i will say this about c-span. i hear america singing and i hear all sorts of songs on c- span. i can't agree with all them. it is a wondrous thing. host: senior editor for national review. he has written a profile on canada's prime minister, stephen harper, or of our spotlight on magazine series written we thank you for your time, sir. guest: you, too. host: the house is set to come in. today, they will work on many things. including the preserving work requirements for the welfare act of 2013. we go to the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

without which every government degenerates into tyranny. it is to be asked what is to restrain the house of representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves in a particular

class of society, i answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of america, a spirit which nourishes freedom and in return is nourished by it, end quote. so in the spirit of james madison, i will be filing legislation to make the sequester apply to the pay of members of congress at the first moment that is constitutionally permissible. members, this body must live under the same rules as everybody else. our founding fathers expected it, the american people demand it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, for five minutes. mr. lujan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. r. lujan: mr. speaker, the

house republican budget unveiled yesterday by chairman paul ryan is the repeat of the same tea party principles that have already been rejected by the american people. house republicans are once again determined to place the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of middle-class families while the wealthiest americans get yet another tax break. after wasting valuable time last congress, voting more than 30 times to repeal health care reform rather than focus on jobs and the economy, the republican budget again calls for its repeal. in addition, their budget ends medicare as we know it, and surprise, surprise, turning it into a voucher program that reduces benefits and leaves seniors paying higher out-of-pocket costs. while this budget blueprint is still lacking in specific details, it is clear that in order to meet the spending targets it outlines, house republicans will slash investments in key areas that are essential to economic growth and job creation, education, job training,

science and research will all be on the chopping block in order to reduce the deficit with little regard for the jobs that would be lost and the impact it would have on our nation's competitiveness. the republican budget factors and the sequestration's arbitrary cuts over the next decade, something else that's being rejected by the american people. for new mexico, this means more cuts to education targeted at low-income and special needs children. painful cuts to tribal communities that jeopardizes our responsibilities to indian country with our trust responsibilities, and cuts that impact funding for lows alamos national lab -- los alamos national lab, including cuts to important funding for environmental cleanup to lanal. regardless of the republican rhetoric, the math just doesn't add up. with steep cuts that will take the toll on new mexico, threatening services that support the most vulnerable investments that lay the foundation for a brighter future. our country needs a balanced

path forward that focuses on growing the economy and providing opportunities for the middle class. sadly, the republican budget fails to meet this goal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana, mr. daines, for five minutes. mr. daines: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. 1,636, that's how many days it's been since the application to build the keystone x.l. pipeline was filed. it took canada just seven months to approve the pipeline. resident obama has taken 4 1/2

years. study after study has shown that not only is the pipeline safe but it will provide a means of transporting oil that is safer than using trains or trucks. it is has environmentally safe. in fact when compared to other means of transportation, it is perhaps the most environmentally friendly way to transport oil across our country. it will create thousands of jobs. at least 800 in my home state of montana. and he still won't make a decision. earlier this month the u.s. state department issued its supplemental environmental impact statement for the keystone x.l. permit application which confirmed what we already knew. the keystone x.l. pipeline will have no significant impacts on the environment. in fact, this is the fourth

environmental review of the keystone pipeline with a final report still to come. even though report after report has stated that the pipeline will not have significant environmental effects. this report also comes after nebraska governor approved a ew root through the keystone x.l. pipeline project. just this past january, i joined 150 other house members in calling on president obama to quickly approve the permits for keystone in light of this new root. that was two months ago, and we have yet to hear anything back from the president. as a member of the house energy action team, i understand how important this project is to our nation and to my home state of montana. let me be clear, this project means jobs for montanans. this project could directly

create more than 800 good-paying jobs in montana and thousands more across the nation. it means coming one step closer to north american energy independence. the keystone x.l. will be able to move up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day. that's about half the amount that the u.s. presently imports from the middle east. and of that oil moved each day, 100,000 barrels will come from the bacan formation which suspends across montana and north dakota. this isn't about politics. republicans and democrats alike support the pipeline. this is about our nation's security. this is about lowering energy costs for american families. this is about american jobs. enough is enough. we can't afford to wait any longer. it's been 1,636 days. it's time for president obama to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. thank you and i yield back my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. i mcnerney: mr. speaker, rise today to raise awareness of how energy use impacts climate change and to show by example what is being done about it. our nation continues to rely on high polluting energy sources that threaten our climate and threaten our national security. we need to focus at all levels of government, federal, state and local, as well as in the private sector to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. state and federal facilities above all else should be the gold standard for clean energy and energy efficiency. for example, the lincoln

unified school district, located in stockton, california, recently committed to placing solar panels on rooftops throughout the school district. lincoln was able to purchase these solar panels through low-interest, clean, renewable energy bonds to help finance this project that is estimated to save $1 million per energy -- per year on energy costs. not only does this project increase use of clean energy sources but all the savings will be put back into educational programs. so this is truly a win-win for our students. in addition, the university of the pacific, also located in stockton, california, has increased energy efficiency and sustainability. specifically installed solar panels, energy efficient light bulbs in the quad and other locations and installed a recycling program and installed replacement chiller on the air conditioning system which uses

52% less energy than the old chiller. it's impressive that these advancements were led by both students and faculty at the university of the pacific. these are just two examples of why i am introducing the solar energy deployment act. we need to encourage greater use of solar and other clean energies in our neighborhoods and on public and private lands. the solar energy development act awards grants on a competitive basis to state and local governments to design and install solar equipment on rooftops and above parking lots they own. i commend the efforts made by the schools and public entities, such as the lincoln unified school district, the university of the pacific and others across california and the united states that are making a concerted effort to utilize clean energy sources and to become more energy efficient. thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, once again i rise to talk about hunger in america and specifically the effort to end hunger now. mr. speaker, hunger is still far too prevalent in america. there are more than 50 million people in this country who don't know where the next meal will come from. 17 million of those hungry people are children. 17 million, mr. speaker. that breaks my heart, especially when we have a way to end hunger in this country. it doesn't have to be this way. the truth is that hunger is solvable. we have the means, the infrastructure and the food to

end hunger. we just don't have the political will to do so. this point is delivered in a clear, concise and emotional way in a documentary that is in theaters now called "a place at the table." this film at its cormier be a simple story of hunger in america, but -- core may be a simple story of hunger in america, but it is piecing just enough together to live day by day, week by week and month by month. these stories aren't new and unfortunately not unique. we don't have to look far to see a working mother who struggles to have nutritious food for their children. we don't have to look far to see a child who is struggling in the classroom. we don't have throok far to see how often the hungry and undernourished are utilizing our health care systems for hunger and nutrition-related

conditions. what is new and unique today is the platform through which we hear these stories of experience, what these individuals featured in the film are going through. the stories told by the director's christy jacobson and lori silverbush, how we went from almost ending hunger in america in the late 1970's, thanks in large part to the bipartisan cooperation of senator mcgovern and bob dole to more than 50 million hungry in this country. 40 years later, 50 million hungry in this country, but this isn't just a story of woe, mr. speaker. for me this is a story of hope and optimism, a story of a difficult struggle but a struggle fought with dignity and it is a story that's part of a bigger purpose in goal and that goal is to end hunger now. at its heart, the point of this documentary, is that we can end hunger now and i am pleased that a social act plan

accompanies this film. . this plan can be found online at www.takepart.com/table. and i encourage everyone to take a look at this website. once there people will be able to find important resources, including ways to act as food assistance if they need help, an online gallery of artists, politicians, business, and community leaders who once needed help through snap, the primary federal anti-hunger safety program we have in this country. also you see a list of partners helping to combat hunger through this film. most importantly it outlines ways that people can help make hungry a national priority and it includes specific actions that people can take in their communities. mr. speaker, we have had a number of ending hunger over the years, but this is the first time there is a dedicated effort to end hunger tied directly to a mainstream film nationally

garnering critical acclaim. the social action plan is based on a simple concept. the people will be moved by individual stories and the facts about hunger documented in this film. when they hear the information, they will want to take action. they will be moved to act in a meaningful way. through this website people can take part in simple actions like contacting their elected officials or volunteering to work with local organizations that are making a difference in their communities, organizations like feeding america, share our strength, bread for the world, d.c. central kitchen, wide hunger just to name a few o of the 30 organizations allied with this film. there is also a book, mr. speaker, that accompanies the film and also the same name, a place at the table, that explains the issue of hunger and goes over the many ways each of us can help end hunger now. as i have said over and over and over again, mr. speaker, hunger is a political condition. one that requires action by

concerned americans. over the past few weeks we have seen how so many americans care about this problem and want to be part of the solution to end hunger now. and i would once again, mr. speaker, urge the president of the united states to take a leadership role, to organize a white house conference on food and nutrition to devise a plan to end hunger now. mr. speaker, with partners like those behind a place at the table along with their social action plan, we can make a real difference. we can end hunger now. it is also my hope, mr. speaker, that this congress will step up to the plate and join in the effort to end hunger now. it is our moral obligation. it is the right thing to do. now is the time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: good morning, mr.

speaker. adies and gentlemen. ryan-nomics, the so-called path to prosperity is based upon a fanciful theory of trickle-down economics. this is a well-worn idea that belies the facts that we have .een proven time and time again that truth is that giving tax breaks and hollowing out the tax code with loopholes for the wealthy while cutting spending for the social safety net and the poor while cutting everything else that makes america great, that somehow this is going to create prosperity for all. indeed, the republicans have played from this same playbook

before and it has failed, it has failed again and it continues to fail. this was an economic theory american sed by the hero, ronald rage -- reagan. -- called it reagan momics reagan nomics. it would trickle down to the poor. george herbert walker bush called it view due -- voodoo economics, i think he was right n with that because practicing voodoo they just ask you to lieve, and that's what the ryan-nomics is proposing for us to do. the numbers just don't add up. today we only have to look at europe to see the terrible

effects of severe austerity. the republican prescription of cut, cut, cut has been tried, tried, tried repeatedly across europe and has only exacerbated the problems over there. now under the guise of balancing the budget in 10 years we've got an-nomics 2 or turbo ryan-nomics. going to take $15 trillion and alance the budget in 10 years. doubling down on a theory that americans rejected just last months ago.five rejected ryan-nomics. here we have ryan-nomics 2. turbo ryan-nomics.

i'm not here to solely criticize the path the republicans have charted, i agree with them congress must make difficult choices about future spending. the problem is that all too often this body asks very little the rich and the powerful handing out tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires like candy, and they are doing this at the expense of the middle class and the poor. ou see the income disparate -- disparity between the top 2% and the middle class just the gap continues to widen. shared sacrifice, shared sacrifice should truly be that will. it should be something that all americans share in. why does congress continue to give tax breaks to big corporations that outsource jobs

but fails to invest in education and scientific research that would help the american economy by creating jobs and reducing unemployment? why would they continue to give tax breaks to those who don't need them rather than educating the next generation of workers so that this country can continue to compete and be at the top of the global economy. despite the fact that trickle-down economics has been roundly criticized and discredited, my colleagues across the aisle choose to double down on what hasn't worked and they want to continue o relentlessly cut, cut, cut the programs and the services that americans depend on every day and which help drive our economy. i believe we must reduce our

debt and we must do that in a responsible way, in a sensible way that slows spending over time. we can no longer leave working americans behind while we allow the wealthy to walk away with a larger share of national prosperity. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the c.p.c., c.b.c., and democratic budget to keep our promises and invest in what works to grow the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon today.

>> today's meeting with house republicans. tomorrow the president returns to capitol hill to meet with senate republicans and house democrats. we'll take you live now to hearing that got under way at 10:00 eastern. senate armed services subcommittee hearing on sexual assaults in the military. opening testimony there from senator barbara boxer of california. begin gwen this got under way about 20 minutes ago. >> comments on that to understand how deep this hits us. many in congress, our military, and our nation were stunned to read that the general used his discretion as the convenienting authority to throw out a military jury's guilty verdict. the jury of high ranking military officers, i want to say who was on this jury, four colonels, lieutenant colonel had

sentence add lieutenant colonel to a year in prison and dismissal from the air force. that is a jury of his peers for sure. under the uniform code of justice the general's decision to overturn that verdict is final and it cannot be reviewed or changed. the second event because you may not know, it took place in my home state of california. last month an army veteran shot and killed two santa cruz police detectives who were attempting to question him over a sexual assault allegation. in the aftermath of this shooting we learned that even though the former soldier had faced two separate rape charges while serving in the army, charges against him were dropped and he was discharged without a conviction as part of a blee bargain. what is it -- plea-bargain. what is it going to take to convince the military that sexual assault is a violent and vicious crime and that those who

perpetuate it, they are capable of other violent crimes, including murder. what is it going to take? it's a vicious violent crime. and those capable of that vicious crime are capable of other crimes. yes, murder. these examples speak for themselves and there are so many more. you will hear them today and your heart will break. it is time for us to take swift, decisive steps to ensure the decisions in the military justice system don't rest solely -- solely in the hands of one individual. it is not enough that our military said zero tolerance for sexual assault. can you say anything. i can say anything. you can say -- but the facts speak for themselves. the department of defense estimates that 19,000 sexual assaults occur in the in the military. i want to point tout to my colleagues here, my friends, that many of these cases involve

men. only 17% of these cases are ever reported. i am so grateful to both of you for this hearing. and senator gillibrand, i'm so happy that you chose to hold this subcommittee, your first, on military sexual assault. i look forward to working with you on comprehensive solutions to this problem. today's hearing is the first on this critical issue in nearly a decade, a decade. it is high time not only for this hearing about for -- but for changes the way the military handles these cases. i know we, all of us, who are touched by this issue, are going to work with our colleagues, republicans, democrats, independents, and with the military, the military most of all wants this to go away. and we have to end this terrible tragedy of sexual assault. just think what an amazing legacy it will be for this senate if we succeed. and even more important, think

about how many men and women we will rightly protect. thank you so much. i'm very excited about this hearing and i know with your leadership, the two of you, we can get this done. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator boxer, for your very, very strong and valuable testimony. we are so grateful for your leadership. we are now going to welcome the next panel. you can come up and i'll read a biography that's very brief of each of you while you get settled. we have anna, the executive director and co-founder of the service women's action network. anu is a former captain and company commander. she served as a marine officer from 1999 to 2004. while serving she faced discrimination as a woman in the military and borne direct witness to military handling of sexual violence. we have bring get, former specialist in the u.s. army. bridget served in the u.s. army from 1987 to 1991. she was 18 years old when she

signed up to serve her country. while stationed in germany from 1988 to 1991 she was sexual assaulted by a noncommanding officer. we have rebecca, former sergeant in the u.s. army. she served in the u.s. army from 2004 to 2008. she was the only female member of a bomb squad in eastern afghanistan. was attacked by a colleague at the forward operating base near the pakistani border during her last week in country in 2007. we have brian lewis, former petty officer first class u.s. navy. he enlisted in june of 1997. during his tour abroad u.s.s. frank cable he was raped by a superior noncommissioned officer and forced to go back out to sea after the assault. i encourage each of you to express your views candidly and tell us what is working and not working. help us to understand what we can do to address this unacceptable problem of sexual assault in the military. we will hear your opening statements. your completed prepared statements will also be included

in the record. following the opening statements we will limit our questions to seven is minutes for the first round for the senators. >> thank you. good morning, chairman gillibrand, ranking member graham, and members of the subcommittee. my name is ana, i am the executive director of service women's action network or swan and former marine corps captain. swan's mission is to transform military culture by securing equal opportunity and freedom to serve without discrimination, harassment, or assault and to reform veteran services to ensure high quality health care and benefits for women veterans and their families. military sexual violence is a very personal issue for me. during my five years as a marine officer, i experienced daily discrimination and sexual harassment. i was exposed to a culture rife with sexism, rape jokes,

pornography, and widespread version sex isual exploitation of women and girls both in the united states and overseas. my experiences came to a head while i was stationed at the school of infantry at camp lejeune in north carolina from 2002 to 2004 where i witnessed reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment swept under the rug by a handful of officers. perpetrators were promoted, transferred to other units without punishment. while victims were accused of lying, exaggerating their claims in order to ruin men's reputations. as a company commander at the school of infantry, i ultimately chose to sacrifice my own career to file an equal opportunity investigation against an offending officer. i was given a gag order by my commanding officer. got a military protection order against the officer in question. lived in fear of retaliation and violence from both the offender and my own chain of command. and then watched in horror as the offender was not only

promoted but also given command of my company. many of the women who were impacted by these incidents including me are no longer in the military. however, all the officers who were complicit in covering up these incidents have since retired or still serving on active duty. i was devastated because i offed and still beloved the marines. i wish my experience was unique and in the hundreds of cases we handle each year i discovered that rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are pervasive throughout the military. sex isual violence occurs today in every branch of service in both operational and nonoperational environments, in both combat arms as well as support units. and affects both men and women. the department of defense itself estimates that 19,300 assaults occurred in 2010 and while 8,600 victims were female, 10,700 were

male. this is a critical point. military sexual violence is not a women's issue. sexual assault is widely understood by military personnel who have been overexposed to a culture of victim blaming and rape mitholgi. let's be clear. rape and assault are violent, traumatic crimes, not mistakes, not lapses of professional judgment, not leadership failures, and not oversight in character. rape is about power, control, and intimidation. thanks to a surge of pressure over the last few years by advocates, the media, and congress, military leadership has finally been forced to reckon with the issue of military sexual violence. some victims protection reforms have been sensible like creation of special victims units, mandatory transfers for victims, or in the air force's case, a pilot program which assigns each victim a designated special victims counsel.

and yet while these measures help the victim after an assault, the only need to prevent sexual violence or change the culture that still condones sexual violence. military leadership cannot solve this problem on its own. i urge congress to enact the following reforms going forward. first, congress should grant convenienting authority over criminal cases to train professional disinterested prosecutors, commanding officers cannot make truly impartial decisions because of their professional affiliation with the accused and oftentimes with the victim as well. in recognition of this fact a number of common law countries have already transferred cases away from commanders to prosecutors. deeming the policy of violation of the right to fair and impartial trial. second, open the civil courts to military victims. civilian victims of workplace crimes, including civilian d.o.d. employees, have one

critical eave for redress currently unavailable to uniformed personnel, access to civil courts. to this day the u.s. supreme court and the federal courts below it continue to maintain that service members are barred from bringing claims of negligence or intentional discrimination against the military. depriving military personnel of remedies for violations of their rights. in the face of the judicial doctrine, congress must ensure that men and women in uniform can access the remedies available to all other aggrieved individuals under the federal tort claims act and civil rights act. given the prevalent and retaliation against service members who report incidents of sex isual assault and harassment, the absence of these remedies for military personnel is especially shameful. i'll close by saying today we are looking at an institution that desperately needs to be shown the next steps forward. senators do not let today's service members become another generation of invisible

survivors. thank you. >> miss mccoy. >> thank you very much for having me here. i have deep gratitude towards those who have worked tirelessly for our voices to be heard and to those here listening with compassion and open hearts poised to make positive changes towards these matters at hand, changes that need to come from the root. i'm a gulf war era service connected disabled connection. i was raped during military service and during my first assignment. that was 1988. i was 18 years old. it was two weeks before my 19th birthday. this happened in a foreign country, away from american soil, while i was stationed in germany. i did not report it for reasons

which will become clear as i tell my story. that would not be the last time i would be assaulted or harassed. this is my story but it's not mine alone. more than 19,000 men and women every year share similar stories. that year, the year that i was raped, that same year i was raped again by another soldier in my unit. another year i was sexually harassed by a commissioned officer in my unit. by 1990, between 1990 and 1991 another n.c.o. in my unit began to harass me through inappropriate touching, words, and behavior. this n.c.o. then requested from my command that i be moved to work directly for him in a work environment where there was no access, closed and windowless key entry coded vault. upon receiving my new shift

schedule, i can only compare the anguish of this entrapment to discovering your child has been constantly molested by a person of authority. i was at mental and emotional collapse. a senior woman n.c.o. in my unit helped me to write a written statement to present to my command and to file a formal complaint. a complaint that my command answered by no official hearing, no written response, and it was only answered later with a verbal response from my first sergeant who asked me, what did i want? and that i had misunderstood this n.c.o.'s intentions toward me. the only thing i wanted at that time was two basic things, one was an apology and for the harassment to stop. that was all.

i didn't know what was happening and at no time did anyone ever move forward with my formal complaint. nor was anyone willing to discuss the process with me. they did, however, remove me from his team and his formal apology consisted of him driving by me on base, rolling down his window and saying to me, sorry. so after that in the days that followed i was verbally and socially harassed, put on extra duties that conflicted with my medical profile and socially isolated. eventually i was given a choice to either get out or to face possible action myself. most women who are victims of sexual harassment are abused and charged with the action so i felt i had no choice. i was literally terrified. so in that terrified position i was perilized -- paralyzed i

chose to get out because that was the option that was given to me. within a week i had orders out of germany and i was escorted by two n.c.o.'s to my plane and that was it. my career was over. please note that in that unit i was not the only one that was sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. many women came to me and said they had the same situation happened but they never told me who did this. returning to the u.s. and civilian life was difficult and hi a lot of false starts. hi a lot of negative behaviors that get carried over from the military. i was anxious and overly protective. i became suicidal and had suicidal attempts. i went through severe depression and was unable to carry on the rigors of work for which i was highly trained for. i repeatedly moved from place to place and was homeless and

medically disabled where not even the v.a. would recognize this and help me until some two decades later. i lost many material things and emotional relationships in my lifetime and struggled with my faith. i grieve because i was the lucky one. i left my unit alive with an honorable discharge. all those scared for my life and future, many leave with less than honorable discharges and personality disorders on their records, further hindering them from applying for medical treatment and claims. some like p.f.c. johnson don't come home to their parents alive. 22 years later almost to the day of my early e.p.s. i was awarded veteran service compensation and certificate vision connection for sexual trauma. can you tell me why did it take so long? why did i have to go through so much before anyone would listen to me? why did i have to be violated again through the process of asking for help and seeking claim status?

today i volunteer, and this helps to ground me, i volunteer through different veterans organizations, art reach foundation, i participate in listening sessions to help organizations like the sierra club and warrior song to bert understand the many facets of women veterans needs for their purposes. my history is chronicled with other women and men veterans and women in the documentary service when women come marching home. i'm a social immediate yoo pier supporter and -- i collaborate with both community and veteran organizations and dozens of other organizations. i speak and spoke at the surgeon's general task force for suicide prevention because suicide and homelessness are two huge issues in the military sexual trauma community. with the claims denial and lack of murpsful medical treatment exacerbating those issues.

ptsd from m.s.t. is the main contributing factor. i have to say i no longer have any faith or hope that the military chain of command will consistently prosecute, convict, sentence, and carry out the sentencing ever sexual predators in uniform without assigning justice somehow. only 8% of them are prosecuted. how many are lee leaved their duties, pensions, careers? how many of them are placed on national registry as sex offenders before they are returned to civilian life? even asking that what happens to the 92% that weren't sentenced or prosecuted? let's not allow sexual predators who happen to wear a uniform the opportunity to become highly trained, highly degreed mill -- decorated military sexual proat the timors of the let as you put them on the national registry before they go on to further

harm our family members and community. it has deep and broad roots in the military. let's not pluck a few leaves and trim the branch. let's deal with this from the roots. please make it stop. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is rebecca. i'm currently the outreach and education coordinator for service women's action network, swan. i previously managed swan's national healthline from may 2011 to december, 2012. during that time i assisted and provided referlings for over 600 service member veterans and their families on issues related to military rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. these included overcoming barriers to get the claims accepted. overcoming homelessness and accessing housing. i hail from the great state of being south carolina where i grew up and lived until i joined the army in 2004. i achieved the rank of sergeant

in three years and three months. i deployed to afghanistan from september, 2006, to september 2007 and spent the majority of my time in the eastern provinces where i was assigned to task force a combined explosive cell, i also spent time running route clearance mission was multiple combat engineer companies. i was awarded the joint service commendation medal for my achievement while deployed and given an good conduct medal before i left active duty. my employment brought more than the stress of occupational hazards. during my tour one of my team leaders continuously sexually harassed me and sexually abusive toward me. this behavior caused me so much angst site i self-referred to mental health and on medications i managed my stress. one week before my unit was scheduled to return back to the united states, i was raped by another service member that had worked with our team. initially i chose not to do a

report of any kind because hi no faith in my chain of command. as my first sergeant previously had sexual harassment accusations against him and the unit climate was sexist and hostile in nature towards women. after disclosing my rape to a few close friends, i ended up filing a restricted report 60 days before i left active duty against both my rapist and team leader but had no intentions of ever doing a formal investigation. i began a job as a contractor and entered the reserves in missouri and tried to start a different life for myself. reintegration was challenging and i had few support systems to rely on. i struggled with depression, effects of posttraumatic stress. approximately year after separating from active duty, i was on orders for job training and during that time i ran into my rapist in a post store. he recognized me and told me he was stationed on the same installation. i was so traumatized from the unexpectedness from seeing him i removed myself from training and

immediately sought out the assistance from an army chaplain who told me among other things that the rape was god's will and god was trying to get my attention so i would go back to church. again i did not file an unrestricted report against my rapist. six months later a friend called me and told me they had found pictures of me online. that my perpetrator had taken during my rape. at that point i felt my rape was always going to haunt me unless i did something about it so i went to army crimal investigation vision and a full investigation was completed. the initial c.i.d. interview was the most humiliating thing i have ever experienced. i had to relive the entire event for over four hours with a male agent who i never met and explain to him repeatedly exactly what was going on in each of the pictures. after the interview was completed i heard nothing from the investigator until four months later when c.i.d. requested that i come back in to repeat my statement to a new investigator who was taking over my case.

i almost refused. during the four months of waiting without any word on the case, except phone calls from my friends who had been interviewed, i live in constant fear i might run into my rapist again or that he might retaliate against me in some way. i decided to continue with the case even though i felt nothing was ever going to be resolved and six months later i was told that even though my rapist had admitted to having consensual sex with me while married, his commain of command refused to pursue any charges of ayou dultry and the case was closed. the military criminal justice system is broken. unfortunately my case is not much different from the many other cases that have been reported. i feared retaliation before and after i reported the investigative process severely retraumatized me. many of the institutional systems set up to help failed me miserably. my perpetrator went unpunished despite is admitting to crime against c.m.j. and commanders were never held accountable. what we need is a military with

a fair and impartial criminal justice system, one that is run by professional and legal experts not unit commanders. we also need an additional system that allows military victims to access civil courts if the military system fails them. without both military criminal justice reform and access to civil courts, military sexual violence will continue to be widespread and stain on the character of our armed forces. thank you for your time. the speaker pro tempore: is thank you. mr. lewis. >> ranking member graham, chairman gillibrand, thank you for holding this hearing today on sexual assault in our military. i am 4u78bled to be sitting here today before you as the first male survivor to testify in front of congress on this very important issue and thank you for allowing that privilege to me. i also want to take a minute to thank my partner, andy, and all the spouses and partners of survivors of military sexual

trauma survivors, also like to thank the parents and caregivers that work so hard to keep us on a level playing field. some days they shoulder a very large load and deserve our recognition. i enlisted in 1997 and advanced to rank of petty officer third class. during my tour on the u.s.s. frank cable, i was raped by a superior noncommissioned officer. i was ordered by my command not to report this crime. after this crime had taken place, i was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder by the current director of the defense centers of excellence for psychological health and traumatic train injury. i filed retaliation claims to no avail. i was given a general discharge for personality disorder in august, 2001. my petition to change my discharge from a general discharge to -- for a personality disorder to a medical retirement for ptsd was

denied by the board for correction of naval records. i carry that discharge as an official and permanent symbol of shame on top of the physical attack, the retaliation, and the aftermath. i fear it will be discussed when i apply for law school, when i apply to be admitted to the bar. even when i apply for a job. i wonder what opportunities it may destroy for me. however, i choose not to dwell on what the past has brought my way. i will graduate in may with a bachelor of science degree from stevenson university in maryland and i will graduate in december with a masters of science degree from the same university. i plan to go to hamelin university school of law and i choose to work towards stopping this crime in our military. needless to say because of my discharge i have had to pay for all of these degrees on my own. i am here today because i am not

alone. my story is all too common. protect our defenders regularly hear from active duty personnel seeking help as they are being denied opportunities to report, general retaliated against, diagnosed with errant medical diagnosis, or being charged with collateral misconduct after reporting the attack. the culture of victim blaming and retaliation while failing to punish the perpetrator must end. the department of defense regularly acknowledges this crisis. in estimate 19,000 sexual assaults occur each year and 86% of victims do not report mostly out of fear of retaliation. of those 19,000 victims, about 10,700 are men and 8,300 are women. to translate this into percentages, about 56% of estimated victims in our military are men. this is the part of the crisis that the department of defense does not acknowledge. now, just what can we do to stop

sex isual assault in our military? first, we must recognize that rape is not just about sex. it's about violence, power, and sometimes about abuse of authority. general franklin's recent action setaside the guilty verdict against lieutenant colonel wilkinson of aggravated sexual assault is another example of abuse of authority taken by a command they're will have a chilling effect on military judges, prosecutors, and juries and inhibit victims from coming forward. a sing elsystem often precludes justice and hinders it long into the future. the victim had been in contact with protect our our defenders and she wants you to know, quote, i endured eight months of public humiliation and investigations, why bother to put the investigators, prosecutors, judge, jury, and me through this if one person can setaside justice with the swipe of a pen. i have here a copy of her same

which has already been submitted for the record, madam chairwoman. reforms to date have clearly not successfully addressed this epidemic because they have targeted thecies is thames without addressing the root cause which is the military justice system is fault with bias, conflicts of interest, abuse of authority, and too often a low regard for the victim. where civilians have the constitutional protections of an independent judicial system, service members do not. service members must report an assault to their commanders. however if those commanders take action and prove that an assault occurred, they also prove a failure of their own leadership. congress has put commanters in charge of haven't sexual crime from victim care, legal and investigative processes, through adjudication and post trial. commanders have too often failed to care for the victim or prosecute the perpetrator. they have failed to end this long-standing epidemic. we also need to ensure that prevention efforts are inclusive of male service members. the majority of prevention efforts are targeted toward

females. as i demonstrated, men are a majority of the victims in our military. we cannot marginalize male survivors and send a message that men cannot be raped and therefore not real survivors. survivors of military sexual trauma also need a fair review of their discharges. the military has showed many survivors out the backdoor with inaccurate, misleading, and harmful, almost weaponized medical dialing know sees like personality disorders that affect their benefits and future employment opportunities. we need to establish a system separate and apart from the board of correction of military records to examine these discharges and grant survivors the medical retirement they are due from the department of defense. currently the correction board's only change about 10% of their discharges. these discharges make it much harder for veterans to find meaningful employment. often revictimize the veteran. make it impossible often for these veterans to use their earned education benefits.

in conclusion, this epidemic has not successfully been addressed in decades of review and reform by the department of defense or by congress. some of the reasons for this include men being invisible and ignored as survivors of military sexual trauma, inherent bias and conflict of interest. the recording, investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assault must be taken out of the chain of command and into an independent office with professional military and civilian oversight. the established discharge review process is a rubber stamp that causes lifelong harm and needs overhaul badly. it is another way that the department of defense fails us. congressional legislation created these systems that are inherently biased, unfair, and do not work. it is now congress' duty to pass legislation so service members can receive justice that is

fair, impartial, and finally addresses the military's epidemic of sexual assault. it should also be noted that a lot of survivors as the other panelists have said do not come home. there are people like kerry good win and so many others that do not survive from their sexual assaults and we need to do this in memory of them. madam chairwoman, this concludes my remarks. i'm prepared for your questions and those of the subcommittee. >> thank you to each of you for such direct and thoughtful testimony. each of you have recommended in your own way that you would like the position authority removed from the chain of command. and the fact there should be an independent legal review and prosecution. if we are able to institute a prosecution system that does not involve having to report to your chain of command, do you think that would increase the number of case that is are reported?

do you think it will increase the number of case that is are prosecuted? do you think it will increase the number of cases where the conviction is found? >> thank you, senator gillibrand. yes, i do. it's really a two pronged system that needs to be changed. we have the pipeline of accused being prosecuted and hopefully convicted, but also the retaliation that so many service members face in the process which can't just be dealt with through the criminal justice system within the military. yes, absolutely. independent prosecutor being given the position of authority, convenienting authority will dramatically shift the way victims approach whether or not to report, victims carry a piece of that as well. but we have to remember, sort of

look at it as kind of a cynical way of thinking about sexual assault being in the military always focused on prosecution and victims care. we need to do something on the front to prevent it from happening at all. and right now there is no deterrent way in the military to prevent these crimes. >> do you think that if we have more convictions and justice is served that that will signal changes in the military? that if you do commit these crimes you will be caught, you will be prosecuted, you will be punished? . >> absolutely. it's a huge step but i encourage the senate that criminal justice is not a perfect system either in the military or in the civilian world and that victim needs more than just a criminal justice system to achieve closure, to get any sort of full access to justice.

civilian victims right now within our united states have much more access to redress. that's why the civil court systems needs to be open to military victims as well. right now military victims have less access to justice than the civilian victims who may have -- we honor to protect and defend. >> if you open the civilian court system to the military, how will that change? >> civil courts have been denied to serve victims. there is a lower burden of proof and they are likely to get more justice in that system. it works as a workplace -- deterrent to workplace harassment, assault. you can't go a week without reading a case in the news, in the mainstream news about a civilian victim of discrimination, harassment or assault actually getting -- it's usually her day in court because even the civilian criminal justice system hasn't been able to give her justice. >> what are some other ways do

you think that we can change the culture within the military to create less of a climate of discrimination and possibility of assault and abuse? >> one very integral piece to this kind of unfortunate puzzle is really the legalized sex discrimination which still exists in the military and despite secretary panetta's fantastic news last month, only one occupational specialty has been open to women as far as we know thus far. and so we're very much looking forward to what the service chiefs announced in the way of how the lift of combat exclusion will actually be implemented. sex discrimination within the military goes hand in hand with sexual harassment and sexual assault. >> thank you. for the other three witnesses, if you are able to have reported your case of sexual assault and rape to a prosecutor directly, how do you think it would have changed how your case was handled, and what

differences do you think it would have shown? ms. mccoy, you can go first. >> i have to reach back over 20 years to think about it, but i believe i would have moved forward with pursuing some type of -- pursuing it. i wouldn't have backed away. in my case, i did present the documentation that was necessary to move forward and they didn't do anything. so i would have had something in place or someone in place to go to to have that conversation so we could have moved forward with some type of legal process. ultimately i would have still had my career. i would have still been serving, i would not have been forced out. i would not have been scared for my life because i would have an intermediary to go to. >> i am not sure if i would

have done differently. i was in a group of 20 people. up until i believe not this year but last year ndaa there was no potential for base transfers. so had i actually gone through with a full investigation while serving i still would have had to live with many of the men who were abusive towards me. that was -- that's not anything i would have ever wanted to go through. independent prosecutor aside. the challenge is partially changing the culture within the military of how women are viewed, and until leadership is held accountable for the actions of some of their subordinates, when lorpe is allowed to push those things under the rug, when leadership is never made to stand for the actions of others that they hands down could have easily said this is unacceptable behavior, it will stop, until that happens within certain units -- not all units are like

mine. had i been in the situation with that unit i probably still not have reported at that time. >> mr. lewis. >> thank you for your question, madam chair woman. i want to be absolutely clear that my perpetrator was not just a perpetrator against me. he had perpetrated this crime against other victims at that same command while under the command of the same c.o. so, yes, an independent prosecutor would have made a world of difference. it would have gotten -- it would have gotten the reporting outside of the chain of command and not enabled my commanding officer to sweep this under the rug. even if i'd had to stay onboard ship with my command and perpetrator, i would have still been able to access some form of justice, and that at the end of the day would have saved me,

i feel, a lot of heartache and a lot of disappointment. hearing one of my senior members of my chain of command come to me and say you are not going to report this, that is devastating to any survivor, male, female, whatever. it feels like your heart breaks when your commanders break faith with you in that fashion. an independent prosecutor would have made all the difference. thank you, madam chairwoman. >> thank you. senator combram. -- graham. >> did all of you believe if you had somebody in your corner, someone assigned to kind of help you through the system, an advocate that that would have helped? >> i initial went to the sexual response coordinator and i found them to be very helpful

and very supportive. but they have absolutely no authority with these issues. you know, while it was comforting in some respect to know they were supportive and they were there, there's nothing that they can really do for you when you're going through the military judicial system. i think having someone who -- because i eventually did a full investigation. even then i had no one to guide me through that, to explain to me what was going on. i didn't hear from c.i.d. for four months after my initial report. i think that having someone like a special victims individual who's trained in the legal aspects of what's happening and what's going on would have been extremely beneficial for me when i was going through the actual investigation process. >> could you give the committee , not in public here, but privately the name of the chaplain who told you that? >> i honestly don't remember his name. but i could easily find it out

for you. >> could you please find that out? >> i can do that for you. >> about opening to civilian litigation, is it gag -- bhagwati? >> it's bhagwati. >> do you think the claim should be against the government or the individual? >> claims against the government are the key piece here. it's claims against your employer, the federal tort claims and civil rights act cases have been traditionally brought up for for the victims. i think all of this needs to be closely, closely looked at. but in our system, in our culture, civil courts are -- victims get justice more frequently than in the criminal courts. so we have to lock at how we can make the military more on

par with the civilian system. it makes no sense that young americans should put on a uniform and then sacrifice their constitutional rights. it makes no sense. >> mr. lewis, you received a general discharge, is that correct? >> yes, senator. >> again, maybe we can do this in the committee privately. do you mind if we look at your file? >> no problem, senator. >> ok. from your point of view, do you think having a victims advocate would have been better to better educate you for things when you hit a roadblock? >> some survivors have had success with a victim advocate, but i think that in order to be feasible, any person that would have -- that would be in my

corner would have to be of rank and able to issue orders and able to do things to help me directly. i was fortunate enough to seek mental health and i thought that doctor was in my corner and he wasn't. >> he was not? >> no, sir. i cannot -- i just cannot imagine a case where someone of lesser rank could effectively be in my corner while being subject to the chain of command. >> ms. mccoy, you were victimized multiple times, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> ok. did you ever go through a c.i.d. process? >> i did not. i did go through the process of

filing paperwork and -- with another n.c.o. they helped me, you know, come alongside me at that time. i don't know if there was a victims advocate. i know we had sexual harassment training and we were already given steps how to deal with sexual harassment, but there was no one that could come alongside me. >> i want to -- rape is not sexual harassment. it's a violent crime subject to severe punishment under the ccmj. do you think a victims advocate would have been helpful to you? >> i think a victim's advocate, if they have the proper rank, and if they set aside and maybe supersede the unit and they may have more authority and power because if they just come along and they're kind of supportive, i don't know how that's going to help the individual that's going through that day-to-day,

maybe some backlash and even reporting it and the isolation. i don't know how that's going to help that individual while they're still stationed in that unit where they're receiving that type of treatment. >> maybe all of you can comment on it individually. from your own personal experience, why do you think the command, the commanders, the senior n.c.o. leadership, why were they so hostile to these claims? >> in my own experience in the marine corps, there were signs of hope along the way. when i was at the infantrymen on the enlisted side were just as outraged. however, on the officer side there was a sense of an old boys club, occurrence protecting -- colonels

protecting colonels. whether that's an inclination to protect one's own career, looking out for a future star, whether or not there's some sort of misguided attempt to protect a good man because you know his family and he served for 20 years, i mean, you hear this language all the time. and officers, there's fewer of us. you know, we spend time with one another, hanging out with the oak club, it's a completely different culture. that's why the wilkerson case was different. there was this appearance of impropriety even without looking at the facts of the case. that's typical in every unit throughout the armed services. >> one of the things i really do stress is, it is about leadership. the hostility isn't necessarily even towards women. the hostility is towards the

feminine, the perception of being less than and the perception of being weak. even though i was the only female in my unit, i was not the only one that was targeted for abuse. we had two other males in my unit that were targeted regularly for sexual harassment and sexual abuse that went through a lot of the same stuff that i did. it was not a gender issue. it was a we are targeting what we see as less than. just by me being a woman i was automatically less than even though i was as good as they were. the mindset when you have that mentality, and, again, you have the leadership that allows that to continue every day. i can't tell you a single day i was in my unit that didn't go some by by some type of rape joke, sex joke, sex play simulated between men. we had a sexual assault training and one of our sergeants got up on the table and stripped completely naked and dance and laughed at it. that's the kind of culture i

lived in in a daily basis. when you deploy you're stuck with these people in very small units and very small places. why would i go to a chain of command that i knew was going to allow those things? so it's not just -- it's not even a hostility towards women in general. it's that the kind of culture that some of these units commanders allow to thrive. when you have that type of culture, this type type of issues are -- these type of issues are going to continue to be perpetuated. >> thank you. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, senator gillibrand. i want to thank you and the members of the panel who have been working sometime on this issue. i think senator ma cass kill -- senator she houston, senator gillibrand and i have been privileged to be involved in some of the work that has preceded this hearing. i think this hearing is critically important because it

really highlights why we're here today which is in the aftermath and the wake of 10 years of war, we want to assure that we continue to have in our military the best, the brightest and the bravest. and obviously sexual assault is one of the primary and predominant obstacles to attracting and retaining good people to our military. so it's not just the victims, though we deeply respect and care for the horrific experience that you've encountered. it is the national interest that brings us here today. it is the interest of our extraordinary military that brings us here today. they demonstrated that they are agasped and disgusted by this problem and they are acting to do something about it, not just

defense secretary hagel but i believe many of our leaders in the military and that they will do something about it. i view today's hearing as a cooperative effort, cooperative between this panel and our department of defense in seeking to address a problem that ought to have zero tolerance, literally zero tolerance. as a parent of two sons who are currently serving in the military and one who serves on this panel and has spent some of the best moments of my two years as a member of the senate with our military, three times visiting afghanistan, having the privilege of working with many of our military, i believe that we have in our military right now the next greatest generation and that if we can deal with this problem we will

assure that we continue to have that quality of people in the military and i believe the leaders of our military are determined to make it so. but this issue is more complicated than just making a speech or saying that we have zero tolerance. literally deterrence is in the detail. and i say that as a former prosecutor, as united states attorney in connecticut for 4 1/2 years, state attorney general for four years, the details of evidence, of sentencing, of review and appeal are what will enable us to solve this problem. and i really welcome the suggestion, for example, that we have independent prosecutorial authority outside the chain of command which might be welcomed by many of the officers who have to make these decisions. and i think these issues ought to be explored. the wilkerson case is -- not just the reversal of the decision and the conviction,

but the sentence was only a year as i understand it. and even more troublingly -- and i'm going to quote from the full statement, mr. lewis, that was provided by the victim, "i endured eight months of public humiliation and investigations, interviewed by o.s.i. and the prosecution. " apparently without an attorney. and to continue the quote, "i was interrogated by several hours by wilkerson's counsel without the benefit of legal counsel myself." she was interrogated by hours by the defense counsel without any aid of an attorney herself. so let me ask you, ms. bhagwati, would you suggest that we ought to have not just a victims advocate but a

victims advocate who would serve in effect as legal representation for the victim so that that victim's rights and perhaps expanded rights would be better protected? >> senator, that's a very sensible recommendation or suggestion and i would refer you to the air force's pilot program. i imagine general harding will be touching on that in a matter of hours. it's a very -- by all accounts, we actually referred to a couple of clients just for this purpose, airmen who have needed that extra buffer because it's an incredibly intimidating process, even under the best circumstances because there's so much hierarchy and intimidation in the process of coming forward and, yes, that measure has as been briefed to us goes beyond what civilian victims have which is fantastic

because military victims need that extra buffer because of the hierarchy nature, especially junior enlisted troops. >> you know, we should be very clear, civilian victims who come forward do so in a highly intimidating process, and they have needed -- i can tell you as one who's seen this process improved over the years, they've needed the kind of advocacy that the military is beginning to provide. and i commend the pilot program that's been started, and we will be hearing later from folks who can tell us more about it. i ask you as victims or their advocates now whether that kind of separate unit, which i advocated, ought to be made institutional? >> i believe it should be. i would just add, i do think there's extra pressure on military victims. it is a very different environment. >> absolutely. >> a confined environment in

which you cannot quit your job or you'll be charged, right? in the civilian environment, rape, assault and harassment is horrendous under any condition, in any environment. in the military you have less freedom of movement, less access and you have this incredibly hire arcial system win nine times out of 10 are told to stay silent. that's how you're trained in basic camp not to talk back. >> and ms. havrilla, you've called attention to the culture within your unit, the practices within your unit which in essence were unreviewable because of the -- both the physical and the command structure that you encountered. >> yeah. it's something that i saw outside of my unit as well. i spent the majority of my time with infantry, special forces. i spent 99% of my time deployed as the only female. i've had exposure to other

units in other compass its, and there were some that was just as bad and there were some that were not. they were some that treated me with absolute respect and dignity. i had no problems with some. what does that leadership say goes and doesn't go and where they draw their lines? that filters down to the lower levels and continues to do so. >> my time unfortunately has expired, but i just want to close by saying that your testimony in particular, really all of your testimony, calls attention to the need for prevention. part of it is deterrence. i say that as a prosecutor. i am a big believer in deterrence. firm punishment, excellent prosecution but also education. and i know the military has begun using an extraordinary documentary called "invisible war," which i hope will be

shown to everybody, all of our brave men and women in the armed forces so that we can prevent the kind of unit culture that you have described so movingly and i just really want to thank all of you for being here today, for having the courage to step forward but also for your service in our military. and thank all the military and veterans who are present here today for your service as well. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator ayotte. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank you for having this important hearing today. i want to thank the witnesses for their service to our country and in particular for their courage for being here today. we really appreciate what you have to say, and this is an incredibly important issue. i wanted to ask about this idea of prevention and what do you think we can do more

effectively. i don't pretend to have a very good understanding. now i know the military has made some steps in terms of what kind of education they are doing, whether it's showing individuals the "invisible war" film but also it seems to me we won't have prevention unless we have at the military academies, at basic training this be a core component of readiness, a core component of training up the chain of command as a priority and what was your experience with that and any sense of what we could do more on that end to make this, as you say, changing the culture means this is a core component of every aspect of when you receive training in your readiness of awareness and reporting and accountability? >> well, we have to say it even starts at recruitment because we have quite a few of our men

and women that are being raped and sexually harassed during the recruitment process. so i would say even before you get to the meps center where you're having this process of you being, you know, examined and all of your background history and interrogated, it needs to start at the very beginning before you even get into the military so that when people come in they know there is a no tolerance, that this will not be this area, this breeding ground for you to wreak havoc on other people. it has to start at the very beginning, and that's just what i believe. >> thank you, senator. one of the key components that i said in my opening statement that we not marginalize the idea of a male survivor. the department of defense's campaign a few years -- last

year or so was ask her when she's sober. the whole idea of that campaign marginalizes the idea of a male survivor being able to come forward and given the strong societal almost blind eye that's turned toward the idea of a male survivor, we need to empower them to come forward. the other things in terms of prevention is, yes, it must be a core part of readiness. it must extend, as ms. mccoy, all the way back to recruitment. and commanders must actually put the things they learn in training into practice if they receive an expedited request for transfer, the benefit of the doubt should automatically be with the victim and the transfer should be granted unless there's some extenuating circumstances against it. and i can't -- i would be hard pressed to think of any. but prevention also has to be a

way of thinking and it has to be accepted all the way down automatic to the very bones of the people that we don't do this against each other. we don't hide the crime when it comes up, and even if this crime does come up, it's not a failure in my leadership to say this has happened and i need to report it up the chain of command properly. >> thank you. this is a question i thought a little bit about. one of the -- the d.o.d. has direction about how sexual harassment trainings are to be conducted. a few years ago the g.a.o. did a report on those trainings, and it just doesn't happen the way it's supposed to happen for numerous reasons. we've been at war for over a decade now.

time's crunched. it's become a powerpoint. read this. move on. go down. let's get through this. one of the things we always saw, we had an e-6 in the unit, click through our slides, everybody sign here and move on. so i think that by actually implementing the d.o.d.'s recommendations of having outside educators come in and do these trainings, it's very important that you have someone again who's not in the military system, who can -- who understands the military system that can come in and say this is what consent is. this is what -- that can lay out exactly -- this is -- and define it and then say this is what's going to happen if you do this and have actual consequences as we discussed all morning for these actions if they occur. i think it's important that the training is there. it's just not being implemented properly. there's not enough educators out there that are doing this.

sometimes there's one or two to an entire installation. they can't handle reports and do training at the same time. it is a budget issue, a funding issue of how we're going to provide appropriate educators for this topic from recruitment on. >> thank you. ms. bhagwati. >> i think brian's message spornt. messaging is critical. culture change cannot happen without an entire rethinking of how this issue is messaged within the military. i mean, generally i think the way service members and veterans talk about this issue, there's this assumption that you are harassed or assaulted because you are weak. weakness somehow plays not entire makeup of why this doesn't -- this is such a hard problem within the military. we're not trained to think of

ourselves as weak. victimhood is not something that any veteran wants to kind of own. it's -- it's commotely out of sync with being -- completely out of sync with being in the military. there's messaging that's sort of small women who aren't strong enough are victims, and you see variations on that theme constantly which is a complete myth. it has nothing to do with the sex of a victim. when there's mixed messaging about alcohol and rape where there's an assumption that there is a lapse of professional judgment on the part of a young man, in most cases, you see messaging about that. ask when she's sober is a perfect example of -- there is an inappropriate mixing of messages which is based on mythology. it's not based on fact. rapists tend to be serial.

they use tools like alcohol to undermine their victims' credibility. it's not a matter of young people partying and the wrong thing happening. rapists lay out tactics to do what they want to do, and it's -- there's really just a lack of understanding about what rape is, what sexual harassment is. the final thing i would say, the culture is so entrenched right now when it comes to sexual violence and because chain of command is how we learn to operate from day one of basic training or o.c.s., you really need outside systems that are available to victims within the military because it's hard for your mind to really -- to think outside of that box when it becomes your 24-hour norm. the uniform, it changes you for

all the right reasons because it's very effective operationally to be trained that way. when it comes to being violated, to being attacked, to losing your dignity at the hands of a fellow service member, we need outside systems because they are obviously perceived as safer and they're definitely more functional. they work better. >> i want to thank all of you. my time is up. just briefly, first of all, sexual assault and rape is about -- not about the weakness of the victim. it's about power and control and the assertion of that and that obviously in a military context becomes an even greater problem and obviously my background is a prosecutor too. i want you to know, mr. lewis, that i very much appreciate that men are victims of sexual assault both in the civilian sector but in the military. i can imagine this is an even greater issue that we need to address for both men and women and all people's dignity. two things i wanted to say briefly which is, in my state

in the civilian side we had what's called a victims bill of rights. it seems to me there needs to be some kind of bill of rights also when you're in the military in terms of, you'll know how you'll be treated. that has to be something that the chain of command is held accountable for. so i appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to hearing what you have to say and listening to what you have to say beyond this hearing as we try to make sure that we address this issue and stop what's happening. thank you. >> thank you. senator hirono. >> thank you, madam chair and ranking member graham and thank all of you for your testimony and the information that you provided. i realize this situation is very complicated, and one of the hardest things to change, of course, is the culture of the institution, such as the military. we are very proud of our service of men and women in

uniform, but this is -- these kinds of assaults, we must move in the right direction. and some of the suggestions that you made were i think steps that we should consider seriously. ms. havrilla, one of the questions that you were asked is, if we were to remove the decision to prosecute or even to investigate from the chain of command and giving it to an independent authority, would that help? something you said that really struck me and you said that while this is all going on, you're still in the environment, you're still feeling very vulnerable. so what are some things we could do during the process? basically, i want to know, what kind of privacy is afforded to someone who comes forward to report these crimes and what

can we do, even if we were to remove the decision from the chain of command? >> i think when you're in the military you feel like you have absolutely no privacy at all anyway. even when it comes to medical issues, there really is no privacy. as mentioned, i think implementing the concept of base transfers or unit transfers or getting you away from those people that were perpetrators against you, i can't imagine being in my unit going through an investigation at any point in time. but having that option of, hey, i go to -- i go to the sacr and say, this is happening to me, i am thinking about reporting it but i'm not sure because i don't want to stay in this unit and deal with the potential backlash, what are my options? had they given me the option, we can transfer you to another

unit, another duty station, again, these are small. it's not like i can go from one unit to another, one platoon to another. i would have to literally p.c.s. or go t.d.y. in some capacity to get away from -- change duty stations, i have to move states basically. so then you had the challenges that might come with that. if i am in another location, i decided to press charges and i'm having to do all this from a remote location. there's complications as everybody discussed that had i had the option to say, you can go forward with the prosecution and not be in the unit that you're in, i might have considered that very seriously. but i can't imagine it doing it rile embedded and entrenched within the same unit that was causing all of my difficulties. >> would the rest of you agree that should have been an option presented to you, to be removed from the environment in which these incidents occurred?

>> thank you, senator hirono. absolutely. one of the current problems with the unit transfer idea is that a unit may be in the same geographic location. if this had happened to me aboard a ship in pearl harbor station, i was stationed on a submarine before i went to pearl harbor. if i could have been moved out of that submarine to naval submarine support command right there in the same base, the same -- almost the same building, and that shouldn't be -- i would rather -- speaking personally, i would rather deal with the pressures of having to deal with the prosecution from half a state away or wherever than to be in a situation where i have to look my perpetrator in the face, where i have to eat, sleep, breathe, go to the path room or anything else with

-- bathroom or anything else with that perpetrator. >> thank you. would all of you agree removing the decision to go forward with the prosecution or investigation should go to an independent authority and out of the chain of command, would all of you agree that would be a desirable step? ms. bhagwati, there are other countries that have removed the chain of command from making these decisions. i think great britain has done so. are you familiar with the experiences in these countries, whether the incidents of sexual assault went down or where prosecutions went up when reports went up, are you familiar enough to talk to us a little bit about what your impressions are of these other countries that have made this kind of change? >> we've done some research. it's my understanding that the

u.k. and canadian systems are ones we should look at in closer detail. the australian system is also one you can look at, although we've seen less success in that system. i think beyond that, though, i'd refer you to some additional subject matter experts. i think it requires a great deal of further study, but the u.k. has done it successfully and it's my understanding that the prosecutors themselves are military but that the supervisor of those prosecutors is civilian. so it's a bit of a mix in the u.k. system. >> so there's some things definitely that we can learn from these other countries. i happen to read an article in the "mcclatchy newspaper," march 10, 2013, it is talking about the aviano case. and it notes that because of

all of the attention being paid to this terrible situation, these assaults that somehow there's a political climate where commanding officers feel pressure to prosecute sexual assault allegations. and the article goes on to say that commanding officers sometimes use their prosecutorial discretion to proceed with weak cases. they cite some examples of when this happened. so it seems to me the desirblete of removing -- desiribility of removing these kind of decisions from the chain of command so they wouldn't feel political pressure to prosecute weak cases? would you like to comment? >> absolutely. it's a really critical point that professionalizing the system, actually putting legal experts in charge of the process, serves everyone better. it creates a fairer and more

impartial trial for the accused as well. the classic kind of example of why the current problem is so serious is the commandant of the marine corps doing the right thing, right, as head of the marine corps by speaking out strongly against sexual assault in the marines. we were very excited to hear that kind of language, but because he is everyone's chain of command it seems as problematic. if he were removed from that process, like all other commanders, he could speak strongly about this issue, as he should, as everyone in the armed forces should. but we have this perception that there's undue influence by the commandant or other military commanders because commanders have this discretion over these cases. it doesn't need to be that way if we professionalize the system and go in the direction of, for example, the u.k., we won't see this undue influence. >> thank you. madam chair, my time is up and i thank you. >> thank you.

senator mccaskill. >> thank you. rape is the crime of a coward. rapists in the ranks are masquerading as real members of our military because our military is not about cowards. now, our military does an amazing job of training. i am so proud of our military, but unfortunately i believe that this is not a crime that we're going to train our way out of. because the crime of rape has nothing to do with sexual gratification. it has nothing to do with dirty jokes and very frankly, there are some studies that say it's not connected necessarily with people who like to look at

dirty pictures. it's a crime of assault, power, domination. and i believe based on my years of experience that the only way that victims of sexual assault are going to feel empowered in the military is when they finally believe that the focus on the military is to get these guys and put them in prison. so i believe that the focus of our efforts should be on effective prosecution. and what do we need to do to make sure that these investigations are done promptly and professionally, that the victims are wrapped in good information, solid support and legal advice? the prosecutors have the wherewithal and the resources to go forward in a timely and

aggressive way and you don't have the ability of some general somewhere that haven't heard the testimony of those in a consent case can wipe it out with a stroke of a pen. so what i'd like from you all -- your cases are all compelling, they're all moving. i like senator graham am infuriated at that chaplain. i'm infuriated that the notion that some of the men who put up with what happened to you or even perpetrated what happened with you are still serving in our military. i'd like to hear from you, especially the cases that are more recent, what happened when you reported in terms of getting good legal information about what your rights were and what to expect? >> thank you, senator mccaskill. as mentioned, i had none. when my friend notified me that

he had found the pictures of my rape online that, again, it was actually kind of a spur of the moment decision. i was like, ok, enough's enough. this has gone on long enough. i am going to do an investigation. this is ridiculous. >> if i could go back to your initial decision because we know that there's a huge number of these cases that there's never a restricted or an unrestricted report. and just so we make the record report, restricted report is kept for five years and unrestricted report is kept for 20 years. >> i believe it's just changed. i believe restricted reports are now to be kept for 50, but previously there was a much lower cap on that. >> ok. whatever the amount is, the difference between a restricted report and unrestricted report is how timely we can get after it. if it's a restricted report it's not going to get investigated. >> correct. you just basically become a statistic. >> so if in fact one of the

reasons you made your reports restricted is that the unique nature of the victim being embedded with her perpetrator in a work environment that is intense and depends on working together, what would have happened when you went in if you were told that if there is probable cause found in the next 30 days that this crime was committed your perpetrator would be removed from the unit, what would your response have been? >> it probably would have been worth considering. at that point you have a timeline, a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak, with set standards and guidelines of, ok, this will happen in the event that this is found. again, everybody -- when you're in the middle of it, you look back on it with kind of 20/20 or monday morning quarterback style and you think, oh, i can

look back on this and think i would have done it differently. when you're in the middle of it , it's extremely difficult. it affects your mental health. it affects how you see the world, how you see yourself. but had i had more information, had there been some type of recourse, ok, this isn't about me, this is about him, and had there been probable cause for some type of prosecution and i was asked later when i did my full investigation, if they find enough are you willing to take this to court marshal and i said, yes, absolutely. in the beginning that wasn't even an option for me. that wasn't something that was given to me and, you know, again, we can do the what ifs all we want. and looking forward, i am a different person now. i would say, yes, absolutely, i'm willing to take that as this perpetrator is going to be done in 30 days or at least a

potential for that thereof, let's move forward with this. >> do you feel like your sac -- sarc, your special advocate that you talked to, do you feel like they were neutral, supportive, tried to take you out of it, tried to talk you into it? >> most of them are very supportive and they wanted to be helpful but they all understood their hands were tied to what they could actually do for you as a victim. they kind of -- when i went in to do my restrictive report against my rapist, i mentioned in passing the constant sexual assault and sexual harassment of my team leader, they said, do you want to file a report? i said, sure, why not? they weren't pressuring me. you have the option of making a restricted report against this individual. is this something you're willing to do?

at that time my end of the -- my end of the tunnel, my light at the end is i had 60 days and i was out of the army. that's all i wanted. i just wanted out. i wanted to be done. i wanted to be away from the unit i was in. >> mr. lewis, what about you? did you feel like at the point in time you reported anywhere that there was any legal help or any kind of help at all that would have allowed you to move forward with some kind of effort to -- is your perpetrator still in the neifi? >> i honestly don't know -- >> still in the navy? >> i honestly don't know. i don't care. >> i care. i want you to know that. >> i appreciate that, senator. >> i care. >> honestly, when the situation came to light, there was an eerie silence that imnated from the j.a.g. office -- >> and what year was this?

>> 2000. >> ok. >> and it was like a black hole had all of a sudden surrounded the j.a.g. office because the judge of the general command is subordinate to the commanding officer. at some point it becomes preservation of their own career rather than helping me. and, no, there was no effective legal situation that i could access, senator. >> my time is out. i do want to say i spent a number of hours with amazing professional prosecutors in the area of sexual assault at the pentagon on monday. decades of experience. i do feel that there is some progress being made in some branches, some more than others, recognizing that they have failed at getting after this and doing what our military usually does best and

that is focus on the mission and make it happen. what you all are doing today allows us to focus on the mission to get the coward rapists out of the ranks. and we're going to do everything we can to make that happen. so thank you, all, very, very much for being here. >> thank you, senator. senator she houston -- senator shaheen. >> thank you for holding this hearing today. thank you very much for your testimony. we appreciate your willingness to come forward and tell your stories in a way that allows us to hopefully follow-up and take some action to try and address with the military what is obviously a continuing challenge. and mr. lewis, i especially appreciate your willingness to point out that this is a crime that victimizes not just women but men. senator ma cass kill, ms.

bhagwati, you said in your testimony, and i think it's important to start with the fact that rape and assault, sexual assault, are not about sexual activity. they are about power, control and intimidation. and i think that is an issue that has taken a long time for the civilian world to appreciate. i was on the commission on the status of women in new hampshire back in 1980 when we were working with law enforcement and other advocates to try and get across that point. and clearly it's still an issue and it's still something that not everyone understands, particularly people who have not been in your situation. i was amazed to see that -- in your statistics that you brought forward, one in three convicted sex offenders remain in the military. and that the only branch of the service that says they

discharge all sex offenders is the navy. it seems to me that that's a pretty basic bar that we should think about as we're looking at people who've been convicted of rape and sexual assault. ms. bhagwati, we hear there's a connection between resistance to pursue sexual crimes and careerism among military officers. there's concern for the reputation of the accused and the commanding officer. those concerns have been presented as reasons to frustrate to bring criminals to justice. i wonder if you could talk more -- you made several recommendations in your testimony, but how can we more effectively show that covering up sexual crimes is not a way

to advance careers? >> i'll go back to what i think some of my colleagues here were talking about. when these crimes happened, and in my case i was a junior officer reporting these crimes to senior officers. it was -- you know, sort of thinking back 20/20, as rebekah said, on those experiences, i had so much more rank and authority than the average service member navigating these issues. by far. so much more freedom of movement, but there's something that i think happens beyond the company grade level with officers who definitely are staying in for the full 20 years or more. i was actually -- it was suggested to me by an equal opportunity officer that i should charge my battalion

commander for failure to do the right thing in these cases, which was absolutely overwhelming prospect. just shut me down completely. and here i was a captain, right, and i couldn't even fathom what it was like for somebody who was maybe e-2, e-3 going through the exact same thing. i couldn't do it because i was literally -- the thought of doing it made me dysfunctional. i still had -- i had command. i had to command my company, and to do that in addition to filing an equal opportunity investigation against the lieutenant, i mean, it was just overwhelming. you know, the old boys club which i was referring to is very much alive and well within each service branch. you know, i think the fact that for women in the military that are still significant barriers to career progression and that

there are not enough women throughout the services at top levels, that there aren't enough flag officers who are women, all of this is related ultimately. we need to see change in which so many women are entering the military, 6% to 7% of the marines are female but we're moving toward a quarter or third and maybe even more eventually. we see at that rate beyond 0% where climates start to shift when it comes to discrimination, harassment and assault. that's what we need to aim for. you can't isolate women from all of these positions and expect your institution to treat its service members fairly. everyone suffers as a result. >> and does swan have metrics that show overall career impact to service members who have been subjected to sexual

assault? how many of those who report assault choose to remain in the military? and how many get out because of the trauma they've experienced? are those numbers that have been collected? >> not to my knowledge. we've been in discussion with several congressional offices about discussing the retention issue alone. to my knowledge, the military is not yet at least suffering a recruitment crisis when it comes to more americans learning about sexual violence in the ranks, but we're all examples of the retention crisis. there are thousands of my colleagues every year who are adding to these numbers because they know it's not a safe or welcoming environment for them to stay in. >> well, absolutely. as the percentage of women in the military now is close to 15%, as you say it's not reached the critical mass where

it will begin hopefully to have more of an impact on how sexual assault is treated, but this could become an issue of recruitment. as we look at how we attract the best and the brightest people to our military, obviously this is an issue when it comes to both women and men that it's going to greatly affect our ability to do that. so thank you all very much for your testimony. >> you can continue to watch this hearing online live at c-span.org. here on c-span, we have the u.s. coming in next to take up legislation dealing with state waivers to the welfare to work rules. they'll debate the rule first and votes later on this afternoon. meanwhile, president obama on capitol hill today meeting with the house republican caucus. and tomorrow back with meetings with senate republicans and how democrats. the senate is also in today. they're takinging up what the house passed -- taking up what the house passed last week, the continuing resolution funding the federal government through the end of the fiscal year.

follow the senate on c-span2. and now to the house here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all who call upon your name. send your spirit to fill their hearts with those divine gifts

you have prepared for them. may your grace find expression in their compassion for the weak and the poor among us. may your mercy and courage, goodwill -- encourage goodwill in all they do to accomplish this day. as the members of the people as you house face the demands of our -- people's house face the demands of our time, grant them and us all your peace and strength, that we might act justly, love tenderly and walk humbly with you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory , amen. thespeaker: journal journal journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on

approval of the -- the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor indicate by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from colorado. >> mr. speaker, i demand the yeas and nays. 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 and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. mr. coffman: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend

my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. speaker, in 1972 i volunteered to serve in the united states army. at a time when young men were still being drafted into our military. the last draftees were inducted into the united states army in 1973. and two years later, given the success of the all-volunteer army, the requirement for young men to register for selective service ended. in a symbolic strength to the soviet union going into afghanistan, the president elected it to go and all males join up within 30 days of their 18th birthday. conscription has never been considered as a viable option by our military. mr. speaker, my bill, house

resolution 978, will end the registration requirement and dismantle the outdated selective service bureaucracy, saving the taxpayers over $24 million a year. and i urge its adoption. 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 entleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins:, mr. speaker, the buffalo river is one of 43 areas of concern in the great lakes watershed. in 2011, a coalition of corporate and community partners teamed up with state and local governments to begin a multimillion-dollar cleanup of the buffalo river. unfortunately, sequestration, uncertainty about a new federal budget threaten to delay this project. mr. speaker, the great lakes are a unique national treasure with global significance. they are the largest source of surface freshwater on earth, containing 20% of the world's

supply. they contain 95% of america's freshwater and they support 1.5 million jobs and $62 billion in wages and shipping -- in shipping, recreation and fishing industries. preservation of our great lakes has both environmental and economic impacts and has always enjoyed environmental support. we cannot allow sequestration to halt the buffalo river cleanup. i urge my colleagues to repeal sequester and to protect funding for the great lakes restoration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, each year billions of u.s. taxpayer dollars are wasted due to abuse of the $1,000 refundable child tax credit. instead of hitting up taxpayers for even more taxes, washington needs to go after these

billions of dollars that are fraudulently wasted. it's time to end this sham. that's why i have reintroduced commonsense legislation, h.r. 556, that stops this abuse by requiring tax filers to provide their social security number in order to receive the tax credit. just like we do for the earned income tax credit. congress, nonpartisan tax score keeper, the joint committee on taxation, has found that my bill would save taxpayers an estimated $24.4 billion over the next 10 years. with the dire need to get our fiscal house in order, this simple, commonsense fix can go a long way toward protecting precious taxpayer dollars by stamping out waste, fraud and abuse. it's time to get this done. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> i understand well the challenges of budgeting for our nation's future. ms. tsongas: the legislation introduced by the republicans this week fails to protect the middle class and laying the groundwork for strong economic growth. as it has for the last two years, the ryan budget once again makes deep cuts to medicare as it also repeals a host of federal measures making health insurance affordable for middle-class families. it replaces the security of medicare with a voucher that will lose its value over time, driving many middle-class seniors into poverty and makes deep cuts to education, transportation and infrastructure and public health and safety. gutting society's basic functions without which businesses can't find educated workers, move their products to market or operate safely.

voters roundly rejected this approach only a few months ago. i call on my colleagues to reject this budget and join me in supporting a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i was recently visiting with my constituents in nicholas county, kentucky, when i learned about the latest casualty in the obama administration's war on coal. joy global, a manufacture of underground mining equipment, operates a plant in neighboring bourbon county. the news had just broken that joy global plans to cease all operations in manufacturing at that plant. the story of joy global is timely in light of president obama's nomination of gina

mccarthy to lead the environmental protection agency. mr. barr: i wish those who are responsible for the war on coal could have been with me that friday morning. it's easy to sit in washington and issue regulations when you don't have to confront the human cost. the obama administration's war on coal costs more than 3,000 well-paying coal mining jobs in kentucky last year. thousands of families potentially went from healthy incomes to food stamps, but this administration doesn't appear to care. the coal industry supports 19,000 full-time jobs in kentucky while providing our state with the anything's fourth lowest utility rates. mr. speaker, it's time the administration put people ahead of its radical agenda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker, and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise to voice my frustration and disappointment of the postal service's decision to close the irving station that serves zip code 72202 in houston, texas, on april 30. the post office is highly valid in our district and serves residents in north side area of houston for 50 years. the postal service announced that it would be demolished despite the fact that the agency has failed to ensure the local residents will still have access to essential mail services. the office lease is expiring. instead of finding a new location nearby or moving retail operations as a compromise, the postal service has chosen to close the office. and i contacted and met with postal officials without success. it is irresponsible and undermines the integrity of the agency. the people living in and around 77022 zip code will not have the same access to postal services as everyone does.

i understand the postal service budget constraints and work to reforming the agency. however, maintaining our presence makes mart business sense of the postal service and the need to revitalize the community. the postal service is losing customers and friends in this effort. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee:: yesterday, house republicans and congressman ryan released their budget which unfortunately seeks to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, the mill class and the most vull -- middle class and the most vulnerable among us. the g.o.p. budget has the same failed policies that americans rejected last fall. this budget is full of false realities, fuzzy math and the wrong priorities. instead of closing the corporate jet loophole, the republican budget ends medicare as we know it, turning health

care for seniors into a voucher program. instead of ending billions in tax subsidies for big oil, the republican budget slashes medicaid. for the most vulnerable among us, turning it into a block grant program. instead of asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share, it wants to kick millions of people off health care plans by repealing the affordable care act. while actually repealing the parts of the affordable care act that provides care for people, but some are preserving the cost savings and the revenues that it delivers. instead of targeting the most vulnerable communities and placing the burden entirely on the middle class, republicans should work with democrats to put in place a balanced bipartisan budget that puts americans back to work. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, i rise today to

bring light to many of the overlooked effects of sequestration. i just came from the military personnel hearing where the services had an opportunity to speak frankly about how these cuts will affect them. some of the worst impacts will come as a result of civilian furloughs. 52% of military behavioral health specialists are civilian and those civilians will be furloughed. mrs. davis: as will 62 of the specialists who work for the marine corps wounded warrior unit. these specialists provide a vital service to our injured service members. so how can congress continue to treat the work of these and other federal employees in what is perceived to be a very callous manner? now, mr. speaker, we've asked our men and women in uniform to sacrifice so much. how can we possibly ask them to sacrifice even more? we must come together to solve sequestration before these devastating cuts become

irreversible. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for ne minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. on april 6, the city of orange, california, will celebrate its 125th anniversary. as the third oldest city in orange county, the city of orange is a big city but with a smalltown feel. orange is a home to notable attractions like the plaza in orange, the outlets at orange, the u.c.i. medical center, the children's hospital of orange county and my alma mater, chatman university. this milestone will be celebrated in oldtown orange and it will commemorate the families, the residents and the businesses that have made the city what it is today.

congratulations to the city and residents of orange on this incredible occasion. and i am proud to represent the city of orange and the 46 congressional district -- 46th congressional district of california. happy 125th anniversary, city of orange. and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, republicans say the darnedest things. i'd like to read a statement from my 2005 letter from the republican governors association outlining its priorities for re-authorization. quote, as governors, we believe the following provisions are integral to state programs and support their inclusion and protection as the bill moves forward through regular order. mr. takano: the 2005 senate bill provides states with the flexibility to manage their

tanif programs. increased waiver authority and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work, closed quote. the letter was signed by mitt romney, jeb bush, mike huckabee, mitch daniels, rick perry and many more. mr. speaker, today the house debates banning the very waivers that republican leaders from across the country have already expressed their support for. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to listen to republican governors and allow states to find new and creative models to move people from welfare to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 13, 2013, at 10:41 a.m.

appointment, senate national security working group, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 107 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house ralder number 7, house resolution -- house calendar number 7, house resolution 107, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 890, to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to states for temporary assistance for needy families and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 113-3 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against

provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equal request divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. coal coal during consideration of this -- mr. cole: during consideration of this resolution, all purpose for is for he debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 890, the

preserving work requirements for welfare programs act of 2013. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. in addition, mr. speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. it is not the intention of the rules committee, mr. speaker, to have a closed rule. however, the committee received only four amendments, one of which was withdrawn. the remaining three amendments were all subject to points of order for germaneness and other violations of the rules of the house. so, unfortunately, we were left with little choice but to propose a closed rule. mr. speaker, h.r. 890 would prohibit the secretary of health and human services from issuing waivers relating to the compliance and -- with the work requirements for welfare recipients which were created under the historic 1996 welfare reform law. these work requirements have led to more work, more earning, less

welfare dependence and less poverty among low-income americans. additionally, h.r. 890 incorporates the text of h.r. 987, h.r. 987 extends the temporary assistance for needy families programs, so-called tanif, which is due to expire on march 27, through the end of 2013. mr. speaker, the welfare and medicaid reform act of 1996 made historic changes in the way our country treats its most impoverished citizens. generally the reforms offer states new flexibility in designing welfare programs. however, in exchange for that flexibility, strong new federal work requirements were put in place. these requirements specified the minimum number of hours per week an individual must engage in either work or work-related activities and penalties for failure to comply. what were the results of the 1996 reform? well, let me just go over a few.

america saw the greatest reduction in poverty among children since the 1960's. the employment rate for single mothers in 2010 is higher than it was in 1996. even though the unemployment rate itself has almost doubled during that period of time. and poverty among single mothers has fallen by 30%. the list of successes associated with the law, which i must stress was bipartisan and worked upon by both parties both in this chamber and obviously by president clinton, goes on and on. in addition, mr. speaker, the welfare reform act specifically prohibited waivers on the new tanif work requirements. under both republican and democratic administrations, it's been assumed that these requirements could not be waived. however, the current administration through a so-called informational memorandum, i'm not frankly quite sure what that is, has decided it does have the authority to waive these work

requirements. mr. speaker, the bipartisan compromise that was drafted in 1996 has done a good job in reducing poverty in this country and improving the lives and the prospects of those mired in very difficult circumstances. we should not allow the administration to undo by an informational memorandum what congress and presidents of the past have been able to accomplish by statute. mr. speaker, this is a good bill and a good rule. i urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask -- i thank the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: first of all, mr. speaker, i would tell my colleagues that this is not a good rule. it is a closed rule. and there's no need for it. you know, this prevents members

of the house of both parties to come to the floor with ideas on ways to amend this legislation. but because of the rule they are prevented from doing so and i think that's an unfortunate fact. we should have deliberation on this house floor. given the fact we're not doing much of anything, we certainly have the time to deliberate and i would hope that in the future we would see more flexibility on the rules and less closed rules. so i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule because of that. mr. speaker, once again the republican majority in the house is proving that they never let facts get in the way of a good press release. today's bill takes a sensible, bipartisan piece of legislation and tacks on a partisan political ploy that was used in the last congress to try to embarrass president obama. instead of bringing a simple, clean extension of temporary assistance for needy families program, the republican majority is continuing a political attack

from the last election. and like many of the other political attacks lobbed against president obama in that campaign, this attack is simply untrue and destined for failure. over the last two years, members of the majority have charged that actions taken by the department of health and human services to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the tanif program are an attempt to, quote, let people sit at home and collect welfare checks. such charges have been declared false by numerous fact-checking organizations, including factcheck.org, politifact and the fact checker at "the washington post." the former republican staff director of the ways and means, human resources subcommittee said that reforms, the ones being made by h.h.s., are justified and he added, and i quote him, i do not think it

ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform. each state has to say what they will do and how that reform will either increase employment or lead to better employment, end quote. hat's ron haskens. mr. speaker, the merits of the changes implemented by h.h.s. strengthen federal efforts to move americans from welfare to work. and allowing states the flexibility from rigid tanif requirements, the administration requires that any changes providing more efficient or effective means to promote employment. in explaining the policy changes, h.h.s. secretary stated, and i quote, governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance, end quote. under such requirements, it is impossible to assert that these changes will weaken the federal efforts to move citizens from welfare to work.

in fact, in looking at the actual rules, even briefly, it is clear that these changes strengthen our federal efforts by allowing for more effective and more efficient programs, the ability, the room to operate at the state level. mr. speaker, it may be surprising to some watching today's proceedings that the majority disapproves of the administration's programmatic changes. for the underlying principle of the changes is the belief that the states should have flexibility to implement proven and effective methods for moving americans from welfare to work. yet today a republican majority that often boasts of its commitment to states' right, now stands in fierce opposition to that very principle. they find themselves demanding that even when more effective methods for putting americans to work are available, federal standards dictated from washington must rule the day. and the real irony in their argument against the administration's action is that the request for flexibility came from a governor. a republican governor.

and not just a republican governor from a blue state like new jersey or a purple state like virginia, no, mr. speaker, the governor of utah, one of the reddest states in the nation, is the one who has requested this waiver. i've seen some interesting legislative jujitsu on this house floor. but one day they're adhering to the hastert rule. the next day the boehner rule applies. this republican majority legislates by lurching from one issue to issue, trying to find something that works. so i can't say that i'm surprised that they are declaring themselves against increasing work requirements for tanif recipients as requested by a republican governor. the only thing i can chalk it up to is politics. you think that at some point the republican majority would rather legislate instead of fighting a cal battle that was decided four months -- a political battle that was decided four months ago, a political battle that they lost and lost badly. but sadly that day is not today.

if this majority were truly serious about work and employment, about actually reducing the number of people on tanif, then we would be voting on a bill to repeal the sequester. we would be voting on a bill to save the 750,000 jobs that will be lost this year because of these arbitrary, mindless, senseless and thoughtfuls cuts. the re-authorization of tanif in and of itself is not controversial. we can move that bill on suspension. but what appears to be controversial to this republican leadership is putting people back to work. what appears to be controversial to this republican leadership is saving our economy from the devastating sequester cuts. what appears to be controversial to this republican leadership is responsible governing. in contrast, mr. speaker, house democrats have a plan. a plan that house republicans blocked time after time after time to avoid sequester. congressman van hollen has a balanced sequester replacement. one that will get rid of the arbitrary cuts and replace them with a balanced mix of cuts and revenues. revenues that come from closing tax loopholes that even

republicans like mitt romney thought we should eliminate. congressman van hollen has come to the rules committee four times this year alone in hopes that this republican leadership, the ones who promised an open house and an open legislative process, would make his amendment in order. and four times now, four times the republican leadership in this house has refused to make that amendment in order. why? mr. speaker, why? why not allow the van hollen sequester replacement bill to come to the floor for a vote? didn't speaker boehner promise a more open house? didn't he say that the house should work its will? mr. speaker, this is not a way to run a democracy. this is not an open and fair proelse is. that's because this republican leadership is not about openness, they're not about legislating responsibly, they're about desperate attempts to score cheap political points and that's what they're doing with the sequester and that's what they're doing with this tanif re-authorization. something that should be totally noncontroversial, something that

should be approved with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. mr. speaker, we should defeat this closed rule, an unnecessarily closed rule, and defeat this bill. it is time that we put partisan politics aside, at least until he next election season begins and start working for the american people. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. it was once famously observed that the inhabitants of the ewe niletted king dam and the -- united kingdom and the united states were two people divided by the same language -- language. evidently that applies to the people of massachusetts and the people of oklahoma. i want to thank my good friend who kindly sent me a note and i've mentioned, if you're from oklahoma, we would say it's from worcester but he said worcester. i want to get that right and thank my friend for correcting me. that's probably the only place my friend and i will agree. i agree it was appropriate to

correct me. let me make a couple of simple responses to what my friend had to say. i don't want to redebate sequester. he i had an opportunity to do that in the context of the -- he and i had an opportunity to do that in the context of the continuing resolution last week. but the idea that that was somehow partisan, when over 50 of my friend's colleagues voted for it, it was actually quite bipartisan. and we began a process in that that is going to result in saving the american people $1.2 trillion and we think we made initial steps in improving the bill appears to us as if that same process is working now on the other side of the rotunda, amongst our friends in the senate. so we're work our way toward a responsible piece of legislation, operating through regular order and trying to find common ground. so we're not happy with the sequester, we tried to fix it a couple of times, as my friend recalls. neither the senate nor the president ever took us up on that offer. so we worked hard. now we found another route, perhaps we can keep working and

find some common ground in some other areas. as to this bill itself, let's just go back to the specifics. all we're doing is making sure that the work requirement stays in place. i'll make a rather bold prediction and say, after the rule vote is over, probably a lot of democrats will vote for that legislation. they'll vote for it for two reasons. first, it re-authorizes tanif which is a good thing. we agree on that. a good piece of legislation. certainly we ought to provide the neediest of our people certainty through the end of the fiscal year as opposed to the end of march. so i think that's an effort by both sides to do the right thing. but second, if there's a misunderstanding here and we misinterpreted the administration, fair enough. i don't think we did, but regardless, let's just make absolutely sure, pass this legislation. if we both agree on it, it shouldn't be a point of a great deal of contention. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. first, i thank my friend from oklahoma for his improved pronounciation. i really appreciate that. i also appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship that he's displayed on a number of issues. most recently on the violence against women's act. i kind of wish that same spirit was brought to this bill today, the tanf bill, because it would pass overwhelmingly. just so there's no confusion what h.h.s. is trying to do, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter that the kathleen sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, sent to the honorable dave camp, chairman of the ways and means, explained how the administration views this flexibility, that they might at some point utilize, but basically it is not to weaken the work requirement.

it is to support states that have better ideas to improve the results, to get more people to work. and so i ask unanimous consent that that be put in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: the other thing, mr. speaker, i'd say, again, it's ironic that my friends on the other side have kind of chosen to put a little bit of politics into this debate given the fact that a republican governor from a red state, utah, you know, suggested to the administration that he might have a better idea on how his state might get better results of putting more people to work, getting people off assistance. i think that's a good thing. i think what all of us believe, whatever it takes to get more people into the work force is a good thing. i would also say to my friend, he mentions that the republicans have had proposals to deal with the sequester. not in this session they haven't. ot a single time in this

current congress have my republican friends brought an alternative to the floor to avoid sequester. these arbitrary, mindless, senseless cuts that go across the board. if you have a line item in the budget that would have fraud, waste and abuse, that would be a line item for medical research, for education, for transportation and infrastructure. this is not a way to deal with our budgetary challenges. and the reason why i bring up sequester today is because i wish there were a greater sense of urgency in this house of representatives to deal with it because we're all talking about the welfare to work right now, but by allowing the sequester to continue to go into place, c.b.o. tells us we'll risk 750,000 jobs. 750,000 of our fellow citizens will be out of work because of the inaction of this congress. i find that unacceptable. we ought to be preserving jobs.

we ought to be expanding jobs. we ought to be doing everything we can to get people back to work because that's the surest way to reduce our deficit. the more people working, the more revenues, the more we can pay down our deficit. we should be talking about trying to get our budgetary house in order without diminishing the quality of life and the standard of living for people in this country. so having said that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes at this time to the gentleman from puerto rico, my good friend, mr. pierluisi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, i strongly support the tanf program which provides payments to low-income families with children, i rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. yesterday, i filed a budget-neutral amendment to h.r. 890. however, the rules committee reported a closed rule thereby closing debate and my amendment. my amendment sought to

eliminate disparities that the territories face under tanf. under current law, the territories are not eligible for tanf supplemental grants, contingency funds and mandatory childcare funds. moreover, federal law imposes an annual cap on the overall funding that each of the territories can receive under a variety of public assistance programs, including tanf. i have introduced legislation to repeal this funding cap which has not been increased since 1996. and to make the territories eligible for tanf grants, they do not presently receive. the amendment i filed yesterday was rooted in this legislation but modified to comply with pay-go rules. those who seek evidence of how puerto rico's hurt by its territory status need look no further than the unequal treatment my constituents receive under tanf and other safety net programs. these programs are designed to help our nation's most vulnerable residents, none of

pay i must emphasize, income taxes. this would be unprincipled under any circumstances, but it's particularly unfair when one considers last november voters in puerto rico rejected the current status and expressed the desire for statehood, a status that would entitle them to equal treatment under the federal law. i hope my colleagues will work with me to eliminate the disparities that puerto rico faces under current law, especially in light of the fact that my constituents have rejected the political status that allows for such unequal treatment. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: just want to quickly

espond to my friend's point on sequester again. little bit like lucy and the football, we tried this twice, and the idea that we should now have to tee it up a third time before the president rouses himself to the senate strikes me as extreme. again, we tried to do it. we're now moving through another process. seems to be working. regular order seems to actually be working around here, and i'm hopeful we'll get to before the end of the month a resolution that will be considerably better than the c.r., that will frankly have folded a lot of the work of the appropriations committee into what is effectively the fiscal year 2013 budget. as my friend from puerto rico, it's my understanding -- i'm not a parliamentarian, that the amendment is not germane or was ruled out of order to the bill. again, i'm not -- don't pretend to be an expert on that.

i think he makes an excellent point. it is a matter of consideration at some appropriate time. i make the simple point once again, mr. speaker, we don't have a great deal of disagreement here. let's just make sure that the work requirement is there. there's considerable debate as to who asked for waivers, whether they were asked for, whether it was reformed. i've seen a lot of back and forth on this. i don't pretend to know. i think it's the clear intent of this chamber and always has been since the legislation was passed that the work requirements remain intact. so just reiterating that point i think makes it crystal clear to everyone, perhaps eliminates the confusion. again, i think the re-authorization of the underlying legislation is something that both parties want to accomplish and want to provide certainty for people that are in very difficult circumstances, that they're not going to, you know, risk -- be at risk financially if for some reason, which i don't anticipate, we'd actually don't

get our work done by march 27 and avoid some sort of catastrophic government shutdown. again, something i know the president wants to do, something my friends on the other side of the aisle wants to do and something our colleagues in the united states senate wants to do. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: to address a couple of points to my colleague from oklahoma, whom i have a great deal of respect for. if we had an open rule, in pierluisi could have a chance to offer his -- mr. pure luisy could have a chance to offer his amendment. also, the rules committee could have waived the germaneness rule to allow mr. pure luisy to have his amendment made -- pierluisi to have his amendment made in order. they instead reported a closed rule here so nobody could offer anything. it's completely closed, a closed process. secondly, with regard to

sequestration again, i point out that the president of the united states did offer a grand bargain. my republican friends said no to that. he put a lot of things on the table trying to come up with a grand bargain to deal with our deficit but also not undercut our economy. it was a balance of cuts in revenues, but my republican friends said no to that. and i would repeat again in this congress, the house republicans have done nothing, have proposed zero to be able to avoid the sequester. there's been no alternatives brought before the rules committee, nothing brought to the floor. mr. van hollen has on four different occasions tried to avoid sequester with a very balanced approach, and it would save 750,000 jobs. that's the -- if anything is urgent in this chamber, it should be to preserve and protect the 750,000 jobs that

will be lost because of the sequester cuts. i would finally say that the united states senate, you know, far from a perfect branch of government, in my opinion, but nonetheless the senate majority leader had an alternative to sequester that got 51 votes. that's a majority but unfortunately in the senate rules, republican insists they needed 60 votes, it didn't make it. but 51 senators voted for an alternative. there are alternatives out there. and the notion we can sit back and lay back and maybe something will emerge miraculously to deal with this issue i don't think is the proper role of the house of representatives. we ought to be debating and deliberating and trying to protect those 750,000 jobs. we talk about welfare-to-work here. again, the irony is that we are -- we're trying to prevent the administration from being able to work with states to get better works, to get more people off of welfare to work.

but when you talk about getting people to work, we ought to be talking about preserving the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of our inaction on sequester. mr. speaker, at this point i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member of the ways and means subcommittee on human resources, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. doggett: as we continue very important efforts to strengthen the middle class in america, i think it's important to recognize that there are millions of americans who had' like to be part of it, -- who'd like to be part of it, who are struggling at the bottom wrungs of the economic ladder hoping to work their way in the middle class and i think that's where our focus should be, because in recent decades we've seen growing economic inequality in our country where a few have so much and many have so very little. one of the goals of the temporary assistance to needy

families, or tanif initiative, back in 1996, was to help those who wanted to climb the initial ladder. in hopes of accomplishing that, valuing personally the importance of work, i voted for the welfare reform. and if you evaluate it based on how many poor people it's denied assistance to, it's great success. if on the other hand you evaluate it based on how many poor people it has helped to secure good, livable wages and long-term jobs, its success at best is very spotty. today's debate ought to be about how do we strengthen the effectiveness of tanif and related programs to assist more people in workinging their way into the middle class? -- working their way into the middle class? but instead of focusing on lifting people up like the previous temporary extension of tanif, this republican effort is really about putting them down.

it's about suggesting that the stereotype of the welfare cadillac, of the aimless and shiftless who don't want to work is real. instead of vision about an effective, long-term re-authorization of welfare to work, this bill represents the third time that republicans have assisted on just a temporary short-term extension of the same old programs. the last time that we did this, republicans included a firm prohibition and strong rhetoric about denying anyone using their electronic benefits at strip clubs orca sinows. who could object to that? but it's hardly central to how we advance these individuals who want to work. this time it's leftover presidential campaign employ arthing that the administration wanted to encourage -- arguing that the administration wanted to encourage more welfare and

idleness by weakening work requirements. neather this bill nor its predecessors were truly about helping people to secure a job. they're about reinforcing a prejudice that many poor people are takers, not makers. that they're just eager to take somebody else's tax money and loaf. well, i believe that today's attempt to restrict state authority, to strengthen welfare to work initiatives also totally contradicts what is happening at this very moment with a blockheaded republican budget that would block grant unbridled authority almost to the states to weaken health care. the cause of the -- because of the way that the tanif program is currently structured, really whether this rule and this bill are approved is largely irrelevant to 99% of the workingen -- working-age poor people in america today who are not currently participating in any of the tanif work activities. i think we should do better by

these folks. they want to become -- many of them want to become part of the middle class, they find themselves in no job or a dead end job. instead of focusing on denying assistance to as many people as possible, we ought to be engaging in constructive, bipartisan discussion about what are the best ways to make the program effective, to lift people up? instead of focusing on waivers, we should not simply be waiving good-bye to the many people in america who are economically disadvantaged and want a better opportunity, want some hope to get out of poverty. let's find -- let's try to do more to assist those people in more productive, long-term programs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i inquire of the

gentleman from oklahoma whether he has any additional speakers? mr. cole: i'm prepared to close whenever my friend is. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman. thank you, mr. speaker, again, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule. and i would -- again, i regret very much that it's something that really should be truly bipartisan and totally bipartisan and totally noncontroversial. it has now become politicized so that there's division. again, i wish that we had followed the same path we did with the violence against women act, when a more controversial and divisive attempt on that bill was put aside for something that was more of a consensus and had broad, bipartisan support. we think we can do the same thing here. and i wish we would. there is no need for this bill to become politicized and my guess is that, you know, when it comes back to the house, you know, the controversial provisions that we are

complaining about right now will probably be gone. but, mr. speaker, we just had a long discussion about work requirements. and -- but ironically the bill that we're going to deal with tomorrow cuts this program called the snap employment and training funding. this is a program that helps low-income individuals get training for proper employment. training for jobs that can help those individuals lift themselves out of poverty and off of public assistance. and it is my understanding that my friends are going to bring a bill that guts that particular program. i find that puzzling. because the whole point that have program is to give people the training they need so they are qualified for some of the jobs that are open out there. and yet we're going to eliminate that. my friends have routinely gone after the snap or food stamp program. again, helping low income families get by during difficult times while they find employment and sadly there are a lot of people who are working who earn

so little that they still qualify for snap. we ought to have a greater discussion on poverty and how to deal with some of these big issues like hunger and food insecurity and i hope at some point we can have that discussion. but today what i wish we were doing in addition to passing a noncontroversial tanif bill was, i wish we were on the floor debating an alternative to the sequester. 750,000 jobs are about to be lost. 750,000 jobs. you know, if we are truly interested in work, we ought to protect those jobs. mr. van honl of maryland had an alternative -- mr. van hollen had an alternative that four times he's brought to the community, four times the leadership here has said, you can't bring it to the floor, you can't debate it, you can't deliberate it. my friends on -- on the other side have offered zero. they're totally content to let the sequester go into play, 750,000 jobs at stake. i think that's what we should be doing here, mr. speaker.

and as i yield back the balance of my time i would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suspend politics for just a little while so we get a few major things done. we do the politics next year when it's campaign time, but now it's the time to achieve results. we can come together on a lot of these issues. i hope that that happens. but if this is any indication of how we're going to proceed, it makes me less hopeful. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to take a moment and respond to some of my friend's concerns and points. first, simply on sequester, with all due respect, i'm glad there's an interest now. there wasn't an interest last may when this house passed legislation, the senate never picked it up, the president never offered a counter. there wasn't an interest last december. there seems to only be an interest here in the final

waning days. now, we actually think we're proceeding in the continuing resolution, perhaps in the upcoming budget debates and perhaps later on, in ways where we can come back and work in a bipartisan fashion. but our efforts to do that were tries rebuffed and now we're beaten up, we're not doing it a third time. i think two chances is about as many as you get and again we'll try to find another way to work with our friends on this thing. as for the job loss, i couldn't agree with more with my friend. this is a tremendously bad thing for the economy. this is not the right way to do things. we would have preferred them differently. you can always arrive at some interesting figures on job loss. you know, according to the c.b.o., the affordable care act will cost 800,000 jobs. i doubt my friends would work with us to repeal that and save those 800,000 jobs. they've got other objectives there. our on thive in the entire

sequester -- our objective on the entire sequester effort is to begin to lower the long-term debt for this country. a debt that is going to undermine the economy and destroy many, many, many tens of thousands of jobs in the coming years. numbers we deal with it -- unless we deal with it. we're making that effort today, the ryan budget committee will be on the floor next week. i know my friends will have an alternative to that. i welcome that. i'm glad they're doing that. they did not do that when they were in the majority. the senate finally for the first time in four years looks like it's going to put out a budget. it's not a budget that i would like, but they're going to put one out. i think that's a very good thing. so, again, i see, you know, some little gleams and glistens of progress around here and do want to thank my friend because we have worked together the last 70 or 80 days on some significant things. i worked with my friend on the fiscal cliff, worked with my friend on hurricane sandy relief, worked with my friend on violence against women. i very much appreciate his kind words about that. so i actually see opportunities in front of us as well as obvious differences and debates

that we're surely going to have. mr. speaker, in closing i believe that the underlying bill provides additional certainty for those currently on the tanif program and ensures that their benefits will not lapse at the end of the month. something i know my friends are concerned about, just as we are and want to ensure that that doesn't happen. in addition, it maintains the bipartisan work requirements that this administration professes to support but has clearly created some doubt about. so, let's give them the opportunity through this legislation just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding, that both parties and the administration want to maintain the work requirements. in closing, i would argue -- or excuse me, i would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mr. cole: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. 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 and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> the president's budget has trailed congressional budgets. >> was there any reaction from house republicans on the fact the budget was built upon things related to the affordable care act? upon ways of changing medicare, medicaid, things like that? medicaid, things like that? >>