly he and agree on the importance of this legislation. certainly concerned about violence perpetrated against women and i would simply say, and i'm sure he shares this, of all women who happen to be in this country and subject to violence acts by others -- violent acts by others, so we want to make sure we can in fact protect all women who are subject to abuse. and hopefully we can pursue that

objective. mr. leader, appropriation bills, we've just passed an appropriation bill, is a squha -- somewhat more controversial than i hoped it would have been. in part because of the riders that were adopted to that bill which were strongly opposed by many on this side of the aisle. and in part because we do not believe it complied with the agreement that we reached with reference to funding levels. there are now 11 more appropriation bills to go. can the gentleman tell me the next appropriation bill that he expects to have on the floor? mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman that we are looking to accommodate the needs of the committee as they move forward and with their bills and their agenda, it is our intention to continue with the kind of debate that we had on the c.j.s. bill this week. as you know, it's been some time since which this house was able

to see an appropriations process work, in a very open fashion that we had this week. and we intend to continue to do that with the bill. it's the speaker's commitment that this be an open process and that members have a right to air their views and that those issues, amendments can come to a vote. so i'd say to the gentleman, we look forward to working with him and looking to the committee to bring forward the bill that they think is ready next to be brought to the floor. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. as i said, one concern we had on our side of the aisle was the riders. many of which we thought were inappropriate. they were adopted but we did not favor them. the second was, of course, the level of funding, the appropriations committee articulated that they thought the moneys available to them under the ryan constrictions on

302-a were too low to meet some of the commitments that they had. does the gentleman know, first of all, pursuant to what he says the speaker wants to do and he wants to do and i think we ought to do, we didn't always get that done lamentably. does the gentleman believe that we're going to have the time to bring each one of the appropriation bills to the floor between now and let's say the august break so, that the senate might consider them and we might consider them individually as opposed to in some omnibus piece of legislation? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, all i would say to the gentleman is certainly our intention and the commitment that we have to bring these bills forward for open and fair debate. i know the gentleman has expressed now twiles the fact that his side didn't like some of the votes that occurred on the specific provisions of some

bills. this is a democratic process, as he knows. 23 members on his side of the aisle ended up supporting the c.j.s. bill. and again this is the house's will at work and we hope to be able to work with him in this very new environment in which we're operating on appropriations bills. the commitment that we have is still that we want to, you know, bring these bills forward under a very challenging fiscal time in our country and do so without earmarks. this does represent a new construct within which we are operating and so again we look forward to the gentleman's participation toward that end and a successful -- in a successful way. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i want to make it clear that clearly i understand the democratic process and riders are offered and the house does its will and there it is. and the gentleman's absolutely correct. that's the process. but i want to emphasize that we

still have great concerns about the agreement that we reached not being carried out pursuant to what we believe the adepreement was in terms of funding -- agreement was in terms of funding levels in the allocation. that's the general allocation to the appropriation committee. i know the gentleman knows that we have that concern. i know the gentleman has also made the observation that that was a cap, not an agreed number. i will tell my friend again, i think i said this a couple of weeks ago, that undermines our willingness to make agreements if what we make agreement on is the most that you'll do, but then come in at levels substantially below that which we think we 'greed to and in fact -- agreed to and in fact is in the law. i want to make it clear, that was my major concern, continues to be my major concern. i understand as all of us do on this floor that the majority will lule on the amendments and -- rule on the amendments and

what amendments are adopted are adopted. there were loot of them on the floor -- there were a lot of them on the floor as you know better than i, because there were a lot from your side and that's appropriate. let me ask you about the transportation conference, mr. leader. we're very concerned about this. we think this is a jobs bill. we think it's an important bill. this bill, as you know, was adopted overwhelmingly, some 74 senators, half of the republican conference in the senate voting for the transportation bill, we're in conference now, we've been in conference for some time. can the gentleman tell me where he thinks the status of the conference is and when we might adopt this bill? obviously we have extended until the end of june, but we must act before then. can the gentleman tell me the status of the conference? mr. cantor: as the gentleman rightfully suggests, we are in conference with the senate,

deliberations ongoing. very mindful, as he indicates, of the expiration of the existing authorization of the program at the end of june, knowing that is ou deadline. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. and i want to say as we close this colloquy, which some people will say was one of our more tame colloquies, perhaps that's appropriate, on a week that we did have an opportunity to come together. i want to thank the gentleman, i want to again say that neil bradley did an excellent job working with john hughs and my staff and the financial services staff, mr. frank, mrs. mccarthy, mr. miller's staff and the senate. i think we did what we ought to do more of, we passed a bill which as you know my party supported unanimously because we believe it does in fact make us more competitive in the international marketplace. and will help keep and grow

jobs. so i want to thank the gentleman for his work on that and again thank mr. bradley and mr. hughs for their work on that and hopefully the senate will act on that with dispatch. unless the gentleman wants to say anything further, i'll yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i just join the gentleman in thanking both our staffs. they did tremendous work as well as mr. miller on the financial services committee and the staff there, mr. bachus' staff. your office can be instrumental i think in helping move the senate along. and -- but everyone from the chief of staff on down, in your office, we want to thank you as well for your team's commitment to working in a very -- again, a very difficult equation, where there were a lot of differences that we tried to work through. but at the end didn't want to unilaterally disarm american business in the name of the competitiveness of our country. so i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his remarks. i want to apologize to your chief of staff for not mentioning him and yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it will adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at noon on tuesday, may 15, 2012, for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute week. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week the postal office has

announced a strategy to keep post offices open. we could have lost as many as 100 post offices in my district. this new plan from the postal service is not perfect. the retail window at most post offices will have limited operating hours however access to the lobby and post office boxing will remain unchanged. mr. crawford: more importantly towns will keep their zip codes and community identities will be preserved. in november of 2011 i introduced h.r. 3370, the protecting our rural post offices act, that prohibits the postal service from closing rural post offices that don't have an alternative office within eight miles. now that the potestal service has announced plans to keep them open, congress can enact reforms that will make sure rural americans no longer have to worry about access to mail services. so many of the challenges we face in washington are not democrat versus republican, rather urban versus rural districts. the post office represents the town identity and lets the world know that community exists. the post offices were to completely close, small communities would no longer have

their own zip codes, cities' identities would be lost. for my party i'll continue efforts to ensure rural arkansas communities keep access to postal services. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the nation's mothers and to be able to wish them a wonderful happy mother's day. this morning i had the privilege of going to the women's war monument at arlington cemetery, to lay a wreath for our fallen women who fell in battle in the service of their nation. many of them were mothers. i stand today to say to them, even in the loss of life, we thank you, we honor you. i honor my mother who lost her life in 2010, along where my aunt, valerie bennett, along with my living aunt, vickie bennett, and as well audrey

bennett. and some of the mothers of my community, ruby moseley, danny simmons, sylvia gonzalez, ester campos. so many mothers who have served their communities. the late beulah shepherd. so many of them. but i want to say to the nation's mothers that we have an obligation to ensure that your children are protected and that the lives of women are protected and that we recognize and respect all of the service, both of you, or all of you that are home mothers, those who work and have children, those who do so many things. i am so honored to be able to say are you in fact america's sheerows. we honor you this -- heroes. we honor you this weekend but as we taught, we honor you every day of the year. god bless you, god bless the united states of america. i yield back. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: when people fraudulently vote, they infringe on the rights of lawful voters, one solution is to require valid voter i.d.'s. the supreme court has upheld that, but some object. attorney holder is investigating texas' photo voter i.d. laws even though they will be free to those who need them. a person needs one to open a bank account, a credit card, to check into a hotel, to drive, to buy alcohol, cash a check, board a plane or even visit a public school. when attorney general holder spoke recently, people had to present a valid photo i.d. to get into the building he was speaking in. photo i.d. laws disen franchise

laws, to enter, the person must present a photo i.d. ironic again. it would seem the only ones who would be disenfranchised by photo i.d. laws would be unlawful voters and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority. mr. king: it's my privilege and honor to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and today, i come before you with a humble heart and a very appreciatetive american appreciation for a young man whom i believe this congress needs to honor. and that is staff sergeant

mills, 73, cav, united states airborne, united states army. i rise to honor this young men, travis mills, and on april 10, 2012, while out on patrol with his troops in afghanistan, staff sergeant mills almost lost his life during an i.e.d. explosion. he is known for leading his men in combat where they go, he goes. after the explosion, while being airlifted an extraordinary moment was noted by the medic on board. while wounded, he did not shed a tear and asked how his men were doing who were also wounded. he then smiled at them and gave them a wink to reassure them, this is a man who lost four limbs, mr. speaker.

it was impressive to say the least. staff sergeant mills lost three limbs initially and then the fourth limb and two short weeks, he was an inspiration. and he embarks upon his recover. it is clear that nothing is going to slow his recovery down. i ask that this poem be placed into the record as i read into the record and it is titled, they'll not take that from you. ." all upon our life's wait, all within these our short lives await. so then which steps must we also take, all in our time's worth, not to foresake, all in which we so create, for the path is straight, my friend. and our journey is but a long and hard one, so then, for it's only in our hearts depends, it is up in heaven we wish to wake.

travis know they will not take that from you. they may take your arms and legs and may cry out in pain as do they as for death you beg. and there are a few magnificent things, travis, so they, that they not so take that from you, all because of what you so gave, the word of hero now comes before and after your fine name this day. and heaven for you, travis, one day awaits, as from you, this they'll not so take. they'll not take that from you, for it's that most splendid word of honor that courses all through your magnificent veins because you were one of those gentlelady ant ones of all like all those other wuzz before you stood so tall and selflessly marched off to war to hear that

call, leaving all that they so loved, all of your precious loves, all for the greater good, travis mills, with tears all in your most magnificent eyes and as you said your last good-byes, with your heart of gold comprised, as you marched off to war so ready to die. they'll not take that from you. with all your most splendid valor and grace and magnificent courage all all in place as you stared all in death's face and the smell of death upon you and yet with each new step, somehow you still kept pace and such heart ache upon your fine soul was placed as all for your brothers in arms, you so led the way. and as so boldly you so stood all there in uniform as why now you hold such a splendid place.

all in our hearts so very warm, all in this human race. no. no. they will not take that from you, for travis, yours will always be a heart of such honor and faith, one of sh splendid grace as we solook upon your most magnificent face and so see what you gave, and so there we also -- and we also find such a fine soul as comprised, who above all others, we must now fill place. but with your most heroic will as travis, you climb mountains and so climbed hills, as your own blood was so spilled, and still, you did not lose pace and now your new battle has just begun as your fine heart shines all like that morning sun. as you rebuild with each new step, all one by one, no, fine

one, you're airborne and they'll not take that from you, for it was you who so chose to answer freedom's call, your great valor saw. they'll not take that from you, for in these our most troubled times all in these our most shortest of lives, only but one thing so lives on so shines as not so gone as out in our eternity so survives and as what we did so upon this earth, do we in darkness so reside? or is it with our goodness that we so make even the angels to cry, for if all in our most noble deeds that we succeed to feet evil's needs then it's heaven we shall also see because these things which only life can

brian no one else can, no, travis, they will never take that from you and now the time has so come, time to mount up, mount up, my son, to go airborne on recovery, to get up and run, to win one more battle like all of those other ones you've also won, because, travis, you are army strong. you are america's heart and son. they may have taken your strong arms and legs, but your fine heart and soul, they cannot so touch, can they? and that's what you run with this very day. bravo, my son, you are airborne in every way. as once again, you are out on point leading the way, for travis staff sergeant mills, you have so many lives to touch, so many hearts to fill as such, and so many years from now, heaven

is yours one day, so don't rush, and your family and this world so needs men like you as such, travis, they'll not take that from you. mr. speaker, i appreciate your attention and i ask to introduce this into the record and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's material will be inserted into the record.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 52 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we are really blessed here in the capitol with some of the greatest people that work around here, touch the lives of so many, so many come from around the country to admire our great national capitol and the people that work around here touched in one way or another.

and albert's one of those great folks. seems every day we see him with wounded warriors in addition to his regular duties as a tour guide. he is taking them through the capitol, doing poems for them, having them signed by members of congress. getting them entered into the record, getting them to individual warriors and he just does a great work. so i'm quite pleased my flend, steve king, entered it into the record. the truth is, freedom is not free and we are surrounded by people who have given a great deal, given limbs, given so much. i was standing by a gold star mom in texas this past week and

i really wasn't sure who gave the most. her son gave everything, gave his life, but his mother gave her son. we're told by jesus, the greater love no one than this than a man lay down his life for his friends. this nation has experienced so much love by people who have laid down their lives for their country, but at the same time, millions of parents have given their children in proper teaching to love the things that make this country the greatest country in the world, instill those values in their children that cause the children to be

willing to show the greatest love that anyone can have. i do know from being so close to parents who have given their children that that is an unfathomable love, to care about your country, its freedom so much, that you're willing to risk a child's life for the good of others and ultimately give that child for the good of the country. so terribly difficult. so we have people on foreign soil who are risking their lives, some have given their lives for this country.

we have law enforcement, we have intelligence agents, agents of all kinds of all parts of state, local and federal government who put their lives at risk every day so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have. we owe them not to be stupid about the way we carry out the government's business and the way in which we protect the citizens of this country, the people in this country whom all enemies, foreign and domestic -- from all enemies, foreign and domestic. and we have some very noble patriots that serve at the various levels of our federal entities that are chargeded with keeping us safe. having visited with secretary

panetta that called me a few weeks ago, having had multiple conversations with director muller, as director of the f.b.i., so many others in our federal law enforcement, our federal intelligence, justice. we've got a great lot of noble people. but here again we cannot be foolish about the way we go about protecting america. there are people that have been at war with the united states since 1979. president carter hailed the ayatollah could manyy as a man of -- can many -- khomeini as a man of peace, as he came back

from compile, and for the first time in so many years gave a foot hold for radical terrorizing islam to have a country in iran. americans soon found out the price of bad judgment in international affairs. not too long thereafter there was an attack against the american embassy in tehran. i know in fort benning, georgia, where i was, a lot of folks were put on alert, it may be necessary for us to go and defend this nation because an attack against a country's embassy is an attack against that country. it is an act of war. so there was an act of war

committed in iran in 1979 and our response was so benign that it is still being used as a recruiting tool by radical islamists today. to show how americans are not very smart, they don't have a stomach for a strong fight. so we can still prevail. we had a benign response in 1983 after the attack on our marines and the loss of 300 precious marine lives in beirut. the response was to pull them out without a fight. so many times week of been attacked in the last 30 years,

acts of war. and we fail to recognize what they really were until 2001 when most of america woke up at that point, that there are people who want to destroy america. when bin laden wrote that they had spent around $500,000 to train those people and to carry out the mission of crashing planes into american buildings, to destroy buildings and to kill thousands of americans, apparently they were hoping for more in the range of 50,000 or so to be killed in the twin towers, but as bin laden has pointed out, an investment from their standpoint, the way they saw it, is around $500,000, cost america trillions and trillions of dollars and even before he was taken out it was clear to

him that they helped put america on track to be bankrupt. from his standpoint that was a tremendous investment. invest $500,000 in an act of war and cost your enemy not only thousands of lives but trillions of dollars. not only in damage but in the money spent to try to secure the nation. that's why it's so important that we be more smart about the way our money is spent, that we utilize a little bit more discernment, a little bit more wisdom in the way we take on those who are bent on our destruction. they're still there. and the taliban's strength, as both senator feinstein and

representative rogers, the two chairs from the senate and house respectively, of our intelligence, our homeland security -- i guess intelligence , they understand and they believe the taliban's stronger now than it was before. it is growing in strength. we have not been very wise about the way we took on an enemy that wants to take this country down. now, there are some who have been a little oversensitive and it seems that some who are our muslim friends, who have been more defensive about any questions about radical islam

than they have been condemning about the radicals that have hijacked their religion. and it would be helpful for those of us who know there are moderate muslims, who just want to live in peace, to have their help in condemning radical islam instead of condemning those of us who stand up against and condemn radical islam. now, america, one of our great traits is we don't want to really offend people around the world. there have been some ugly americans over the years who give us a bad name. but all in all americans are loving, caring, for giving people -- forgiving people and the only nation in the history of the world that has ever sent treasure in the form of money

and our greatest assets, our individuals, to fight and die on behalf of people in another nation over which we want no control, we want no territory, we just want freedom to reign in the world so we can live at peace and help extend that freedom to others around the world. that's why over the years, as stories have unfolded about high-handed leaders in other countries who say, we want americans out, we don't like you , the response has come in some situations, do you want us to remove all of the dead bodies of

americans who gave their lives so you could have the freedom to tell us where to go and what to do? americans have had a place in history like no other nation. and ironically, as one general recently said in conversation, virtually every deployment he has had into harm's way he has been sent there on behalf of -- or by the united states on behalf of muslims who were being mistreated by others, including christians. so for some of us it gets a dill dis-- a little discouraging that our muslim friends who want to live in peace will not take notice of the fact that this country has stood up against tyranny, against moderate

muslims around the world. and we continue to do that. and we were doing that in afghanistan. and we get no credit for that. and instead we get condemned because we want to protect what we have. and we get so caught up in political correctness that we're afraid to call things as they are. i mentioned before, but that line in the patent movie, may or may not have actually been said but it is a fact from military strategists, as pattin looked over the carnage from a battle in which his tanks took on the tanks of that incredible german field marshall, and reportedly he said something like, paraphrasing, you know, you

glorious, childless son or parentless son, i read your book . when going through military science we were taught, if you want to be able to fight effectively on behalf of your country, you have to know your enemy. we would prefer we have no enemies as as christians, those of us who are, we're taught, love your neighbor as yourself. jesus himself said, when he was asked by a lawyer, what's the most important commandment, he said, love god, and the second is, love your neighbor. and those two things, those two laws hang all the law in the profits -- prophets, the full face of moses depicted above the door in the center, back in the gallery is there because he was considered perhaps the greatest law giver of all times, of all

the law givers, who have silent profiles. moses has the one full face. and if you were to outline the 10 commandments that moses was used to provide, you could outline them under two headings. number one, love god. number two, love each other. they all fall under those two commands. and since we have a very rich judeo-christian heritage here in america, since for at least the first 130, 140 years of our country's history, people have been proud to constantly wrote the -- quote the bible here on the house floor as ument mat authority -- ultimate authority for reasoning behind good legislation.

as one goes right out those doors, straight down the hall, matter of feet, you come to statutory hall, statuary hall, it is the place where the house of representatives met for most of the 1800's and except for after the fire in 1814 that the british set, a fire which was put out by what insurance policies would call an act of god, a deluging rain that put out the fire, preserved this capitol's shell so that it didn't implode and become a bunch of ruins, right down the hall in statuary hall, former house of representatives, for most of the 1800's it was a place of nondenominational christian worship services. i hope one day we'll have a plaque down there so the 15,000

or so people a day that come through can read and understand that the man, thomas jefferson, who coined the phrase separation of church and state, not in the constitution, as most americans believe, but in a letter to the baptists about why really we shouldn't have an official denomination of the christian religion, jefferson attended church virtually every sunday he was in washington. just down the hall. they had nondenominational christian worship services. so it is amazing the lack of education that has occurred in recent generations so that you could have, one of the cable channels, they reported that in the past week there was some kind of a prayer service in statuary hall by a bunch of right wingers when what was

actually done was not nearly as stout in christian nature as what thomas jefferson used to do as president when he attended church down there and the speaker's podium was used as the pulpit, each sunday. for most of the 1800's. . and most people credit madison having more to do the constitution than anyone else of our founders. madison also attended church, a nondenominational christian church in statuary hall and found no afront to the constitution to attend church in the u.s. capitol and for much of the 1800's, the largest

christian church in the nation's capitol was here at the capitol in the house of representatives where they attended church each sunday. the congressional research service did some research on material that we provided to see what they believed was documented and what wasn't and said jefferson normally came down pennsylvania avenue on horseback by himself. one story is jefferson coming down pennsylvania avenue with a big bible under his arm and one of the citizens said, mr. president, where are you going? it was sunday morning, he said i'm going to church up in the kohl. -- capitol. he said you don't believe everything those christians are doing up there. he said i'm the highest elected

magistrate in this country and it is imperative i set the proper example so he came to church and did not find attending church down in the house of representatives as offending the notion that he dreamed up of a separation of church and state. his words. he's also the person that coined the phrase, having a wall of separation that the supreme court has many, many years later misconstrued because they didn't know the history when properly taught. but jefferson did not find an afront to his concept of separation of church and state. to bring the united states marine band into the capitol to play christian hymns for the

christian worship services. so what to some cable channel may have been the strange, weird thing that happened because they have not been properly educated, to thomas jefferson, to james madison was just a matter of pro prite and course. certainly, there's nothing wrong with bringing the marine bands to play hymns for a christian worship service because it was nondenominational and weren't putting any emphasis on any particular denomination. when randolph during the 1787 constitutional convention saw that things were falling apart and heard this inspirational speech by benjamin franklin how franklin in his words -- we have

his words because he wrote them down in his own handwriting, said, i have lived so a long time and the longer i live, the more convincing proof i see of this truth. god governance. and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible an empire can rise without his aid. and franklin said we can be assured unless the lord built the house they labor in vain that build it. the speech that he gave to the other members of the constitutional convention, he urged them by saying firmly, believe this. he said, i also firmly believe without his, god's concurring help, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of babel and

be confounded by local partial interests and we shall be considered a byword throughout the ages. randolph his proposal after franklin was we basically have had so much disagreement, such a spirit of anger, i move that we all go to church. and here we are at the end of june and about to celebrate the country's anniversary, i move we all go to church together and all of us -- the irony of this -- all of this is part of the constitutional convention that is going to give the nation the constitution that will one day cause the supreme court to say we don't think you can constitutionally do what the founders and the writers of the constitution did. he said, we ought to go to church together in celebration of the anniversary and then come back and pick this up. one wrote that there was a new

spirit. they all went to the reformed calvanistic church and heard the same sermon and evoked a spirit of unity and collaboration and although there were differences, they came together thereafter and gave us the constitution. so it's part of our heritage. as part of our heritage, we welcome people from all faiths or no faiths. but just because you don't have a faith, don't come in and tell us we can't have and enjoy what the founders provided and assured in the first amendment that we could have. don't try to miseducate any more supreme court justices so that although they are brilliant of intellect, but ignorant of our history and what the constitution means, so they really do not understand the

freedoms that we were provided. and that there is a prohibition against practicing our religion. some have twisted those words, the language, our constitution and political correctness to the point that it is exposing us to unnecessary danger. and although these people that we have in authority here in this town mean well and they all want to see the country do well and thrive, we can't be stupid about the way we go around helping protect the country. so we have people in america that are more concerned with political correctness and more concerned that someone does not get offended while we are

fighting for our nation's lives, fighting for the nation's existence against powers that want to destroy us. they are concerned we might offend somebody, we might offend those who want to kill and destroy us and what's worse, we might offend someone who is a moderate and practices under the name of the same religion of those who want to destroy us. and just like patton was pointing out, you can't defend yourself unless you know the enemy that wants to destroy you. 9/12 was a day like i've not experienced in my lifetime. we were scared.

americans across the country came together. we prayed. we didn't care about political correctness. courthouse squares around the country, we grabbed hands. we did it in tyler, texas. they did it all around the country. people holding hands and singing hymns. singing "amazing grace," singing "god bless america," just like been franklin told us or we would succeed no better than the builders of babel. we came together and for that day and for a time thereafter, there was no such thing as a hyphenated. there was no african american,

no asian america, there were americans here in america. and we were concerned about having a future. for us and our children and hopefully their children and their children. and we were smart for a short time. and in a bipartisan way, this chamber came together. i was on the bench at the time as a judge. i was qualifying a jury panel when the twin towers were hit. nobody was concerned about hyphenated americans because we were americans. and what this chamber did in

coming together and coming together with the senate and saying, you know what? let's study where we went wrong. and a bipartisan commission was put together to study incomplete candor what had gone wrong. how did the worst attack against america on its own soil occur without us realizing what was coming. we had the 9 9/11 -- 9/11 commission report that came out of that. and the 9/11 commission report used words like enemy 39 times, jihad, 126 times. muslim, 145 times, because those who wanted to destroy us and tried used that term about

themselves. that's who they said they were before the attack. they used terms in the report, 322 times like islam, because those who attacked us in the worst attack in the history on our soil used that term about themselves. and i am very sorry for our moderate islamic friends who want to live in peace with all americans because they're americans. and i'm sorry if people are offended that those who hated us so much they would bring down the world trade centers, try to wipe out the pentagon, try to wipe out what some say is the most recognized building in the world, this capitol. i'm sorry if they're offended

that those people called themselves muslim. they called themselves islammists. muslim brotherhood was mentioned five times in the 9/11 commission report, because it was important. it was an interwoven nature what was going on in the attack. they used religious, they used that word 65 times. they mentioned hamas four times and mentioned hezbollah two times. mentioned al qaeda 36 times. they mentioned caliph. we have leaders who mean wheel who think they are protecting america, who are more concerned about not offending people who don't want to hurt us than they

are about just speaking truth. and how can you deal with an enemy unless you are willing to recognize them in truth. so now, because of the very recent months, the f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon, this effort by our f.b.i. that has gone on in the justice department, it has gone on in the intelligence department, it's gone on in the state department, it's gone on in the white house itself -- they're leading the charge. we don't want to offend anyone. so no longer can an f.b.i. agent who is new, someone who may barely remember what occurred on 9/11, they're not allowed to be taught what the enemy who

attacked us said about themselves. they aren't allowed to be taught what they said motivated our enemy. how can you deal with your enemy? how can you take them on and win that fight and come out victorious unless you recognize what motivates them, because when you know what motivates them, you predict more likely what they will do next. that's why there are novelists in america who do a better job of predicting where we will be hit next than our own government intelligence agencies, our own government f.b.i. . it's why when some noticed there was a soldier on al-jazeera saying exactly what major hasan had said, in essence about how being a muslim, if he were sent to a

muslim country, where he might accidentally kill another muslim, for one of the unrecognized allowances to kill another muslim, then they would have to act up and kill americans to avoid the risk going to a muslim country and killing a muslim. the guy is saying basically the same thing hasan did before he killed 13 of our precious servicemens in an act that in our political correctness this administration now refers to as workplace violence. well, i came to know and love some parole harbor -- some pearl harbor survivors. they had no idea that what they experienced at pearl harbor, according to the thinking of

this administration, was an act of workplace violence where someone came into the workplace of all of these civilians and all of these soldiers and sailors and marines in pearl harbor and killed them in their workplace. they didn't understand that because that's not what it was. nor was it workplace violence at fort hood. it was an act of war against our military and i'm grateful we have members of the house and senate that had the foresight to file a bill to make sure that they should have purple hearts because it was not workplace violence, they died for their country, they died for freedom they laid down their lives which they knew were at risk from the moment they took the oath just like

all of us who have been in the service have taken. political correctness must be set aside so that we can speak candidly and truthfully and so if there realy is nothing to fear from the radical islamists who have hijacked the name of a religion away from the mass moderate muslims, it's time for more than just three or four or a handful of moderate muslims to step forward and help us in calling it what it is. now, i recognize that for any muslim to step forward and condemn another muslim, it is a very, very risky proposition and it's far more risky for

them to do that than for an infidel considered, infidel like me, to step up and condemn radical jihaddist islamists. because i'm already an infidel in their eyes. moderates know that if they speak out publicly they could be targeted for turning on their own religion and among the radical crazies who are trying to hijack the religion they get angrier at a moderate muslim than they do an infidel for speaking against another muslim. so it is very risky for a moderate to step up and join those of us who want to recognize accurately what our enemy is. but in the name of political

correctness, not only have we cleansed our national intelligence strategy, which is becoming a misnomer, how can you have intelligence if you're not allowed to recognize your enemy for what your enemy calls himself? our f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon, how it's been cleansed of the terms that those at war with us call themselves. and it is important that we learn from our mistakes because if we refuse to learn from our mistakes, we're going to keep making them. most people have been taught the old adage, those who refuse to learn from history are destinned to repeat it. we should not have to experience another major attack on our own soil and the loss of thousands of american lives

before we have another heartbreaking day like september 12 of 2001 where we come together, embrace, and say we're not hyphenated americans, we're americans. we're one people and we will stand together. we shouldn't have to have more americans killed as they were on 9/11 to bring us together like that. i beg, mr. speaker, of my colleagues, let's help educate our federal government that it's ok to call someone a a radical islamist if they call themselves that. and it's ok to describe people in our f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon, in our intelligence materials, what the terrorists

themselves call themselves. it's ok. and we won't be mad at each other when we do that. because what happens when we try to become too politically correct, we have things like the f.b.i., and wonderful director who i believe unintentionally has hurt the f.b.i. by his five year up or out policy which we now know has cost us thousands and thousands and thousands of years of experience by running off our more experienced f.b.i. agents in favor of agents in charge who may go from having 26 years of experience to having five or six years of experience. who may not even have been out of college at the time of 9/11 now being in charge as the most experienced people we have in our offices around the country. that's hurt us. at the same time, for example, in june of 2002, our f.b.i.

director took fire for giving a speech to the american muslim council who the director's spokesman described as the most mainstream muslim group in the united states, unquote. but at the time of the speech in 2002, the head of the american muslim council was a man named al-ahmoudi, videotaped in october of 2000 delivering a speech just yards away from the white house proclaiming, quote, i've been labeled by the media in new york as being a supporter of hamas. we are all supporters of hamas. i wish they added, i am also a supporter of hezbollah, unquote. that was also the same year, 2002, that the a.m.c., american

muslim council, board advisor and former acting president jameel al amin was arrested for murdering a georgia police officer. al ahmoudi was arrested in 2003 in a libyan assassination plot targeting the saudi crown prince and later identify by the u.s. treasury as one of al qaeda's top fundraisers in the united states. at the time of our f.b.i. director's peach -- speech in 2002, he'd been under investigation by the f.b.i. for almost a decade. for funneling money between osama bin laden and the blind sheikh. in october of 2003, just days before the ceremony honoring a detroit muslim leader in -- a

detroit muslim leader, amud, and bestowing on him the f.b.i. director's award for exceptional public service, the f.b.i. had to contact him and tell him he wasn't going to receive the award. the f.b.i. initially claimed it decided to give the award to a victim of the 9/11 terror attacks, but later an f.b.i. spokesman revealed that unflattering information about hamad had been made public during the deportation proceedings for one of his close associates. in fact, the i.n.s. fought for two decades to deport hamad for his suspected support for the popular front for the liberation of palestine. a designated terrorist organization by this country. -- by this government. that information came to light not due to any checking or vetting by the f.b.i. but

thanks to an article published by the new york post. -- by "the new york post." which brings me back to a point about a young soldier, after the 13 military members were killed at forthood by major hasan, who was on al-jazeera saying the same things hasan did, we had people notice that but it would have been politically incorrect to do anything about it. you know, they say those things. if it had not been for, yes, a gun dealer in texas, who found this young private suspicious, if it had not been for the gun dealer turning him, calling in local authorities and alerting them, we would have had another fort hood shooting and lost other precious members of our military.

they were saved not because of the intelligence community, the f.b.i. counterterrorism or the homeland security countering violent extremism, because we don't want to use the term jihad or islamicee haud, so it's countering violence extremists, none of those picked it up. there were people who noticed and reported it but nothing was done because it might be politically incorrect. they risked the lives of our precious military in political correctness and if not for the work of a gun dealer in texas and local law enforcement jumping right on top of it, we could have lost military members. other examples, palestinian islamic jihad leader al arrian

had meetings and conversations with high-ranking officials at the justice department, homeland security department, despite being the subject of fisa wiretap warrants since the early 1990's and having his home raided in 1995, he was still having meetings at the d.o.j., homeland security, having access to our government's inner sank tum as part of a -- sanctum. as part of a plea agreement, he admitted to being part of the leadership structure of the terrorist group, and they were meeting with him. arrian in 2008, well, in 2008, f.b.i. director handed one of his director's community leadership awards to imam yaya

hindi, who testified in al arrian's trial as a defense witness. hindi had served as a moderator during a 2000 fundraiser for the benevolent international foundation, which was shut town in november of 2002 by the u.s. government and designated a terrorist organization for its support of al qaeda and a number of other islamic terrorist groups. an f.b.i. agent testified during the homeland -- the holy land found athes trial that care -- holy land foundation trial, that care was a front for the terrorist group hamas, that f.b.i. was publicly forced to sever its ties with care. they had all this information and yet they continued to, as

their own information says, partner with care, though care, they knew, we had evidence, was partnering with terrorists. . in september, 2010, known hamas cleric, mustaffah, part of a six-week f.b.i. citizens academy and treated to guided tours at the top secret counterterrorism center also of the f.b.i. headquarters and the f.b.i. headquarters at quantico, came after he was personally named and a co-conspirator in the holy land foundation trial and as a

muslim chaplain to the illinois state police, had been revoked. illinois had figured out what he was and what he believed before he was giving tours of our top secret national counterterrorism center. "time" magazine featured a profile of imma'am of the all dulls muslim society called themselves adams for short. i is the current current president, which also was a named co-conspirator to fund terrorism in the holy land foundation trial. what the district court and fifth circuit court of appeals examined the record and said there is plenty of evidence to support them being named, specifically, as supporters of

terrorism. but in november, 2005, majib was awarded for the imam's cooperation claiming quote, he regularly tips off the bureau. but in a letter to the adams center community, the next day, majib told his members he did no such thing. he made clear that he never reported on anyone in the muslim community and his relationship with the f.b.i. was one-sided with the outreach meetings, quote, are solely to create avenues to work with law enforcement to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights, unquote. majib has met with top d.o.j. officials urging the criminalization of islam. ok to burn a bible and ok to criticize christianity and ok.

police allowed people to scream and cuss obscenities about god at a tea party, but not to be critical of these people. it's time to wake up. it's time to set political correctness aside. and mr. speaker, i would ask that this letter signed by 22,000 americans begging us to end political correctness that risk our liberty be made a matter of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for a motion. mr. gohmert: i move that we now 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

>> i remain optimistic about the future of indiana and the united states of america. the news media and political leaders spend a great deal of time talking about what is broken in our country, and to some degree that is the nature of their business. we should also have confidence that the unique american experiment is alive and well and our political system still can work. >> tuesday night richard lugar lost the primary challenger. look back at his career, including his work with senator sam nunn on a nuclear program with the soviet union. >> these men go through things

and have scars that no one can understand and accept each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, who worked such different man and who ended forming this alliance that no one would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and became the foundation of a deep friendship. the letters in their later lives are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world, from truman and hoover to george h. w. bush and bill clinton, sunday. >> speaker john boehner outlined a legislative agenda for the u.s. house. when asked about obama's

announcement of supporting same- sex marriage, boehner said he is for promoting jobs and cutting spending. >> good morning, everyone. just last week the american people received another depressant jobs report, just 115,000 americans found work while three times that many gave up looking for work. wages in a country -- wages in the country are flat, and gas prices are still way too high. it is graduation season, and today half of new college graduates are not able to find a job. between a weak job market, falling home prices, and the

rising cost of living, the american people are getting squeezed. they're getting squeezed because of president obama's economic policies, which has failed. the house will do the work the american people expect us. last week we passed a bill to extend low student interest rates. the committee is under way to rebuild our and for a stretcher and advanced new energy projects. yesterday the house pass a reauthorization of the export- import bank with reforms that will help create jobs in our country. this week it will pass our first appropriation bill of the season under the open process that was real spending cuts. today i believe the house will pass reconciliation bills to protect our military from devastating cuts while

providing significant deficit reduction. the house is doing its work. the house is covering. what do we get from the other side? showboats in the senate, work gimmicks and posturing by the president. i cannot think of a better symbol of how small this presidency has become than looking at the post it note that the president has been carrying around, but the most powerful office of the work, and he has shot at it to the size of a post-it note. our economy is stock, the national debt is over $15 trillion, millions of americans are out of work, at all the president has is a gimmicky to- do list. give me a break. he can start with the more than two dozen house-passed bills

that are sitting in the united states senate. he could approve the keystone pipeline. but do something about the gas prices by increasing energy production, and he could empower small businesses by cutting red tape and reforming the regulatory process. he could deal with our crippling debt by encouraging democrats in the senate to finally pass a budget after more than three years. we want to work with the president, but it is about time he gets serious, focused on jobs, on our economy, and enough with the gimmicks. yes, sir. [unintelligible] chairman issa and members of the committee are doing a joke --

are doing a good job. we need to get to the bottom of it and find out who is responsible. [unintelligible] you are supporting a resolution? >> i am supporting those resolutions to hold bellow's accountable for what happened. the committee has work to do. they know what they have to do. they are pursuing and answered questions, and i hope they will continue to do that. [unintelligible] all options are on the table. >> on gay marriage, a leader pelosi say you are on the wrong side of history. the you think this is a civil rights issue? >> i believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. the president and the democrats can talk about this all they want. the american people are focused on our economy and are asking the question, where are the jobs? >> you do not think it is a

civil rights issue at all? >> senate passed a version with bipartisan support. if this moves forward, as the often does, it does this trend to hurt republicans politically, as being another example of the war on women? >> is another one of the democrat gimmicks that goes on around here. there are thousands of on authorize programs that continue to be funded. this is a reauthorization of that law. it is getting a review in the house and senate. it is based on a gao study that called for more transparency and audit in this process. i believe it is important for the house to work its will, i hope we will be able to do it

next week, and the senate can take the bill and we can go to conference. we want to resolve this issue, and portman issue, but for our friends to be playing political games with this is very inappropriate. >> [unintelligible] how much of a role would you like to see that if she take -- would you like to see it takes? guest: >> they can focus on it as much as they want. >> your comment about a ban on gay weddings at military facilities, and there are restrictions coming for tonight's on spending on doma. are there other steps you want to take and the support the steps taken so far? >> we have a lot of members who

had ideas about what is important them, and you see those items advance here every day. the american people are concerned about our economy. they are concerned about jobs. that is why you have seen us focus of the last year and a half on jobs and cutting spending because our debt and our deficit are like a wet blanket hanging over our economy. we will continue to stay focused on what the american people want us to stay focused on. >> [unintelligible] d you think he could be relieved of his vice chairmanship? >> [unintelligible] all i know is what i read that the committee has decided to continue to look at. i do not know any more. >> [unintelligible]

they are also going to push a constitutional amendment to gay marriage. de you agree? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] cracks during the legislative briefing today, nancy pelosi said that democrats will not suffer of the polls in light of president obama's statement on same-sex marriage. she also talked about the ongoing budget debate and disagreement over how to pay for cuts in student loan interest rates. this is just over 15 minutes.

>> good morning. yesterday was quite historic. for all of us, america's children and families and workers saw history being made right before their very eyes. the president of the united states advancing civil rights in our country with his statement. spoke to thet wa values of our families, our faith, and the values of our country. it was moving, it was historic, and it was a great day for our country. it honors the ideal of equality, which is the hope and heritage of our country. today on the floor of the house,

we will see a debate on the budget, which clearly defines the values and vision of the democratic party and the republican party. i wish that this were a statement that we could come together on and what our priorities are for the education of our children, job creation for our workers, and retirement and health security for our seniors, safety in our neighborhoods, and the air that our children read, all done in a fiscal sound way. nothing partisan about that. except instead of finding common ground, we see two different paths in these budgets. one says that we choose millionaires over the middle class. that is the republican budget. and one that undermines the investment in our children under health and the job security of their families. i am very proud of our house

democratic budget that we're putting forward today. i commend the democratic members of the budget committee for the fight that they made. if you were up at 5:00 a.m. in the morning, you would have seen them fighting for our seniors. the republican budget severs that guarantee. at the same time, there is a tax cut of about $400,000 to people making $1 million a year or more. i do not think that is a statement of our national values. we have that debate going on. at the same time, we see it in the context of obstruction once again largely on the part of the house republicans. of the transportation bill, the

senate has had bipartisan agreement and in the opening statements, even the ranking member in the senate committee took the house republicans to the task for not agreeing to the bipartisan senate transportation bill. we have seen the violence against women act bill marked up recently. we see republicans in the house rolling back the violence against women act instead of accepting the strong bipartisan bill that passed in the senate. whatever they want to say about student loans, if they want to solve the problem, the bill is on the floor today. the house republicans have 6.8% increase still in the bill.

they still have not been able to come to terms in order to make college more affordable. this is indicative, although the interest is important to students and their families. this is also in the context of making college more affordable for america's working families and what they do in terms of grants and the rest that put up obstacles for students have an opportunity to attend college. it is a real problem for our country. investing in the education of our children is the best investment a family can make. it is the best investment a country can make in its people. with that, i hope that we can go into a phase where the president is speaking out about what he would like to see congress do between now and the election.

he has a to do list to create jobs and support homeowners and invest in clean energy and put veterans to work. i hope we can address those issues and that legislation is there. we need to move forward. people want solutions. they want us to be problem solvers. the problems that they have in their lives instead of being obstructionist. we hope that we can have some level of cooperation and visibility on this relatively, modest agenda. with that, i will take questions. >> you have been pushing to become speaker again. are you concerned about how public issue will play out?

>> i push for the democrats to win. whatever happens after that is incidental. the statement that the president made yesterday was something that was the right thing to do for our country. it filled my heart with joy. he came here to do a job for the american people and not to hold a job. i think what he did was to advance the cause of civil rights in such a personal and presidential way. it is more important than any political consequence. >> if i could fall on that, you spoke about the values of faith. i know you do not have a crystal ball. there are large profits within the african community and the event of a community. are you concerned about whether or not the voting will turn out

for the president because of this issue? >> this is an issue that i brought with me to congress because i care about it very much. the day after the president made a statement that was so historic, so important for who we are as americans, it is hard for me to adjust to a place of whether we are going to win or lose votes over it. i like politics and campaigns, but this is why we come to office. we want to do good things. we cannot say want to do a good thing, but we cannot do it. public sentiment is everything. i think this manner in which he made his decision is important.

he said it from the standpoint of his family, his children, his faith, his idea about america. that is the conversation that we can now have more fully. president obama has spoken out on its. >> can i ask about the sequester bill? i know you have been working closely with republicans on this. why after the super committee does anyone think this can be resolved? >> as i said, public sentiment is everything. the deadlines are drawing near. certain decisions have to be made.

the case we will make for the american people is that we need to have a balanced approach. we never went in and said we have to have it all our own way. we said we need to have a balanced approach. we need to establish our priorities first. what is important to us as a nation? how do we create growth? how do we create jobs? from that, we have to make decisions on how we will call upon more revenue and what cuts we need to make. this is something that should be done in the public interest and in a bipartisan way. we have a plan. by the way, when we talk about tax cuts for the millionaires expiring at the end of the year, democrats are saying, we want tax cuts to expire for people

making over $1 million per year. that money will be used to reduce the deficit and not to increase spending. the speaker has said that he these to be renewed.es we simply cannot do that. this is the day. this is what we have country to do. are you suggesting that we fold? that is never going to happen. >> he talked about the deadline, but we have been through the lens before. nes before and nine the have produced results. >-- neither have produced

results. >> but we are moving forward. the deadline is rushing toward us. the american people will be more engaged in what the choices are. we are in the course of an election. perhaps that debate will have the impact. whose proposal creates jobs and growth and reduces the deficit and invest in america to keep us number one? i believe those are the questions that will have to be answered in terms of how you make a judgment about what we are putting forward in these bills. i told him i would come over to the side again. [laughter] >> thank you.

on the same-sex marriage, there is an important fundraising component to this whole issue. the statement came up before your leader's statement. i wonder if you have spoken to friends and donors and democratic friends who were to send before because the president had not come forward on this issue that is important to them. are they less richardson now? -- but is it now? >> i think we can all say that we did not know it was coming. it has to do with who he is and what he stands for and what is right for america. anything about the politics is incidental. i do not think this is political at all.

i will say this, we are hoping to have many republicans joined the bandwagon. i think what he did -- whatever the timing and the rest, was an attempt to unify and not divide. my statement had nothing to do with money. nothing to do with money. >> yet i wonder if your friends you are involved in fundraisers have expressed to you -- up until yesterday -- >> these are people who want things to be better for things in our country. there is always a conversation about what are the things we can do and how far we can go. i really dismiss the idea that

this had anything to do with money. i really do. >> many of the people who are opposed to the same-sex marriage said it is because of their religion. you are catholic. do you believe that religion and the idea that you can support gay marriage should be separate? hard to grapple with the idea that you supported marriage as a catholic -- how do you grapple with the idea that you support the marriage as a catholic? >> i consider this a form of discrimination. i think it is unconstitutional on top of that. i think yesterday was a great day for america. it made history. hopefully this will bring people together on the issue. it is a matter of time. it is all about time. on these issues, what is inevitable to some of us is

inconceivable to others. what we want to do is shorten the difference between the inevitable and inconceivable. ago when a long way ino -i think president obama went a long way in certain that. .appy mother's day to -- to all o fyou. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the person the start of us was the relationship between these two. these two were very different men. the ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended

up being enormously productive. they formed the foundation for what became a very deep friendship. the leaders between them later in the lives are really extraordinary. >> it might be the most exclusive club in the world. they talk about the private relationships on american president'. s sunday at 8:00 p.m. >> members debated a measure to replace $90 billion in defense cuts was separate program cuts. 16 republicans voted against a reconciliation bill. and now heads to the senate where action is unlikely. president obama has threatened a veto. here is an hourlong barbara portion of the debate.

--is a our long debate. mr. speaker, and as you know we have had some tremendous successes in the appropriations process. this week we have been working through the commerce, justice, science bill. it's a bill that's reduced spending to those levels that we had in 2008. doing those things that the voters sent us here to do. and we are going to vote on that bill today in final passage, but an appropriations process we have control in this house that process where we reduced spending from 2010 levels down to 2011 levels, they'll go down again for 2013 levels to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, those are overwhelm 1/3 of the taxpayer dollars. 2/3 of the taxpayer dollars that are spent in this town, i mean borrowed and then spent, come on what they call mandatory spending programs.

mr. speaker, as you know mandatory spending programs are dollars that go out the door whether congress acts or not. appropriations bills require congress to act affirmatively. but mandatory spending goes right out the door without any oversight from this body. until you get to reconciliation. reconciliation is that process that democrats put in place wisely years and years ago to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker.

to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker. we are talking about a bill that has been put together by almost every committee of jurisdiction here in this house and assembled by the budget committee, brought here to the floor. it's been the subject of countless hearings already. we look at whether or not we would be able to bring a substitute, democratic substitute to the floor. none was smithed that fly with the rules of the house. so we have one bill on the floor today. an up or down vote on whether or not we are willing to engage in the first serious reconciliation process on this floor. some folks might say 2003, i say 1991. it's the right thing to do anyway as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. in this case these aren't reductions for the sake of reductions. these are reductions for the sake of complying with what i would argue was a very good deficit reduction agreement between the president and the senate and the white house last august. and as a part of that agreement we put in some blanket cuts to national security, some blanket cuts that some commentators have described these cuts, mr.

speaker, as being intentionally so crazy that they would never happen but would be used only as a tool to get the joint select committee to act. as you know, mr. speaker, the joint select committee did not succeed last fall. it's a source of great frustration for me and the members who served on that committee, had an opportunity to bring an up or down vote to both the house and senate floor on anything they came up with, mr. speaker. they didn't have to get the whole 1.2, they didn't have to get 1.5. they could have just gotten one. half of one. they could have gotten quarter of one. but they got nothing. so where are we? well, in the words ever secretary of defense leon panetta, he said we are at a place where if these cuts are allowed to go the impact of these cuts would be devastating to the defense department. i happen to share his concerns. again, these were yoord cuts, put in place to be so intentionally crazy that congress would never allow them to occur. it would spur the joint committee to action. i happen to have supported, mr. speaker, an amendment offered by chris van hollen of maryland,

the ranking member on the budget committee when we were going through the process last year, he offered an amendment that said, everything's got to be on the table. that includes the defense department. i agree with him. the defense department does need to be on the table. the defense department is undergoing $300 billion towards the reductions today. this bill does nothing to change that. $300 billion being reduced from the defense department as well it should, it's not easy but it should happen and it is happening, this doesn't deal with that. this is dealing with additional cuts. again the words of secretary of defense, leon panetta, former democratic member of this house, impact of these cuts would be devastating for the department. so we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to do what i would argue you and i came here to do. not just you and i, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do those things not just that happen year after year after year, those things that have 12 months of efficacy and go away, but things that can be

set in permanent law to change the direction of spending and borrowing in this country. candidly, mr. speaker, it's more about the borrowing than it is about the spending. there are priorities in this country. i would argue we did a great job of focusing on the plyors. when you are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar from your children and grandchildren, we have to redefine what responsibility is. that is irresponsible. and this bill then takes the step in two directions. one, turning back the second round of defense department cuts, not the first round, but second round, the round that leon panetta described as devastating to the defense department, and setting us on a path to bend that cost curve going forward by tackling mandatory spending programs for the first time in almost a decade. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule and 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 want to thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in very strong opposition to this rule. it is totally closed. and it denies democrats led by mr. van hollen the substitute. we are not asking for dozens of amendments or something that hasn't been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. all we are asking for is one vote on a substitute. one vote. on what we believe is a better alternative to the republican bill. last night in the rules committee every single republican, every single one of them voted to deny democrats that opportunity. mr. speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thought fest across-the-board cuts, there is a way to balance our budget, i want to support mr. van hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of

the budget control act see quester. -- sequester. in my opinion to allow this to go into full effect would be bad for the country. we are here in this awful mess because the so culled supercommittee failed to reach agreement last fall on a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plan. due in very large part to the absolute refusal of republicans to put revenues on the table. bowl simpson, and the gang of six all had deficit reduction proposals that sought to be challenged with both spending cuts and revenues, sought to be fair. they realized you can't -- you cannot solve long-term fiscal problems by slashing and burning the last century of social progress in america. but today my republican friends have brought to the floor a reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. what's going on here is very

simple, very troubling but very simple. they are protecting the massive pentagon budget and demanding no accountability by exempting it from sequestration, and finding even deeper cuts in programs that benefit the people of this country. the bill before us would create a government where there is no conscience. where the wealthy and well connected are protected and enriched and where the middle class, poor, and vulnerable are essentially forgotten. i have never seen anything like this. it is outrageous. it takes my breath away. my friends won't cut billions in subsidies from big oil at a time when oil companies are making record profits and gouging americans at the pump. they won't address the inequities of the tax code which allows billionaire warren buffett to play a lower tax rate than his secretary. the revenues on just these two policies alone will result in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit

reduction, but the republicans have protected big oil and the billionaires. however, my republican friends take a meat axe to snap. formerly known as food stamps. this is a program to help poor people afford food. my friends on the other side of the aisle should heed the words of president john financial kennedy, i quote, if a free society will not help the many who are poor, they cannot save the few who are rich. mr. speaker, we are one country. we should care about one another, especially those who are most vulnerable. that's not a weakness or something we should be ashamed of. rather it's something that makes us strong and great. as my friends know, i spent a lot of time and effort in congress on the issues of hunger and food insecurity and nutrition. tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. and every single one of us, democrats and republicans alike, should be ashamed. and that's why i am so outraged by the $36 billion in snap cuts.

this notion that snap promotes a culture ever dependency, snap is a golden ticket to prosperity is jeong. some on the republican side have even claimed that snap enslaves americans. give me a break. in fact, even in 2010 when unemployment was close to 10% and jobs were scarce, the majority of snap households or the nondisabled working age adult were working households. working households. working families are trying to earn more. no one wakes up in the morning dreaming to be on snap. but these are tough economic times. some people have no choice. but we know that snap enrollment and spending on snap will go down as the economy improves. as families see their incomes rise and no longer need snap to feed their families. don't take my word for it. this is directly from the congressional budget office. of course last night in the rules committee we heard the tired line that there is a lot of abuse in the snap program. we heard that there are

countless numbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve them. that, mr. speaker, is simply not true. it is common and -- it's a common and unfortunate misconception that snap is ripe with fraud, waste and abuse. many think it is being traded for alcohol and other things, it cannot. the usda is cracking down on it. snap is both effective and efficient. the error rate in snap is not only at an all-time low, it has the lowest if not the lowest of any federal program. if only we could find a program in the pentagon that had such a low error rate. last night we also heard about categorical eligibility, a process in which a low-income person is automatically eligible for food stamps if they are already enrolled in another low income assistance program. categorical