so as a good parent who never forced her into this business, i'm very happy that she will go the direction that she wants to go in and because she works with david mcmahon who i said was this really artistic force behind the structure of this film and so much of the way it looks and feels, she is in good host: what is your next project? lot.: we have a we have just finished a film, a seven-part, 14-hour series that will be broadcast in the fall on eleanor roosevelt believe it or not, is it -- it put together an intimate history of the social and military stores records show, but about the scholarship within their inner lives and their relationships there are

the family that has influenced other families more than any other in american history and during a film about dyslexic kids and boys that are * -- to memorize and recite the gettysburg address. we have a jackie robinson film that we are working on. we have just about opened the editing room from the massive series on the history of vietnam. and our civil war series of 1990. ad we are just beginning series on the history of country music called "i can't stop loving you." we will be able to get there. park 5 will air on pbs on tuesday. person writes in and says that nyc need an independent

since and panel that can look into any police incidents the results in death. and another person writes that no one seems to care about the victims' rights to see the actual perpetrator prosecutor and convicted. not a standing in. >> -- guest: 20 did come forward, it is so ironic that the person able to admit was this sociopathic rapist. and when he did admit, he give up details about the crime that the cops did not think that anyone else knew and his dna matched and suddenly, the prosecution joined with the thee in asking to vacate previous conviction. we as filmmakers were conscious of it every day, mindful of the original victims, and then the subsequent victims commodified and their family. , go ahead,ngton d.c.

heather. caller: i saw the film on pay- per-view and i'm so happy that it will be aired on pbs. it is a very important film. i wanted to ask about the prosecutors in this case. i had noticed after seeing the film, i looked them up and some of them were very young and i notice that some of them have made some excellent careers off of this case. which i thought was very problematic. i'm wondering how you related with and. can you comment on that piece of its, the people that will be cashing in on this? guest: there were two principal prosecutors, elizabeth lederer and linda thirsting, you were head of the sex crimes division in new york city at the time. and elizabeth lederer, who was the lead prosecutor on this finalwho conducted the

statements made by four of the five boys at the time is so with the department. t6ien retired eventually and it is a celebrated crime novelist. she also overseen a murder case that took place at the same time. and with that under her belt, feldt save to pursue a new career. there's so reason much entrenched in in this city is there's this unwillingness of theirfolks to admit mistake in any way and turnage their good fortune of her know about people cashing in. you retire and do something else. that is all right. what i do not like is that clearly, linda was writing fiction well before she retired from the prosecutor's office. and she does that today and continues to do that today.

we tried every six months. we would call them and the police officers involved, begging them to give them -- give us an interview for this and they would not. a kind ofas holographic forced to it, and you can see as these young man -- this kind of polley graphic force to it and you can see as these young man talked that they did not do it. the firsta lever won two cases, she looks miserable. i actually believe, and this is just one human beings response looking at the image of another that she knew. she did not have any dna evidence. she knew that those police had interrogated them for up to 30 hours. she knew that seasoned detectives tactics used against these kids, it was a sort of firing squad.

they were all told, if you implicate the others, we will let you go home. and they all indicated the other is an advocate themselves. home.e others did not go one kid was just asked if he wanted to come down with his friend. he was not on any one's list for roundup and he came back 13 years later. these are huge mistakes that they are still hiding behind. this is what we would ask them, to come forward, to submit answers to the questions we would have for them. i'm afraid i cannot answer them, and i'm afraid that is why they have been silent, and i'm afraid that's where the city continues to protect them. and your film looks at the people in the central park jogger case, where they are now, and you mentioned the detective to add to the upper

becoming -- ended up becoming a fiction writer as well as another, mike sheehan, who became a reporter for fox5. guest: the law department for the city of new york pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for cases similar to these and other things. what you found is there were also individuals named in it, and they are defending all of them. to a person, they're all insisting, oh, no, we got the right guys. by your own department reinvest it in and joined with the defense to ask for vacating of the convictions, which a judge granted instantly. how can you hold on? and they bounce back and forth to other narratives. well, it is that argument that they must have done something. down to, we think that they finished off what mattheus rhey is started, or they started and mattheus areas finish.

they caught richard and santana in part that evening. try to takentually them to the crime scene, which is really unusual, in an attempt to sort of leave something at the crime scene, which they could then say. and this is just not the way we handle it. it sounds like soviet stuff. this is the stuff of literature. this is the stuff of why immigrants came to this country, to escape this kind of thing. we do not do this year. there's a great deal of sociology going on right now about a new jim crow, the incarceration of black america. and the idea is that if you just arrest enough of them, they will not be the trouble they once were, or may be. and that is not americans, is hard to say. host: tulsa, okla., david, a democrat. caller: howard you doing?

guest: good, good morning. caller: you do some really good documentaries. guest: thank you. caller: i'm calling from tulsa, okla., where in 1921, you've probably heard of it guest: i know it. caller: where the black wall street were murdered. there feels today a separation between blacks and whites because of that. you're talking about the court , and there is -- there are two different senses of justice in the court system. michele, who used to be a former -- a really excellent prosecutor that turned and wrote , book about the new jim-crow

and all of the injustice against blacks, and also latino. it is a really bad thing in america. covert that it is .vert like it was years ago guest: but it is still caller: there exactly, guest: can -- but it is still there. can, and there, was another documentary years ago called "slavery by another name." guest: guest: that is correct. caller: and it was just i opening. here in tulsa, i would be -- if you really want to do and i

opening documentary, called -- google greenwood, the black wall street. callednd there is a film "before they die." it is one of the events of the local sorority in dade county to commemorate the film that is about the 1921 toll so race rights, including the destruction of greenwood, the city's black businesses and financial community called the black wall street. isst: while it overwhelmingly the victim -- the people of color that are the victims of this second class justice system, it also happens to white people. it is very important to understand that class is a part of it and it is the way we kind of managed things. when the civil war came out 23 years ago, i was speaking to a

group of people in wilmington, delaware. and a young girl, 12, 13 years old said, what is racism? i had to think for a second and make an answer that is for her. it is the horrible flip side of an understandable human emotion, which is love of one's own. when that metastasizes, we institutionalize, we develop, we protect a kind of generic and suspicion of the other. and when we do that, we violate the tenants are religions, our faith, we violate the tenets of what our neighborhoods and society should be about and we violate the letter and spirit of the law of the united states. and what we seek always is to figure out a way in which we do not look at the other end first describe them as read state or blue state, young or old, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, whenever the distinction -- the distinctions that we superimpose.

with the preoccupied distinction is that we forget that we almost all share things in common. as you listen to the central part 5, as that events unfold, they are unfolding not just about their false arrests and convictions and restrictions, but they are reviewing to was the way neighbors and friends do. and suddenly, if we can put aside the petty things and perhaps return, as so much of our fate suggests, a return to openness, we might be able to those issues that the caller brings up. there's also a sense of, what do we do about this? african-americans and hispanics are not the only victims, but the prevailing number of victims are there. what can we do to change our justice system? i suggest that this film holds up an uncomfortable mirror to us all, but it is one that we have

to look at. film, stephen wilder says, you know, we are not very good people, and then he lets us off the hook and says, we are often not. we all tend to look at ourselves as good people, but that means that even when we sympathize with a story like this, we then turn our back and go back to our lives. maybe there is something -- there is somewhere in all these things a call to action. someone writing and saying the media pushes the biggest trauma they can find. the fear sells papers and gets viewers. guest: if it bleeds, it leads. i think this is a story that was so low rate and so impossible that everybody swallowed it whole, when in fact it was the work of the sociopathic regas that had struck two days before. -- a sociopathic rapist that had

struck two days before. he was permitted to rape and even murder a pregnant woman. it is one of the travesties that this guy got away for so long. it was because the story was so compelling. we must be careful how we tell our stories. --a storyteller, various there is a tendency toward hyperbolic of the most. everything is the most, the greatest. it felt important to sarah and dave and me that we not have our traditional third person narrator, so we could pull out any attempt to sort of overdo this and the black -- and just passable title cards with very withdverted -- adjectives brutal and simple facts about the rape and the recovery. we realize we are part and parcel of the same media. this is a good story, but we

have to look at it with sober eyes. host: the central part five airs on tuesday on pbs. let's get one more call. john from ohio. caller: good morning. wonderful work on all of your projects. is that, whatcern does this film accomplish other being inflammatory? inflammatory is the wrong word, but making matters worse. i was 14 when i was walking to mcdonald's and my whole town -- my friend and i looked across the street and there were these 20-year old black man and we had to get across the street to get to mcdonald's.

there was this wonderful depiction of what you described earlier, you know, to have no preconceived anything. we should all live in this wonderful place. we crossed the street. we had a hunch that it might not be a good idea. i got my notes given by the one guy. my friend got pistol with -- pistol whipped by the other guy. host: i'm sorry that happened to you, but we are short on time. tickets to the present. has that affected your your way of seeing caller: other people you know, it does. -- seeing other people? caller: you know, it does. i have to meet them. i have to know them. understand them.

i cannot go into this thing with rose colored glasses. host: and that left a lasting impression on your life and you're ticked away on that is race. i caller: in the pit of your stomach when you see this person coming at you, you can run, but you cannot hide. understand them. get a thought from ken burns. we have heard callers of both black and white talked-about their notions of year. guest: the problem is, when a white person commits a crime on a white person, you don't say this white person did this to me. not fanning the flames. i think what you will see is that it actually colmes things down and actually suggests the possibility of humanity and that is ultimately what you want to have happened. we are of course -- we are, of course, so sad for your experiences, but also remember that assaults are committed by white people. and we do not necessarily say, oh, a white person did that.

when it is the other, we then make generalizations about all of the other. and your credit, you have friends of all races, and they have to earn that friendship. everybody, true for white, black, brown, yellow, red. it is true across the board. human nature is the same. there is no one race dedicated to crime. one thinks of the last century in which the mass murder that was taking place was committed by -- the three worst mass murderers was one -- were two white guys and one yellow gai. are going to make assumptions about these men that categorically speak to that? no, we do not. pigmentation represent a fraction of 1% of what makes us different. and the rest is the same. we have to struggle, once again, and perhaps because it is april,

the anniversary of his assassination, we could leave it thatdr. king, who says things are only possible when we judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. clearly, it had nothing to do with the color of their skin, but just the content of the character of the man who insulted you. for thaty sorry circumstance, but let's not categorically suggest that that kind of a tree or -- hatred or larceny or felony is an archer -- is in the hearts of all african-americans. because you'll be surprised about the history of this country and the conjuration of african-americans. that is what we tried to do. there's too much service and not enough to numb. about my films have been how there can be unum.

essentialveal the humanity, the same as, in a way, of these same five men to you and me. that is what we need to remember every day so that we do not look across the street and just see black guys that we need to be fearful of. burns, his new film is called the central park 5. it will be on pbs tuesday night at 9:00. check your local listings. thank you for being with us this morning. coming up next, we will look at president obama's 2014 budget and hear what it means for social security. steve bell is our guest. we'll be right back.

>> she is the first to be called first lady on a regular basis and she is so popular that she sets trends and children and ships are named after her. we will take your questions and comments monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 as well as on c-span radio and at c- span.org. >> saturday, but tv is live from the annapolis film festival with panels throughout the day. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, md. in 1912, war, slavery, and opportunity. at 11:00, the changing landscapes of suburbs and cities, and at noon, america's ongoing involvement in afghanistan. at 1:00 p.m., the ever evolving

roles of women in society. and at 2:00 p.m., politics in america. the annapolis book festival part of this weekend on c-span2. economicve bell is director of the bipartisan policy center. thank you for being here. president obama unveiled his 2014 budget this week. when we look at social security and medicare, is the obama budget this year very different than his past budgets? guest: not a health care programs like medicare and medicaid, but i think he deserves a great deal of credit for attempting to take on what is called the third rail of politics, and mainly social security. there's something called the consumer price index. and a more remote accurate measurement is that it is called the change c.p.i..

what that means is is 2.2% increase in your social security check -- instead of a 2.2% increase in years -- a security check, you might only get a 1.9% increase. credit if foreat nothing else, then that single act of touching the third rail. host: if you would like to talk to steve bell, here are the numbers. if you're a social security or medicare recipient, you can give us a call on your own mind. "wall streetin the journal" --

before we dig into more details of that, let's just stay on the jean c.p.i. for just a moment. how does this affect people's lives? has not been tried in literally a quarter of a century. here's the way it usually works. if inflation measured by the normal c.p.i. 3%, then retirees, federal retirees, social security recipients and some others get an increase of 3% for that year in their monthly checks. if you measure it more accurately, and that is what we're trying to do here, they might only get 2.7%. it is still an increase, but it is not of -- not as large an increase as they otherwise might have gotten. same. tax side, does the you'll probably pay if your a middle-class family, $10 per month more in taxes. this is a very small proposal compared to the size of the debt crisis we face, by the way.

this whole thing is $340 billion over 10 years. and at the end of 10 years, we will have about $26 trillion in federal debt. it is symbolic, but intrigue -- but extremely important symbolically. host: lets the comments that president obama made in the rose garden on wednesday when he introduced his 2014 budget. [video clip] >> both parties agree that the rising cost of caring for aging generation is the single greatest driver are rising deficits. and the truth is, for those like me who deeply believe in our social insurance programs and think it is at the core of what our government needs to do, if we want to keep medicare working as well as the house, if we want to preserve the ironclad guarantee that medicare presents, then we will have to make some changes. but they do not have to be drastic. drasticead of making

changes later, what we should be doing is making the manageable ones now. what are proposing will strengthen medicare for future generations without undermining that ironclad guarantee that medicare represents. we will reduce our government's medicare bills by finding new ways to reduce the cost of health care. not by shifting the cost to seniors or support for families with disabilities. there are reforms that keep the promise we made to our seniors, basic security that is rock solid and dependable and therefore you when you need it. that is what my budget represents. host: president obama speake on wednesday. steve bell? guest: he is doing something that very few politicians are willing to do in either party. he is willing to admit we cannot keep social security's promises, nor can we keep medicare's the programs keep precisely as they are now. it is very difficult for a

program that has been around since 1964 in the case of medicare for politicians to have i say, of both parties, oops, made a promise you that i cannot keep it. the president has made a recommendation that will add about 40 years to what i call solvency. that is not quite the brightwork, but it means you will get your payment on time and in full and be taking care of. the promise that the president mentioned. but for people who say there cannot be any changes to medicare, you have to understand this, if medicare continues as it is, in four years it will not be able to do what you want it to do. this is a very classic case of budgeting in the political world. do you want to forego future investment and interest -- in education and infrastructure and things like that? in order to our present consumption. sadly, elderly vote in much

higher concentrations than people who are between 21-30. right now, we spend about $7 of the federal budget on the elderly for everyone dollars spent on those 18 and under. those every $1 spent on 18 and under. we have to contend -- to consider whether we want to invest for the future, which is where the so-called cuts in the sequestration has come from, or whether we want to continue down a path that we cannot sustain an keep pretending. the president deserves credit for what he said when he said, both parties recognize that the primary driver of our deficit and long-term debt problems in our health programs. host: let's go to the funds and help -- hear from steve in oswego, ill.. a republican. caller: good morning. first, what year is social

security estimated to run out to? can i ask that? guest: right now, to run out, meaning they cannot pay what they owe you on time and in full is about 15 years, 17 years from now. it is in about 2030, 20 -- is in about 2030, 2031. caller: are their proposals that both sides agree upon, such as a means testing or raising the age? instead of this changed c.p.i. because thatg, seems to be an issue for a lot of people from what i've read. guest: your right, it is an issue with many people. in 1983, it seems like a long time ago, but we really did significant changes to social security. it was the so-called greenspan commission. we changed the age, phased in a

higher age for retirement. we put in of -- other changes that gave another 30 years of solvency. we did it because it was about a year away from not being able to pay its bills on time and in full i hate to say this, we may get a panic like that again. from 62the minimum age up to 64 or five, those are equally cons -- controversy occur but there have been structural changes suggested. changingpresident is is a technical change. it is very efficient. ast: we see in the usa today, federal budget proposals and how democrats and republicans are approaching things like social security. as we look at a past budget proposed by paul ryan, it would structure medicare and have premiums for those under 55.

to buyy would be able insurance on a private market. steve bell, what is this waste and abuse that the white house is talking about? guest: when i was chief of staff of the senate budget committee in 1981, the numbers did not add up. we were trying to pass the reagan budget. we had a function, and this is highly technical, but a function where we put things that we really do not know what we're talking about. we put $44 billion of savings in their and recalled its waste, fraud, and abuse.

it was known in the history books as the magic asterisk. waste, fraud of and abuse in medicare and medicaid. everybody knows that. they have tried hard to get rid of it. but it is extremely difficult. there are more doctors, clinics, number -- mourners practitioners ad hoc -- more nurse practitioners and hospitals than there are people to watch them. it is extremely difficult. think the president, just like we were 30 years ago, overly optimistic about what we can cut out in the short term. mark from newler, jersey. caller: the thing i have noticed is my insurance supplement for medicare has gone up over the

years. the cost of living has not kept up with that. and in the past, the cost of living has not kept up with -- the cost of living increase has not kept up with what we really need today. socialheard that security, every program that you tune into, it is good for 30 years. i also after use the va. i cannot even get an appointment, so i have to use medicare. i am basically covered, but i have to pay a lot more to my supplement insurer just to keep pace with this. i heard you guys say before talking about increasing -- the cpi index or changing things. are already behind our they are going to cut us back more.

i am on fixed income, like thousands of people are, with the va, and on fixed-income with my social security. now you are changing these around and i keep falling behind even further. guest: that is a very good point. the average living income -- we have 2 million disabled veterans that are on health care for life. there have been some changes recently to that. my stepfather recently called me up complaining. he is disabled after 31 years in the market -- in the army. he said, how come this went up $80? and the hr gave him was, i don't know, because that was the truth. but it was part of the change that i had no idea had occurred. fore is no doubt that people who use the va, i think

we all know this, the va is terribly behind. doesu go to medicare, it cost you more. and for person who is using these as the only retirement you'reu have, let's say, a military target, let's say, iraq tried care for life, and you have access to their pensions -- you have tried care for life, your access to other pensions. in most places, you're just getting by. plan at all rise house, he would face in in an anyone 55 and older would not -- that paul ryan had, he would phase it in and anyone over 55 would not be affected. with some of the suggestions of others have made, there would make cuts immediately. that has always been a point of contention in budget circles, whether that gives you enough

time for people, like this gentleman from new jersey, to adjust. i think that is a legitimate question. int: sheila is massachusetts, democratic caller. caller: i have a couple of questions. the first, i would like to ask -- a lot of different government agencies take money out of the social security fund. i would like to know what agencies they are and why are they not made to pay that money back? we all have to make do and pay our bills, so they should put the money back in so that we can be more solvent. and the thing about the medicare, i just went through -- i turned 65 and i got

maths -- mass health. i got kicked off briefly and in order to get it back, i had to give some of my social security check. rent.d not pay my it took me three months to straighten that out. i just got back to being able to cover my very basic needs. i would like those two issues addressed. guest: as far as social security, it is called an intergovernmental transfer. you are required to make social security hole. and there is a trust fund -- social security whole. and there's a trust fund that i will call a surplus. it will be paid out to beneficiaries in the next 25, 30 years. they do pay the money back. the second question speaks to a demographic problem. it is this.

the fastest-growing cohort of people in this country are over the age of 65. when we started social security, the average age male in this country died about 67, 68. he was on social security for about two or three years. now we have three people working for every one retiree compared to 16 people working for every retiree then. number is increasing. this is a demographic problem. is the problem that you would like to have, which is people living longer and healthier lives, but it does put a tremendous strain on people who right now are in debt -- in their 60 qazi, 70's, or 80's. their trip -- struggling to make ends meet.

-- they are struggling to make ends meet. what that means is the bureaucracy has to respond. it will probably get worse, i hate to say, unless we actually put more resources where they belong, and that is in the administration of these programs. you cannot have a demographic change we're going through right now without strains on all of your retirement programs, health programs, and on the government that supervises them. host: usa today shows us the plans for social security under the various budgets. the house-passed budget and the senate-passed budget, no specific recommendations and comes to social security. and then we see the president's budget. it calls for using the new measure of inflation to change c.p.i. to calculate cost-of- living adjustments for beneficiaries with exceptions for the most vulnerable.

, no's a tweet that says cuts to medicare or social security at all. says, obama deserves great credit for taking on entitlements, but republicans were headed for even bringing it out. headed for even bringing it up. guest: of course. this is a china syndrome. it is going to take a democrat, whether bill clinton or barack obama, to take the lead on entitlements for that very reason. for example, if paul ryan has adjusted in his budget that we touched -- had suggested in his budget that we touch social security the with the president has, he would have been pilloried.

sure if either party in has the ability in either chamber to change c.p.i.. response from the putte -- the republican house said this is terrible. the speaker said, i kind of disagree. this is an important step forward, remembering that he had negotiated on the cpi with the president lake -- less than 18 months ago. this is a bit of a bombshell, which has not only divided parties, but has actually fracture the republican coalition. host: our next caller is from kent, washington, joshua, go ahead. caller: i am in my younger 30's

and one thing i'm realizing is that a lot of stuff is being taken away for the younger generation's future. but things do change in life as far as budgeting and what we go .hrough there are more wars providing more money through -- towards things that we take care of as a country. one thing i have noticed is that we spend a lot of money as far as america to help other countries. but other countries provide scenes -- i could be wrong -- do not provide back to america what we provide to them. where is it all -- where does it all come around? how does it benefit the next generation? it seems like we're being left out. guest: well, there is no doubt that young degenerations in the federal budget of the last 10 or

15 years -- younger generations in the federal budget of the last 10 or 15 years have been left out, to use that phrase. and i do not think any country comes as close to what america act gives, both to multinational direct aid.s and to and certainly, nobody provides the military kind of forces that we do at our own expense. there is no doubt about that. a big battle is going on, frankly. can we afford to cut defense spending? it is our biggest source of foreign aid, if you want to look at it that way. even the president is proposing $100 billion in defense cuts in the next 10 years. and you have both bob gates and leon panetta and now chuck hagel saying, we cannot provide the security for america that we need if you do that to us.

it really is a difficult problem. because you cannot forecast what is going to happen. when is the next 9/11? what is the next somalia? this difficulty, this uncertainty in a very dangerous world is bothering the pentagon. they have the same problem, however, that the budget of the united states house. they are spending more and more whoeople who are retired, -- or who are on health care for life. they are being eaten up the same way the federal budget is by defense entitlements. and at some point, the joke is, although it is not much of a joke, we will have the best trained single officer in the history of the modern world with the most sophisticated weapon, but we will only have one of him because everything else will be paid out to people live served before. of an alle cost

volunteer army. i'm not saying that we should not have one, but you have to assume that you will have to increase benefits and pay if you're going to have people willing to put their lives on the line. his book is called open book breakdown of the obama budget, where that money is raised -- this headline is breaking down the obama budget. it shows where it goes. guest: there's another thing that ought to be noted here. afghanistanut of and as we reduce for at least some time frame our commitments in the middle east, everyone

thinks there will be this so- called peace dividend. i went through vietnam and i saw the peace dividend. evaporated. the notion that because we're going to get out of some hot spots in the world will lead to some nirvana of new money for social programs is just that, it is a fantasy. spentoney is going to be and properly committee -- committed. yes, we spend a lot of money on defense, but historically, i will tell you that with interest rates, we will spend more on interest rates than we do defense. host: let's hear from kathy in virginia. i would like to ask your speaker a question. in the area where we live, there are numerous hospitals and doctors' offices that are refusing to accept medicare cards. can you explain why they're able

to do so? and while if we do not have a supplemental we have to pay the full amount? guest: yes, ma'am, i can. this is a grave danger going forward. many doctors, because of what they believe to be the underpayment by medicare for services rendered, simply are refusing to take new medicare patients. very serious problem, because most of the recommendations by the president will reduce payments to providers, whether individual providers, hospitals, or lautner -- long-term care facilities. thatrs have a choice at point you're nothing requires them to be in medicare. in many cases, they will do exactly what this lady said folks in her neighborhood are doing. and that is, they are not taking medicare patients. there is something called a concierge kind of doctor.

it is for very wealthy people. say,aid your doctor, let's in new york city $10,000. and he or she promises not to take more than say, at 300 patients. that $10,000, he or she will not accept you as a patient. this is leading to what i fear is a rural gabbe, jair that only the wealthy can get -- a world -- rural gap, care that only the wealthy can get. it is turning into a serious problem, in my view. it change in state -- someone writes in, it changed cpi is little more than what distribution, taking from social security those that contrary to give that -- give to those that did not. guest: i'm not sure i totally understand the question. people pay into social

security and they will only receive what they put into it. people getting now will probably get less under current law that they get -- that they gave into it. again, do we want to say that all the money that is going to be spent over and above where we are now will go to medicare -- medicare, medicaid, the social security and not better roads, better education and science and research? it is a nasty policy question. the recent congress has not is verycisively on it simple. there have the expertise on both sides. -- heavy equities on both sides. is mike on theer republican line. turn down your volume and give us your question. caller: i feel like the only thing we need to do is lift the

cap on social security and .edicare and it would be solved i pay everything i make. i'm self-employed and have been for 30 years. on everything i make and watch and everybody pay on everything they make? -- why shouldn't everybody pay on everything they make? just lift the cap. nott: this is my own view, a policy center or anybody else, but for about 25 years now i've wondered why we did not lift the cap on social security. right now, it is at somewhere around $110,000. if you make more than that, you do not pay social security fica tax on anything above that. if we took the cap off on everybody, no matter how much adjusted gross income that you pay, there is no doubt in my mind we would have another 75 years solvency for social security.

the cat is already off for medicare. -- that was already almost an emergency measure. we were in trouble with medicare. but if you make $25,000 per year or 25 million per year, take off the cap. so far, that has not gained much traction, although it seems to me such a logical thing to do. know,one person wants to if we bring down the cost of health care, would bring down the cost of medicare? guest: oh, sure. medicare cuts back. medicare makes changes in structural reforms, and that perhaps makes changes in the general health care policy of the country. the problem here is not just medicare structure. the problem is health care costs. as we get older, we are facing a very nasty thing.

if werothschild once said had something called compound interest, it is the eight wonder in the modern world. that is right if it is working for you. but it is working against us right now. not only do we have more elderly, but each of the medical procedures that they undergo cost more year over year without inflation. it is a double winnie, demographics plus health care -- a double whammy, demographics plus health care inflation. if we could move away from strictly service and into the things that many people on both sides have suggested, accountable care organizations, stuff like that, it probably would reduce the rate of health care inflation, which would help the medicare situation. bertha is our next caller

in georgia. welcome. myler: thank you for taking call. i only have a couple of question. about medicare and social security. review the ever people on disability? some people go on disability and they are able to go back to work and they continue to get that check. and their wives with a husband on disability, a wife able to work, but she gets a check. guest: you have put your finger on one of the most distressing things that has happened in the past 10 years, and that is, the explosion in disability insurance. right now, so many disability insurance claims, whether fraudulent or legitimate, take as long as 18 months to two

years to actually get processed. finding out who is legitimately on and should receive disability insurance has been extremely difficult. but you're right, if we could only give disability insurance to those who truly needed it, we probably would find that program much more solvent. it is not solve it now. and we would probably find fewer people on disability. but remember, we are getting older. it is natural that more disability insurance would be of applied for as we get older. as someone once said, getting older is not for sissies. twitter, stephen agrees with your earlier comment, he said, lift the cap and it will be the fix. and another wants to know if you would like to see social security and medicare privatized. and once more details about the bipartisan policy center.

and bracy wants to know about your funding. thethe non -- for bipartisan policy center. guest: we are raising money. we're continually street -- scraping. this is an appeal. anyone who wants to support the bipartisan policy center, we are a 5 01 c 3. there are foundations that give us money. and gene wants to know about the center and whether it is advocating for the privatization. guest: the center was founded by four former majority leaders of the u.s. senate, howard baker, bob dole, george mitchell, and tom daschle. it was formed with two republicans and two democrats specifically to be bipartisan. differences. despite the differences that we

have, there is common ground on which we can agree. no, we do not call for privatization of medicare. i actually do not know very many groups who are in favor of privatization. and i do not know how that would work. no, we are not for it. voted 19-0 onthat of away froman was mark morial on the left to keating on the right. and no privatization was ever contemplated. diana, a democrat. go ahead. caller: i'm thinking how much i would be able to squeeze into my9 sure it's not as much as i would like to say. i'm on social security and medicare. we did have an increase in our medicare payments and with the tiny bit of cost of living, we do not get that all the time. it looks like we're always getting, but we do very seldom.

we are not getting any interest. and we are taking out for these huge payments that are legislature let the insurance company rates on our homes. that we have to pay flood insurance, car payments go up. if we have any other savings that my husband and i had before he passed away two years ago, we are limited to any increase in taking money out. and now, we are not even getting 1% over that. we are hurting really badly. we have to pay for all the things that my husband used to do. i have to pay for all of this stuff. i do have grandchildren in their 30's. i have a daughter and son who are going to be going into medicare. i think of all of these perspectives. there's a lot to think about. they paid hospitals on any of these surgeries a tremendous amount of money, which has hurt

medicare for years now. when my husband was getting treatment, i could not believe some of the amounts of money that medicare was paying for this. host: diana is bringing a couple of different issues there. a perfectshe is example of the intergenerational tension. she said that her children are about ready to go on medicare and she has grandchildren. that thiso doubt tension is going to get worse. young people who have get to college -- who have debts to college, and grandfathers and grandmothers to what social security. outside of d.c. and hollywood and manhattan, the rest of the country is hurting. great,erest rates are but not many people are benefiting from them, frankly. it is a tough issue with equity

on both sides. host: someone tweets in and says these programs are meant for those who need them. social security should not be a retirement program for everybody. guest: that is not the way it was sold eight years ago, and we are where we are on that. -- 80 years ago, and we are where we are on that. host: steve bell with the bipartisan policy center. thank you so much. that is all for the "washington journal" today. we will see you tomorrow. we now go to the house floor. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 12, 2013. hereby appoint the honorable lynn a. westmoreland to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.

god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. under your divine providence, this nation was established and has been guided through the years. through turmoil, strife, disaster and even war, you have brought your people to renewed faith, greater strength and a deeper longing for peace. be with us now. guide and enable the members of this people's house today as they consider the ongoing business of the nation, with the issues of the economy, immigration, domestic safety and security or matters beyond our shores. bless their efforts as they seek to protect and defend our fellow citizens. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. men. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. mr. hultgren: 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. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question is postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. i pledge y:

allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it's that time of year again. you know what they say, the only things certain in life are death and more taxes. the day, april 15, brings fear and trendation into the hearts and souls of -- trepidation into the hearts and souls

across the fruited plain. the tax-o-crats made it in a language that people can't understand. today it's over 70,000 pages long. and get this, each year it takes americans six billion hours to prepare their income tax and american taxpayers spend $168 billion just to file their taxes every year. just this week, president obama unveiled his two-month-late budget that includes, of course, $1.2 trillion in new taxes. mr. speaker, almost half of americans pay no federal income tax at all. what we need are more taxpayers, not more taxes. we should eliminate the burdensome unfair income tax code and go to the fair tax, the national sales tax concept, or the flat tax, because everyone should pay their fair share to live in america and that's just the way it is.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to shine the light on the importance of reducing our carbon emissions and accomplishing that mission. today, we import about half the oil we consume and approximately 70% of that is used in transportation. consumers should have access to affordable transportation such as electric vehicles that use little or no gasoline. mr. mcnerney: our nation's businesses are becoming more energy efficient, improving energy sources and investing in cleaner transportation. for example, in my district, there's an e.v. company that's producing great vehicles and bringing hundreds of jobs to the region. moreover, there's a regional

transit district that's utilizing electric and hybrid vehicles. e.v.'s are one hart of the solution to reducing -- one part of the solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change. they advance diverse american emergency policy. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting clean electric vehicles on our roads and to make a commitment to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, it's with a heavy heart that i rise today to honor the memory of a young man from my district killed in an industrial accident at arkansas nuclear one power generating facility. wade walters was 24. he was a russellville, arkansas, resident and a graduate of potsville, high school. he loved his job as an

ironworker at precision surveillance corporation and embraced all the outdoors had to offer, including bow, fishing, roping and knife collecting. mr. womack: wade is survived by his father, keith walters, his mother, susan allen and husband rusty, sister chelsea, grandparents tom and bonnie underhill, and the love of his life. mr. speaker, wade gave a lot of himself. as a member of russellville christian center, he went on numerous trips to mexico to build housing for those in need. he had a big heart for his family and friends and was a constant source to inspiration to all he met. we pray for peace and understanding for his family during this difficult time. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor francis dutch howland who had resided in amsterdam, new york, and was inducted into the new york state basketball hall of fame last month. om 1953 to 1987 he amassed over 600 wins. but he meant so much more than that impressive win total to our community. and to the hundreds of student athletes he taught and mentored. mr. tonko: his friends and students remembered him as a determined winner. as a fierce competitor, he preached the never give up attitude. 24 years after his passing, i am so pleased that dutch has finally received this distinction. it is truly a testament to his character that his friends and players never gave up on their former coach's legacy, making this long overduhon possible.

with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hultgren: mr. speaker, the president submitted his budget this week. his plan not only failed to get control of our debt, it makes it even worse. to the tune of nearly $61,000 of debt for every american family. american families know the consequences of living with debt, credit card debt, mortgages and student loans are just a few of the burdens working families and young adults struggle with and budget to get out of every month. washington must do the same. our national debt eats away at the buying power of working families, seniors on fixed incomes and students working their way through schools, leading for higher prices like milk and groceries. we owe our families better. politicians have talked long enough in washington about

tackling our debt. it's time the president join us in putting our priority back on jobs and opportunity for american families by acting boldly, we can translate talk into meaningful results. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, i rise today to h.r. 1120. i was raised in a union family, and labor in fact is the backbone of the middle class of america. this legislation is just another example of republicans' assaults on workers' rights. h.r. 1120 effectively shuts down the national labor relations board, strips away its enforcement powers and leaves workers without any recourse to address employee

intimidation, unfair practices. throughout its history, 20 members have been recess appointed to the nlrb, including 12 republicans. in fact, every president since ronald reagan has appointed a member to the board through a recess appointment clause. why should president obama be treated any differently? the bill is neither fair nor is it just. i urge my colleagues to oppose this measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. just earlier this week i was able to join with my colleague, representative speier, from california, in introducing legislation to protect victims of military sexual assault, that's the military judicial reform act, in recognition of a victim whose -- who having had

martial a court finding it overturned by a general who convened that. now we're facing with a new opportunity in which new information is being put out outside the scope of that trial. mr. speaker, it is time that we end this archaic practice. we stop putting the victim on trial again and again. this week secretary hagel called on congress to remove the provisions of the uniformed code of military justice that allow this proceeding to take place, and i urge my colleagues now to act together to end this archaic practice. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois -- >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today because the number one concern i hear when i'm

home in southern illinois is from families wh are worried about jobs. they're worried about how to find a job and get back on their feet. in southern illinois we know all too well how bad trade deals in washington have given our working families a bum rap. we see the empty factories, high unemployment rates and lose faith in the future. i believe that helping to attract and create new jobs and protecting and saving the good ones we have. that's why i'm proud to introduce my new initiative, the jobs opportunities between our shores, our jobs act. the jobs act will address the challenge industry faces of growing jobs without workers who have necessary skills to fill them locally. southern illinois has the advanced manufacturers who are leading the way for future manufacturing and creating new good jobs. we have talented workers and we have the educational programs to get a great new job that can support their family. mr. enyart: my jobs act is the way of bringing communities, workers and employers together

to protect good jobs and invest in our future. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? in daines: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. daines: our friends in the senate will consider a number of proposals that will have a threat to our second amendment rights. the senate's recent decision to focus debate on restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the wrong approach. these proposals will do nothing but expand washington bureaucracy and further complicate the ability of law-abiding montanans to purchase firearms without doing little to address violent crimes. thousands of montanans have reached out to my office expressing their concern over these threats to their second amendment rights. as a fifth generation montanan, a life-long sportsman i, too, am deeply concerned about

expanding background checks to montana citizens which will criminalize the private transfer of firearms to law-abiding montanans. the second amendment is not about hunting, it's about freedom. so let me be clear, i'm strongly opposed to and will fight back against any efforts that infringe upon montanans' second amendment rights. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. -- the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i i >> i stand here to say i strongly oppose cuts to social security and the president's budget. every week my caseworkers in arizona report back to me about our constituents. mrs. kirkpatrick: and every week i hear about another senior who is struggling or another veteran who is struggling.

our rural towns are filled with hard workers, but work is hard to find. these are folks who may never have the protections of a pension, but they must have the protection of social security. the president's budget uses a formula called change c.p.i. it recalculates how the cost of living is calculated and it will not keep up with inflation. so let's call this formula what it really is. a shrinking social security check for the people who need it most. yes, we have to make cuts, and we need to do more with less. but seniors and veterans are already doing that. we can do better than sticking them with the tab. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 146, i call up h.r. 1120, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 18, h.r. 1120, a bill to prohibit the national labor relations board from taking any action that requires a quorum of the members of the board until such time as board constituting a quorum shall have been confirmed by the senate. the supreme court issues a decision on the constitutionality of the appointments to the board dated january, 2012, or the adjournment sine die of the first session of the 113th congress. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 146, in lieu of the amendment in the nature 6 a substitute -- of a subsequent tooth recommended by the committee on education and work force printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of

the text of committee print 113-6, is adopted in the bill as amended is considered as read. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, and -- mr. kline, and the gentleman from california, mr. george miller, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- the gentleman. mr. kline: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1120. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the preventing greater uncertainty in labor management relations act, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. america's workplaces are facing significant challenges, consumer demand remains weak, threats of new regulations and higher taxes continue, and a loomling debt crisis threatens the growth and

prosperity our nation is working so hard to obtain. washington should not be in the business of making these challenges worse, and that is why we are here today. many americans may not even know a federal labor board exists, let alone the role it plays in their everyday lives. despite its obscurity, the authority of the national labor relations board governs virtually every private business across the country. our nation needs a labor board that will appropriately and responsibly administer the law or else the rights of both workers and employers are diminished. unfortunately washington politics have let the board in a state of dysfunction. a year ago president obama made three recess appointments to the board while congress was not in recess. the president's action was unprecedented and a federal appeals court has ruled it was also unconstitutional. as a result the work of the board is tainted. every decision it issues is ripe

for appeal on the basis the board itself is not legitimate. in fact, employers and unions are now fighting the recent court ruling as the reason why board decisions should be overturned. a story in the "wall street journal" helps illustrate the real life consequence of the president's recess appointment scheme. five years ago a truck driver alleged that her union failed to follow the rules and assigned her work. the nlrb agreed and ordered the union to pay the driver back wages and benefits. so far the union's refused and the current chaos offers a new opportunity to toss out the board's decision. according to the union's alternative, quote, i'll explore every opportunity to make sure my client doesn't have to pay anything, close quote. this is the reality we now face. unions, employers, and workers are forced to spend more time and money defending themselves before the board and in federal court. our nation has relied upon the board for more than 75 years. never has it faced this level of

confusion and uncertainty. the current crisis began with the president's power grab and it's up to him to fix t just this week the president announced he was submitting three board nominees to the senate for its approval. this is certainly welcomed news and long overdue. however, it does nothing to mitigate the chaos surrounding the nlrb, roughly 600 more decisions are actually suspect and that number continues to grow. the legislation before us today simply tells the board to stop exacerbating the problem that is already wreaking havoc across the country. h.r. 1120 prevents the board from taking action that requires a quorum until one of three events occur. the supreme court rules on the constitutionality of the appointments. a board quorum is actually confirmed, or the terms of the so-called appointees retire. the bill does not, i repeat, does not stop the nrlb from

overseeing union elections or processing claims of wrongdoing. the narrow scope of the bill is directed to the board and only the board. the preventing greater uncertainty labor management relations act is an appropriate congressional response to an unprecedented situation. i expect we'll hear a lot of false accusations today from our friends on the other side of the aisle, but i doubt we'll hear any denial of the serious challenges facing the board. the question then is this, should we do nothing or should we advance responsible legislation that will help prevent further harm? i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent that i may claim the time in opposition allocated to mr. millerment the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. mr. speaker, this is a friday

across our country. and there are millions of americans who are going to work under circumstances that exist because of the union movement and collective bargaining in the history of this contry. -- country. if they work the 41st hour they'll get time and a half for working overtime. many find themselves protected by a good health benefits and good pension benefits that will guarantee their family a good situation while they are working and a safe and secure retirement. and the whole concept of the weekend that for many american workers will begin this afternoon, exists because of the hard fought gains of collective bargaining. we wouldn't have a strong america without a strong middle class. and we would not have a strong middle class without collective bargaining. this bill strikes at the heart of collective bargaining by paralyzing the agency that

enforces the ground rules of collective bargaining, the national labor relations board. this is really part two of a strategy by the republican majority in the house and the republican minority in the other body to paralyze the rights of americans to organize and bargain collectively. act one has occurred since president obama took office. he has made nominations to the national labor relations board, not one of those nominees has ever received a vote on the floosh of the other body. understand this -- floor of the other body. understand this, the minority of the other body have not voted against the nominees. they reewes to put them up for a vote. today their five nominations pending before the other body.

if the senate were to act on those nations, and reject them, the president would presumably make other nominees until he could find people that could clear the process. if the other body were to confirm those nominees, we would not be here having this discussion today because the board would be functioning. but a functioning board is clearly not the objective of the other side here. act two comes along, and this is act two, this bill says that the national labor relations board can do effectively nothing and do effectively nothing. my friend the chairman referenced the story of a woman who is seeking back pay because of alleged violations of her rights by her union. she's unable to proceed with the collection of that remedy

because the minority in the other body has refused to confirm or refused to even consider any nominees the national labor relations board, and should this legislation go through here today, we are guaranteeing that nothing will happen because the board cannot go to court to enforce one of its orders if the board cannot act. and under this proposed statute, the board could not act. we are here today because a recalcitrant minority in the other body has steadfastly refused to even take a vote on the president's nominees to the national labor relations board. this bill compounds that travesty. this bill creates chaos. it says the decisions of the board cannot be taken to court to be enforced, which means as a practical matter those decisions will never be enforced. it says 11 regional directors of

the national labor relations board now have their appointments in jeopardy since their appointments were made since january, 2012, when this bill says anything following that is invalid. employers and employees and unions go to the regional offices of the nlrb to resolve disputes, to prevent strikes, to achieve justice, but this bill paralyzes that effort. there are some who believe that an america in which the bosses make all the decisions and the rest of us stand absolute and say yes, sir, is how the country should function. we do not believe that. we believe in a country where workers can freely organize, speak for themselves, sit at the bargaining table, and stand up for their rights. the agency entrusted to enforce those rights, collective

bargaining is paralyzed by this bill, we should oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield to the next speaker i just note that the remarks made by my good friend and colleague, frankly i believe the reality of the crisis that currently exists, curble exists, no one, employer, worker, or union can rely on a board decision today. a court of appeals has ruled it's not constitutional and it is that same court to which an appeal made. now i'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1120, the preventing greater uncertainty and labor management relations act. first some history. the national labor relations act was passed in the mid 1930's,

and the national labor relations board, five members, three from the majority party and two the minority party are to act as a fair arbiter. basically the referee for disputes. and there was a ruling of the supreme court not long ago that said that two members, one democrat, one republican, both who agreed on over 600 decisions, that a quorum was not present and all of those decisions had to be thrown out. therein calls the question. the president made a pro forma recess appointment. presidents as has been stated here many times have made recess appointments to various boards and they have the constitutional right to do that, but no president has ever made a recess appointment during a pro forma session. let me read here from the senate across-the-board -- congressional record, november 16, 2007. this is leader reid, mr.

president, the senate will be coming into pro forma session during the thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments. the recent ruling of noel canning stated that the appointments were unconstitutional, and the unique part of the national labor relations board is that any other court, circuit, in the country that ruling can be appealed to the d.c. circuit. they have standing. the standing says that aggrieved party can do one of three things. one, they could ask for -- two things. they could ask for a vote of an entire court, or they can appeal it to the supreme court. this is a very simple bill. it does three -- several things. it asks the following things. one the supreme court rule. two that the president go ahead and make the appointment. three, that the board not issue any further rulings that may be overturned and create this uncertainty. and that once a board is

approved, that it goes back and reviews all of the various rulings that have been made to get rid of this uncertainty. . we need labor and management to move forward. i ask support for this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, president george w. bush used the same legal authority to make appointments to the national labor relations board that president obama used here. there was not a word of challenge from the other side ever in that process. i'm pleased to yield at this time to the leading champion of workers' rights in the house of representatives, the senior democrat -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. andrews: the senior democrat on the house education-labor committee, the

gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, more than 75 years ago, congress empowered the american worker through the national labor relations act to form or join unions and bargain for a better life. that law and the right to guarantee has served this country well. it has built the middle class. it has brought us the 40-hour workweek. the rights being given to american families, the economic security and the prospect that their children can build a better life, but they have been under attack by the -- by this house and this republican leadership. there are more unemployed workers in this country today than private sector union members. instead of working to create decent job the majority insist on attacking the rights of the employed. at a time when wages and businesses across the country are explaining that their number one problem is the lack of customer demand, we could be doing something useful today like raising the minimum wage. instead, we're debating a bill

that undermines the ability of workers to bargain for better wages and a decent pension or for a safe workplace. h.r. 1120 would stop the national labor relations board from enforcing labor law. while the bill is in effect, the agency would not be permitted to issue any new decisions, enforce existing decision or advance any rulemaking and that means it's open season on working people. the bill tells employers if you want to retaliate against a worker for trying to speak out or organize, you want to fire that worker, you want to fire her, go ahead. because there won't be any effective government response. by eliminating the authority of the government to enforce the law, this bill effectively takes away every labor right that congress gave workers to help them better their own lives. it's that simple. take, for instance, the single mother who works in a hospital changing bed pans, lifting patients day in and day out. she likes her job. she thinks that her and her fellow employees deserve a raise. after a shift the supervisor

overhears her chatting with a worker of organizing a union. the next day she is fired for talking union. something that is a protected right under the law. next day, she's -- and this is -- this is illegal. this firing is illegal and she's entitled to her job back. but under h.r. 1120, she would be out of luck. not only would she be out of luck, over 23,000 workers a year would be out of luck because they simply spoke about exercise the rights that are legal under the law and the law says that employers don't get to retaliate. but for those thousands of workers now, they will have lost their job, lost their livelihood, lost the ability to support their families, but they will have no recourse because of this legislation if it becomes law. how fair can that possibly be? 2010, also add that in unfair labor practices, about

17,000, were filed against employers by employees for -- employers for unfair labor practices. with some -- over 6,000 were filed against the unions for unfair labor practice. the fact of the matter is for this legislation, for this legislation, it works against both employers and employees and it brings chaos to the workplace. it gives the right to illegal strikes. it gives the right to illegal firings. it gives the right to take away the wages of a worker. that simply cannot be tolerated in this country. but that's what this legislation does, and it's an effort that started out a number of years ago when this committee with the republicans attacking the national labor relations act, the national labor relations board. we should not allow this to stand. we understand they're upset with the recess appointments but they weren't upset with some 300 other recess appointments.

in fact, mr. roe just said those were constitutional. but that's not what the court said. the court said all of these recess appointments were unconstitutional. and so where are we today? we have sitting before the senate, offered by the president, a panel of appointments that they can approve and they can cure this problem if this problem in fact really exists. we don't know that yet because the supreme court hasn't ruled on it. but while we're waiting for the supreme court to rule, they want to pass this legislation, and if they pass this legislation, the fact of the matter is both employers, employees are going to be hurt, it's going to cost them a great deal of money, it's going to cost a great deal of chaos in the -- in the workplace because of what the second court -- the second -- the circuit court, excuse me, said. i worry while they complain about the recess appointments, it's the very filibusters by the republicans that demanded that the recess appointments take place and i thank the

gentleman for yielding the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'm pleased to yield to a member of the committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. guthrie: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1120. this bill is important for our employers and employees and our constitution. it's already been said but i'd like to make that point again that the president does not have the authority to decide when the senate is in session. his recess appointment of three members to the national labor relations board was against the law and the tradition of separated powers inherent in the constitution. some on the other side will say that the impasse at the nlrb is the fault of republicans, that the folks in the senate are obstructionists. during the bush administration, senator reid used pro forma sessions to make recess

appointments and he did not -- the real solution is not to appoint -- isn't to appoint board members that a democratically controlled senate cannot approve. it is to nominate individuals without bias with an eye towards the goal we all share, a healthy economy with adequate worker protection. and that's what this bill before us does. this bill would prohibit the nlrb from enforcing any actions that require a quorum or from issuing new decisions requiring a quorum until a board quorum is confirmed within bias and consent of the senate. the supreme court rules on the constitutionality of the january 12 recess appointments the term of the 2012 recess appointments expire. employers and unions will be forced to either comply with cost low orders that may be overturned or litigate them on a case-by-case basis. both of these paths are cost prohibited.

i ask passage of this important bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: preerk mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. -- mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. andrews: the legal authority he relied on 171 times, his legal authority of president obama that's the subject of this discussion this morning. i reserve the balance of my time. i'm now pleased to recognize someone who understands the value of collective bargaining to america's middle class, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there's a basic principle of angelo-american common law that reaches back to antiquity that goes as follows -- without a remedy there is no right. that is the common law doctrine which was the cornerstone of the national labor relations act which recognized that workers' rights exist when there is a place to go to

enforce their elections, unlawful terminations and retaliation cases. in fact, it is that legal doctrine which formed the basis of the supreme court's decision of marbury vs. madison which basically established the legal authority of the u.s. supreme court. this law shamefully tramples on that decision and strips the national labor relations act of its power. you have to only look at line 10 of the bill which states very clearly, the board shall not implement, administer or enforce any decision, rule or both on or after january 4, 2012. this is a shameful day for this house. the rights of workers to collectively bargain were not only recognized by the national labor relations act, they're recognized by the vatican in the 1890's, they're recognized by the united nations human rights charter after world war ii as a basic criterion of civil society. today when this law passes, america will go on record basically saying that workers who are seeking to have elections to form unions, to have workers who try to protest

unlawful terminations, to workers who are trying to protest unlawful retaliation, you have no place to go. you are living in an undeveloped country right now in terms of your legal rights. shame on this house for bringing up a measure like this which strips the rights of people which common law doctrine reaching back beyond the birth of this nation has recognized for centuries. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased now to yield to another member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the preventing greater uncertainty in labor-management relations act. despite the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, this important legislation will ensure the integrity of the national labor relations board. the other side has talked about how this legislation would

somehow throw this process into chaos. the truth is that it's the president's unconstitutional actions that have thrown this process into chaos. the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia unanimously ruled that the president's so-called recess appointments were unconstitutional, calling into question approximately 600 decisions by the board. all 600 of these actions are now right for legal challenge. by operating without legal authority, the board has created more uncertainty for employers, unions and workers in an already fragile economic climate. the president's actions are an undefensiveable overreach of power and unfortunately they are part of a broader trend. time and again this president has demonstrated a with or without congress mentality in pursuit of his political agenda. this mentality shakes the foundational principles of checks and balances our founding fathers put forward in

the constitution. the constitution is our ultimate law. no one is above it. not even the president. mr. chairman, this legislation will ensure the integrity of the national labor relations board and will help eliminate uncertainty in the work force. when the president begins to operate within the law, the nlrb's work will begin again. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: president obama is relying on the same constitutional provision that president reagan relied on when he appointed alan greenspan as head of the federal reserve. the same constitutional provision he relied upon when appointed ambassador gene kirkpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. andrews: i yield to the

gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. being a middle-class american today often means being caught in the middle, caught in the middle of the partisan posturing in washington and the situation we're in here today is yet another example. the senate's filibuster of appointees to the national labor relations board let the -- left the president with two office oppingses, make recess appointments or stop enforcement of the law. because the latter was not acceptable, he elected members in a recess appointment, a process that was used by several presidents before him. unfortunately the d.c. circuit court invalidated those appointments and it is currently pending before the supreme court. now, it's too bad we're not here working together to request expedited consideration by the supreme court, but instead we're considering a bill that essentially seeks to shut down the nlrb. freight workers in my home state of oregon will feel the consequences. in september of 2008, oak

harbor freight line, in violation of the law, announced they would stop making payments to employee pension funds following a work stoppage. and in 2012, unanimous panel at the nlrb, a panel of republicans and democrats, found the company to be in violation of multiple sections of the national labor relations act and ordered the company to reimburse the trust for mised payments. -- missed payments. the law before us today will invalidate this decision as well as many others. stop enforcement of the national labor relations act, allow unlawful activity to continue and exact a toll on workers across the country. the nlrb is the referee between management and labor and it helps guarantee the fundamental rights of middle-class workers to organize, to bargain for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions. this bill eliminates the referee and does real harm to hardworking men and women in my district and across the country. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, another gentleman from indiana, dr. bucshon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in the preventing greater uncertainty in labor-management relations act. this legislation provides much-needed clarity for employers, employees and other stakeholders affected by the unconstitutional actions of the national labor relations board. the issue here, mr. speaker, is the constitution. you're hearing from the other side of the aisle this is about policy disagreements with the nlrb decisions or about how previous presidents have done recess appointments similar to these. they're wrong on both accounts. they're attempting to reframe the debate and confuse the american people about what this really is about. previously, the senate was not in session when previous

presidents made appointments, and decisions by their appointees were accepted as constitutional. in this case, the senate was in a pro forma session. they were in session and this has precedent that's been stated already here today. in 2007, senator reid announced that the senate would be coming in for pro forma sessions during the thanksgiving holiday to prevent recessed appointments. i guess my friends on the other side of the aisle only want to follow the constitution when there is a republican in the white house. appointments at that time in 2007 would have been unconstitutional, as these appointments are now. . they deserve a board that will fairly administer the law without bias towards management or labor. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1120, the appropriate congressional response to help ensure certainty and fairness in america's workplaces. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. every member of this house i'm certain wants to follow the constitution. on our side we think the constitution means the same thing whether george w. bush is present or barack obama is president. that constitution vests the president with recess power appointments which were never challenged by the other side in the bush administration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. andrews: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a long-time fighter on this committee for the rights of the middle class, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, for two minths. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1120. what we are doing here this morning is simply more of the same. for the past 28 months house republicans have used the majority to engage in a relentless campaign to tear at the fabric of organized labor by voting to defund, abolish, or greatly curtail the powers of the nlrb more than 40 times. let me repeat that, more than 40

times. none of the attempts to crush the authority of the nlrb have become law, nor will they ever become law. yet house republicans keep trying. at the same time, more than 22 million people remain unemployed or underemployed in this country. sequestration cuts continue to devastate middle class families, and the most severe cuts are yet to come. total payroll compensation as the share of gross domestic product is at the lowest point since the 1950. house democrats seek clutions to these problems and yet house republicans continue to waste our time on a bill that will never see the light of day in the united states senate. and if this bill were to ever pass into law, its impact would be to hurt workers, not help them. how many more times do we need to waste taxpayer dollars on political messaging bills like this rather than pursue legislation that will actually help the middle class? 10 more times? 20 more times? is this all we can expect to accomplish over the next year

and a half? americans want democrats and republicans to work together. let's end the political posturing. let's get america back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to a real leader on this issue, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for three minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman. you know, mr. speaker, our framers were visionaries. they had the foresight to not only establish constitutional principles and processes, that address the challenges of their day, but still sustain and guide this country 230-plus years later. now, i don't think there's any question that this particular government, this federal government, has gotten away from proven and time tested processes required by our constitution.

and has stretched constitutional authority to its limits. we are operating under continuing resolutions. that seems to be normal today. we have submitted bubts that -- budgets that are now over two months late. and we have taken other steps right here in these halls that have served to usurp the rights that belong to our states. doing so has left us vulnerable, mr. speaker, to rulings like the d.c. court of appeals ruling on february 8. that said that the president recess appointments, recess appointments, to the national labor relations board, were unconstitutional. now, like my friends on the other side of the aisle, and like you, mr. speaker, we have all raised our hand and said that we are going to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and you know the rest. we have all taken that oath.

the knoll kang -- noel canning decision are in direct contradiction of what the framers outlined in article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the constitution. as a result of the ruling, each decision made by that board since that time has been called into question. mr. speaker, i personally don't have anything against the individuals who have been appointed to the nlrb. it's irrelevant whether i agree or disagree with the board's rulings. my concerns are, and the concern of each and every member of this house, should be the fact that we continually push the limits of our constitution. balances outlined sacred document. of ts best this court

appeals ruling provides uncertainty, and the last thing that this country, this economy needs is uncertainty. i recognize the weight of the decisions made on the interpretation of the constitution, they are tough. it is no easy task. and that's why i don't think it's unreasonable to press the pause button on the decisions emanating from this board until we get a final ruling. it is irresponsible in my strong opinion not to. that's why i appreciate my friend from tennessee, mr. of appeals ruling provides uncertainty, and the last thing that this country, this economy needs is uncertainty. roe, for offering this legislation. i support it wholeheartedly and recommend its passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: with all due respect, the last speaker, this bill doesn't push the paws button. it pushes the erase button. it erases the rights of american workers to bargain collectively and organize. at this time i reserve the balance of my time. at this time i'm pleased to yield to someone who understands there is a direct connection between economic growth and collective bargaining, my friend and neighbor from new jersey,

member of the committee, mr. holt, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: thank you. i thank my friend and colleague from new jersey. let's understand, the issue here is not about recess appointments or the board quorum and a federal agency or the constitution. my republican friends never raised this issue in hundreds of previous occurrences. instead, what's happening now, the majority is using this misguided bill as a platform to continually -- continue a coordinated attack on the national labor relations board, and on american workers. h.r. 1120 is simply an attempt to effectively shut down the board and deny all private sector employees their rights. the nlrb as an independent agency which serves as the only avenue for private sector employees to bargain collectively, to file unfair labor complaints, to conduct union elections if desired. the national labor relations act stabilizes workplaces and

ensures industrial peace. we must not continue these warrantless attacks on the only established avenue which brings employees to the bargaining table with their employers. what h.r. 1120 would do is roll back the clock 3/4 of a century to the days of brutality and humiliation, the days before the institution of the wagner act. the days in which workers and their families suffered indignities, strife, even blood shed. having laws were orderly labor and management processes helps businesses. it helps industry. it helps citizens of all economic levels. it helps our economy. i regret that the majority is wasting time that could be used to address the real problems facing america. at every town hall citizens ask me, what about jobs? what about economic growth? but instead of helping workers raise their wages, improve workplace safety, ensure fair retirement, house republicans continue their attack on the national labor relations board

and ignore the economic crisis facing american workers. and making the american dream that much harder for americans to achieve. this is not about abstract worker rights, this is about a productive economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. can kleine: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the chair of the work force protections subcommittee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the chairman. i'm proud to be in the battle for the middle class of michigan's great seventh district, as well as the middle class of the united states. today michigan's unemployment rate is nearly 9%. and the actions of this dysfunctional board have only hindered michigan's attempts to grow and develop a healthy economy and have more people

able to climb to the middle class. for our states to recover and thrive, we need michigan to be opened for business. what our employers need more now than ever is certainty. unfortunately this board has done little to help foster their success. in fact, the nlrb has been a chilling factor to economic success for employers and employees. in january, 2012, president obama attempted to make three unconstitutional recess appointments to the national labor relations board. however a year later on january 25, 2013, they were found, indeed, to be unconstitutional by the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia. in that year, the board made numerous decisions, oftentimes with significant consequences, for job creators and for employees. they made it more difficult for

employers to investigate employee complaints or misconduct and undermined employee rights to not engage in partisan political activities of their union bosses. in spite of the decision of the u.s. court of appeals, the board has continued to issue rulings and decisions. i would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and help bring much needed certainty and stability to america's work force and increase our needed middle class. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i'm pleased to yield to a member who fought for these rights before she got here as a litigator. has fought for them since. the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1120, the republican plan to shut down the nlrb. this plan is just the latest in a seemingly unending series of republican attacks on working people. make no mistake, the real goal of this legislation is to attack

workers' rights. this bill will make it harder for workers and employers to settle disputes. it will essentially end the national labor relations board's ability to hear cases until the senate confirms the president's nlrb nominee. and we all know that that deliberative body is better at obstruction than getting the people's business done. instead of trying to shut down the nlrb, shouldn't my colleagues on the other side of the aisle be calling on the senate to have an up or down vote on the president's nominees for the nlrb? allow me to separate fact from fiction. this bill is not about certainty. this bill is about making it harder for working people to have their voices and cases heard. this bill is not about making the nlrb function efficiently. this bill is a partisan move to gut the nlrb's implementation of the law. after all, if you fire all the judges, there is nobody there to hear your case. once again the republican leadership has decided to waste time making political points at the expense of working class

americans. we should be working on legislation to grow jobs. the american people are sick of politics. they want congress to work on creating jobs and economic certainty. what our republican friends are giving the american people today is more of an insult on workers' rights. this legislation doesn't do anything to help the 23 million americans looking for good-paying jobs. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . mr. kline: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman and rise in strong support of preventing greater uncertainty in labor-management relations act. listen, if you're sick of government, spend a couple of years here. and we talk about the american people, please tell me that these debates have anything to do with getting people back to work. a constitutional

process that we're supposed to follow. this is about unconstitutional appointments to the national labor relations board. that board protects employers, management and labor, ok, it's not just labor. so let's make sure we understand that. as we come here and do this posturing, no wonder the american people are losing faith in the way this body works. if we're really concerned about getting people back to work, if we're really concerned about letting this nation rise again, this is not a republican issue or a democrat issue, this is not a board that's supposed to be made up of all republicans or all democrats, but it's supposed to be constitutionally appointed. my lord, what are we talking about today? these are unconstitutional appointments. you know what the certainty of this is? here's the certainty. because of the way the president has acted, and this is a president who always talks about, you know what, if you play by the rules, if you follow the rules and you work really hard in this country you have a chance to make it. but the little thing down the footnote is, unless you don't agree with me and then i'll go ahead and do it the way i want to do it even though the

professor of constitutional law put that aside. i know an end run on this. i would tell my colleagues, please, this is a process that we have to protect. this is not a political football to go back and forth with. my goodness. this is about fairness. fairness is not a republican issue or a democrat issue. it's an american issue. and it doesn't matter this who struck john, what did past president's do. this has been found unconstitutional. the only certainty of what's going on here, three things are certain regarding the board's current decisions. those decisions cannot be relied upon, every losing party will be justified in filing an appeal and no prevailing party can be assured that they will ever benefit from any board-ordered remedy. how do you fix it? take it to the senate, get -- mr. kline: another 30 seconds. mr. kelly: run it through the process it's supposed to run through. get him appointed the right way and then go forward. isn't that the american way? i'm not talking about a republican way. i'm not talking about a

democratic way. what's best for the country? what's best for the country? this political posture something ridiculous. we know what the law is here. we know what the process is. we know what the constitution says. and to be here today making it into something else, this is not about class warfare. this is about denying the process. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 20 seconds. my friend talks about playing by the rules. president obama followed the rules that president reagan followed, president bush followed, president clinton followed, president george w. bush followed. the other body has the ability to resolve this dispute by taking votes on the five nominees that are presently before the united states senate. i reserve the balance of my time . at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to a consistent voice for america's working families across the country, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank my good friend.

i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i thank my good friend and i'm so glad my good friend talked about the question of fairness. because i believe in fairness as well. and i ask my colleagues to enthusiastically, with great presence, to vote this legislation down because it is unfair. because i believe in the working man and working woman and working families who desperately need a fair body that is in order, in regular order, the nlrb, that allows companies, corporate america, to come to the table of reconciliation on issues like pay equity, which my good friend rosa delauro, has championed, and i'm joining her. on good issues like the quality of life in the workplace. the idea of income and negotiations on plants being shut down. and what my good friends want to do is design the process to this president that ronald reagan used some 240 times. hundreds of recess appointments

in the 1980's to ensure that regular order occurred in this nation on behalf of the working men and women of america. this is a direct stab at them, this is a direct undermining of them and i would ask my colleagues to vote against this and for the working men and women of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. ms. jackson lee: this is a bad bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i am now pleased to yield to a member of the committee three inutes, the gentleman from indiana, the other gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the speaker, i thank the chairman for yielding. ou know, i'm struck by the gentlelady who just spoke, her mention of fairness. what is fair is the rule of law. and that's what this country was founded upon. that is the ultimate fairness. and that's what this bill is

fundamentally about. the core american value about respect for the rule of law. now, our president chose to violate the law by unconstitutionally appointing new members to the national labor relations board in january, 2012. and while the president claimed he had this authority and while our friends here are claiming he had this authority, because the senate was, quote, in recess, unquote, there was one problem. the senate wasn't in recess. the senate was actually in session. last year in response to this i wrote a letter to our president with 26 of our colleagues, mr. speaker, protesting these appointments and asking the white house to obey the law. so that we wouldn't have the uncertainty that we do now. so that we wouldn't have to have the argument that we're having now, unfortunately. but by making these appointments, while the white house and executive branch has

essentially claimed the authority to determine when the senate is unavailable to perform its constitutional duties. now, the executive branch should not be deciding whether the senate is unavailable to provide its advising consent. our founding fathers, who created a government marked by a separation of powers, would be shocked and dismayed by the utter disregard the president has shown to the constitution of the united states by making these appointments. now, mr. speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who have continually made this argument as if if they said it 20 times it actually makes it more true, it does not. the suggestion that president obama's actions were similar to past presidents is patently false. no president, and i repeat, mr. speaker, no president ever made recess appointments while the senate was meeting regularly in pro forma session. until this current president. if president obama had followed the practice set by his predecessors there wouldn't be a cloud of uncertainty hanging

over the nlrb today. and this uncertainty, to the point made by my colleagues earlier, is hurting jobs. this uncertainty, because when you have commissioners who are appointed unconstitutionally, their rulings, their rules are now unconstitutional. businesses can't follow them. unions can't follow them. workers can't follow them. and when that's the case, what job creator is going to hire more people? and that's the real situation we find ourselves in here today, unfortunately. now, the issue is pending before the united states supreme court. it is my hope that the court will acknowledge that no one, including this president, mr. speaker, is above the law in this country, from the poorest of our citizens to himself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: 30 seconds. mr. rokita: and we can never afford to forget that. for these reasons, i simply urge

all my colleagues to support h.r. 1120, to not listen to the nonsense that we're hearing from the other side. we believe in the worker, we believe in workers' rights, we believe in the rights of businesses, we believe in the rights of unions. we believe the president above everyone else in this country should follow the law and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself to 20 seconds. -- myself 20 seconds. mr. speaker, the prior speaker's own words indicate the contradiction of his position. he said it is unconstitutional that these recess appointments took place. he then just said that the appeal of this matter is pending before the united states supreme court. marbury vs. madison does not give the d.c. circuit the final say on constitutionality, it gives the supreme court that authority. at this time i'm pleased to yield to someone who has made a career here fighting for the rights of working americans and collective bargaining.

the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro, for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for two 2 -- for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived bill. it aims to effectively shut down the national labor relations board, another direct attack by this house majority on workers' rights. as we have been debating, a d.c. court recently ruled that two of the board's current appointments made during a recess within the congressional session are invalid. d therefore nlrb currently lacks a quorum. this ruling is at odds with three other court rulings on the same matter. and in fact the court did not order the nlrb to stop performing its duties. nevertheless, the majority's trying to use this one decision

as a pretext to stop the board from issuing any decision or taking any other action on behalf of workers. it is a transparent attempt to effectively shut down the nlrb. what we need to do here is have the senate take up the five pending nominations and act quickly so that we can have a functioning nlrb. this one court decision is squarely at odds with longstanding practice. presidents of both parties have routinely made recess appointments during intersession recesses and without regard to when the vacancy first arose. the congressional research service has identified a total of 329 recess appointments made since 1980. all of these would presumably be invalid under this court's decision. and that includes four such nlrb recess appointments by president reagan and four by the second

president bush. tell me, were these eight appointments by presidents reagan and bush also in violation of the constitution? if so, then why is this one particular court decision considered, quote, the right one, despite the fact that all other courts and past practices disagree with it? the majority simply wants to prevent the nlrb from functioning so that workers who want to evoke their basic right to organize have no recourse. what recourse for that matter would employers have against actions by unions that violate labor laws such as secondary boycotts or unlawful picketing? under the terms of the national labor relations act, its provisions can only be enforced through the nlrb. there is no provision in the act of private lawsuits. mr. andrews: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. ms. delauro: without the nlrb we simply do not have a fair workplace that works for everyone. this is another in the endless

series of republican attacks on the foundations of the american middle class. it aims to undermine worker protections and ac else is rate a race to the body -- accelerate a race to the bottom. let the nlrb do its work. i urge my colleagues to stand up for workers and employers and oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, can i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from new jersey has 5 1/2 minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. we have another speaker reportedly en route from another committee and so i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i thank my friend, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to someone who has walked in the shoes of those collectively bargaining and organizing, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. oppose h.r. 1120 and this is just a naked attempt to deneuter or to neuter the national labor relations board. this is done in concert with the united states senate which refuses to confirm any nominees by the president to the nlrb and in concert also with the right -wing ideologues on the d.c. circuit court of appeals who have gone against 150 years of practice by democratic and republican presidents alike in appointing through the recess , stukesal process.

now we have the -- constitutional process. now we have the u.s. congress, the house of representatives, with this h.r. 1120, preventing greater uncertainty in labor-management relations act. this would straitjacket workplace fairness and hurt middle class workers. it would also create uncertainty, interfere with judicial proceedings still on appeal, and undermine the nlrb's core functions -- functions. this is a bill that's anti-worker, it's obstructionist and it represents the machinations of the republican party more interested in impeding the nlrb and blindly attacking this administration at every opportunity than finding solutions to unemployment. a loss of presents touch with middle class values and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i would advise my colleague that the speaker we're waiting for has not yet arrived. i'm not sure how many speakers

left on your side. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. kline: i continue to reserve. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i would advise my friend and the speaker that we have no more speakers at this time. what i'd propose, with the speaker's discretion, is i'd like to speak for about a minute, perhaps if your other speaker arrives we can accommodate that person. if not, i would then close for our side and then the chairman defending the bill would close. mr. kline: i have no objection. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: the house deserves a record on where this matter stands legally. after the senate refused to cast a vote on any of the president's nominees to the national labor relations board, the president acted through the recess appointments clause that his predecessors have relied on far more often than he has.

the d.c. circuit ruled that those appointments were invalid. the case is presently under consideration under a writ to the united states supreme court which either will or will not hear the appeal. the majority's advancing the rather novel legal theory that a decision by one circuit court of appeals establishes with final ity the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of the provision. this is truly a novel theory. marbury vs. madison makes clear, only the united states supreme court has finality in these sort of matters. the president acted in good faith under a constitutional provision that others have followed before. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. will kleine -- mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. our speaker has not arrived. i'll be ready to close after the gentleman from new jersey. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i claim as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. andrews: i thank the speaker and colleagues of both parties for the spirited nature of this debate. at its core this debate and this bill is about the primacy and value of collective bargaining in our country. there really are two different points of view on collective bargaining. one is a nuisance, the other is an engine of economic growth. there are those who believe that the proper organization of our economy is that the bosses decide what happens. everyone else salutes. and that's what happens. this led us to situations where we had children working in sweatshops. people working 80 or 90 or 100 hours a week. people being forced out and fired for all sorts of invalid and irrational reasons. in our country's history we are fortunate er was a great

movement of collective bargaining among the working people of this country. and in the 1930's those who preceded us here enshrined the rights of collective bargaining in various statutes. since then for nearly 90 years these statutes have worked to promote fairness, equity, and onomic growth in our country. collective bargaining works. not just for those in the union. but for all those in the united states of america. this bill is a direct assault on collective bargaining. it is an assault that is seen -- has seen the manifestation in other parts of the country against public workers in wisconsin, against all workers in ohio. collective bargaining is one of the main engines of the development of america's middle class. and america's middle class is clearly the main reason for the development of the strongest economy on the face of the earth.

a vote against this bill is an affirmation of the value of collective bargaining. a vote for this bill is an erosion of that precious right that americans have always enjoyed and should enjoy. we have the opportunity to stand up for those who wash the dishes, patrol the streets, build our buildings, teach our children. we have the opportunity to stand up for the right of collective bargaining. i urge both my republican and democratic friends to stand up for america's middle class and vote no on this bill that paralyzes and assaults collective bargaining in our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i think it's important to remember why we are here today. more than a year ago the

president took an unprecedented step despite all of the discussion from the other side of the aisle. no other president made a recess appointment when the senate was in session. in pro forma session, or any session. so despite how many times president reagan or president george h.w. bush, or president george w. bush, made recess appointments, this was unprecedented. now, it's still an open question to be decided. the d.c. court of appeals made a ruling that the president's appointees to the national labor relations board were unconstitutional. and it's going to be an ongoing debate, i'm sure, going forward for days and weeks. to determine what it means under article 1, section 5 clause 2, the united states constitution, which says the senate is vested with the power to, quote,

determine the rules of its proceedings. the senate determined that the rules of its proceedings said that the senate was in session. we heard mention today by a number of my colleagues that senator reid had announced when president bush was in office that the senate was going to stay in pro forma session in order to keep the president from making recess appointments. that's an important debate going forward. but the problem is as we stand here today with a lot of discussion from the other side of the aisle, unfortunately some of which was questioning our shameful, motives, that's a shame. because what we've got today is a board who has been ruled unconstitutional by the d.c. court which, by the way, is the

court that reviews every single challenge to an nlrb ruling. tu can't get relief by a court in san diego. if you don't like the ruling of the board, you are going to appeal to the court who has already ruled that board is unconstitutional. this is dysfunctional. this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not i or anybody else believes in collective bargaining rights. we have a board that under the national labor relations act is supposed to be an arbiter, fair arbiter. it's the place where you go to get a determination. and the problem today is, you can't go there and get a determination. or you get one that is immediately suspect and open to appeal to a court who has already said they are unconstitutional. they already have over 600 rulings by this board since those appointments were made, january a year ago. every time this board makes

another decision, another ruling, it pours more uncertainty into an economy that is, fragely, -- frankly, still desperately struggling to come out. we have heard accusations about, well, it's the senate's fault and i sort of inclined to always think it's the senate's fault when something doesn't happen, but just to remind my colleagues this is a bipartisan senate problem. in 2011 a republican board nominee languished in the democrat-led senate for a year. no hearing, no debate, no vote. so this is not a new circumstance. there is an answer to this. the president of the united states can bring forward nominees that can be confirmed. that can be confirmed. then we would have a actually constituted board to go forward and resolve the disputes that were brought up so many times by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

what we have now is a dysfunctional board that is source that useless because they are making decisions which are entirely suspect. congress should not allow this situation to get worse. the preventing greater uncertainty in labor management relations act is an appropriate response to a horrible situation. this ought not to be republicans vs. democrats. this is a chance for us to say we have an intolerable situation. this board needs to stop issuing decisions that are immediately suspect and challengeable to the very court that has ruled them unconstitutional. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1120. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 146, the previous question is

ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the national labor relations board from taking any action that requires a quorum as the members of the board until such time as a board constituting a quorum shall have been confirmed by the senate. the supreme court issues a decision on the constitutionality of the appointments to the board made in january, 2012. or the adjournment sine die of the first session of the 113th congress. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. >> the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. bustos of illinois moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1120 to the committee on education and work force with instructions to report the same

back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill insert the following, section 5, protecting the employment and election rights of veterans and the american worker force against outsourcing, abuse by foreign firms, unsafe working conditions, and discrimination. this act shall not apply to any case or matter before the national labor relations board involving any of the following. one, any former members of the armed forces fired from a job in violation of the national labor relations act or election for representation for collective bargaining felt by any former member of the armed forces. two, any attempt by the u.s. employer to outsource jobs, work overseas in violation of such act. three, any violation by an employer that is a foreign-owned firm against the rights of american workers under such act. four, workers seeking good faith bargaining under such act to address issues related to health

and safety, including hazardous working conditions, involving underground mines, exposure to toxic chemicals, or explosions. five, workers seeking good faith bargaining under such act to address discrimination based on age, sex, disability, race, religion, or other personal characteristics. six, any employer found to have violated child labor laws during the five-year period before the case or matter involving such employer comes before the board. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. mrs. bustos: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended. this past november illinoisians and people across our country sent a strong but simple message to congress. that the middle class needs to be a priority not an afterthought.

the people i talk with back home are worn out by washington putting politics before people. and i was honored to take my oath of office in january with a mission to be part of the solution here in congress. like so many other members of the freshman class of this session of congress, i ran for office to fight for the american worker and for stronger middle class. i believeed i could make a difference and i still do. the hardworking middle class people from my district in illinois are counting on us to remember them as we deliberate in this chamber. that begins with standing up against attempts to cut the legs out from beneath american workers, which is exactly what this bill does that's being presented today. mr. speaker, without the supreme court of organized labor, my family wouldn't be where we are today. my father-in-law, joe, was born in a box car to immigrants parents from mexico. with just an eighth grade

education, he worked the line at john deeree in illinois. because of organized labor, he earned an honest wage and benefits for his hard work. he made sure to work for his family and make sure his children had a better life. joe's youngest son is jerry, my husband, who with the help of organized labor has helped lift our own family to success. i'm proud of my husband's nearly 30-year law enforcement career and he is now the undersheriff of rock island county where i live and the commander of the quad cities bomb squad. i know my family story is not unique. about how organized labor helped lift us and that so he tso many american families share this -- and that so many american families share this same type of experience. many families are still struggling but are still hopeful that if they play hard and play by the rules they too can live

the american dream. unfortunately, the bill before us today tells american workers they're on their own. instead of adding certainty and stability to our communities, this bill creates chaos and undermines decades of progress. my amendment pleads for just a morsel of common sense. it provides a few simple but critical exceptions to the chaos that the bill otherwise promises. it protects workers who have risked their lives for our country on the battlefields abroad. these are heroes like clarence adams who was among the first american marines to set foot on iraq 10 years ago. after clarence returned home, he tried to exercise his right to organize at his workplace. the election was held, the union won, and then the union-busting began. clarence and 21 of his fellow workers were even fired at one point. he had one place to go.

and that was to turn to the national labor relations board. voting for this bill means stripping away those rights for clarence and countless other brave veterans. my amendment would protect the rights of veterans to organize in the workplace. as far too many hardworking families across our nation feel each day, our economy is healing. and i pledge to fight for the american worker and that's a pledge i am committed to keeping. the middle class is stronger because of organized labor. if a company takes american jobs and outsources them overseas simply to avoid the formation of a union, that must not be allowed. my amendment would protect these jobs. if a foreign company abuses our american workers' rights, we need a strong nlrb to stand up for them. and my amendment does this. if american workers face dangerous working conditions that could cost them their lives, and they seek the right

to organize for their own protection, we need the nlrb to function on their behalf. if a person faces sexual harassment at the workplace or a worker faces racial discrimination, they should be allowed to join with their co-workers so they can address these issues. my amendment gives these workers a voice. the nlrb was created to decide cases on a fair and an independent basis. and this has traditionally been made up of both republicans and of democrat board members. it is there to fight for the rights of workers and the middle class against the worst abuses. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes, to put aside partisanship and begin focusing on the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five

minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. this is an interesting political stunt. our friends on the other side had ample opportunity, both in committee markup and before the rules committee, to offer an amendment of this nation them. did not. -- of this nature. they did not. it does nothing to fix the problem that we are faced with today. making an exception in statute that says a board that has been ruled unconstitutional can act any way for some people and not for others frankly makes no sense. i'll stand behind no one in my desire to protection our men and women in uniform, those who are serving and those who have served, but that's not what this motion to recommit is really about. our bill brings certainty and an everyonities to our friends at the -- everyone tus to our friends on the other side of the capitol to move with the president to fix a board that can address the very issues that

my colleagues have brought up. so i urge defeat of the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in my opinion, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mrs. bustos: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the -- on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and approval of the journal. this is a 15 minute d vote.

-- this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 197, the nays are 229. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219, the nays are 209. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question of agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 277. the nays are 131 with one

voting present. the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for purposes of inquiring of the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to my friend, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding, mr. speaker. on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 with votes expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, the house is not expected. a complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. in addition, we expect a robust debate next week on the morns of our nation's cyber-- importance of our nation's cybersecurity. the house will consider a number of bipartisan bills to

reduce obstacles to voluntary information sharing between the private sector and government, secure our nation's infrastructure, better protect government systems and combat foreign threats. a number of committees will bring bills to the floor next week including the intelligence, oversight, government reform and science committee. we will continue to address cybersecurity from additional committees including homeland security and judiciary. of the bills coming to the oor we'll debate the cybersecurity information sharing act under a rule. and with that i thank the gentleman for yield and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i want to share his view that the cybersecurity legislation is critically important legislation. i know that there are still continuing differences with reference to the protection of

individual citizen's privacy on this legislation, but i also know, as the gentleman indicated, the critical nature of providing access and exchange of information so that we can protect americans, protect our country and protect our intellectual property and commercial property. so i would hope and expect that we would be working together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we can reach consensus so that we can see a bill signed. i want to say i know both you and i are pleased that chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersburger have been working so closely together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish this objective. mr. leader, i hope you've noticed that earlier this week i gave a speech with reference to make it in america and in that speech i want you to know, if you missed it, i mentioned the jobs bill. i made a little fun of the jobs bill, as you recall, when you put it on the floor, but we all

voted for it because it was a good bill we put together. five or six bills that had bipartisan support as they passed the house and senate. we put them together, the president signed that bill. they were a step forward, they were part of our make it in america agenda on our side and your jobs expansion -- growth expansion on your side. what i said in my speech on make it in america which refers to manufacturing in america, growing things in america, selling them here and around the world, and doing what americans are hopeful that we are focused on and that is creating jobs. in that speech, mr. leader, i said that we needed to have focus on four particular priorities. number one, adopting and pursuing a national manufacturing strategy. as i'm sure you know, mr. leader, last congress we passed the lipinski bill which came out of committee in a bipartisan

fashion, had passed this house in a bipartisan fashion. unfortunately it did not pass the senate. but you and i both know that if you're going to win, if you're going to succeed, you're going to have to have a plan to do so. and this speaks to the coming together of business, labor, entrepreneurs, investors, as well as government in terms of the partnership that we can play in assuring that we are making things in america and that goods around the world have on them "made in america." secondly, we want to promote u.s. exports. you and i have worked on that. we worked on that in a bipartisan fashion. this was another part of what we call make it in america. the export-import act, your staff and my staff worked very diligently together to get that done. and we passed it in a bipartisan

fashion. the third part of the make it in america agenda focus would be the -- encouraging manufacturers to bring jobs home. i think we have, mr. leader, an excellent opportunity given the context of where we find ourselves, where salaries are it is overseas, where more expensive now to ship goods back to the united states because of transportation costs, the largest market in the world. and thirdly, as the gentleman knows, while there have been so differences, the president's expressed, you've expressed, i've expressed our need to expand our energy supply and particularly as we see the natural gas technology advancing, that the united states of america is going to be one of the least expensive energy venues in the world and have one of the best supplies in the world, which perhaps noes

one would have predicted 20 years ago, but is a fact. all of which ought to go to helping us reinvigorate, expand manufacturing and create middle class jobs, paying good wages and providing good benefits. lastly, we want to ensure that we invest, and i notice the gentleman sent out a -- a memo to your members. i don't think we quot a copy but we -- i don't think we got a copy but we did get a copy. and you talked about investing and making sure the quality of life and jobs were available for working americans. we need to make sure that we invest, as you pointed out, as we believe strongly, in education and infrastructure and innovation to make sure that we have the training necessary for people to be able to perform the obs that are going to be

required in the growing economy and the global marketplace. i say all that, mr. leader, to suggest that i would like to sit down with you so that we can talk together about how we mutually can move forward on make it in ll the america agenda, but the jobs agenda. we're focused on that and i'm hopeful that we can do that and i think it will be positive for our country. and i think americans will feel d i goodeld to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. and really appreciate his remarks and willingness to sit down and see where we can find areas of agreement. because as the gentleman and i both have expressed on this floor on many occasions, there is plenty of disagreement, no shortage of supply in this town of that. and on the bigger issues of the fiscal situation, we still

struggle, as the gentleman knows, on trying to come together. but i listen to the gentleman and i know he's very committed and has been to his agenda, making it in america. and as the gentleman knows, i gave a talk earlier this year at the american enterprise institute which i've spoke of, an agenda of trying to make life work for more working people in this country. and there is a lot in common that we have in these two programs, if you will. because we talk about the kinds of things that will help working neams -- families, that will help working people get a job again. the gentleman's intention in a national manufacturing strategy is i'm sure to increase job availability. make sure that we have more american jobs, and we also have a skills problem. we passed the skills anth on the floor a couple of weeks -- skills act on the floor a couple of weeks ago. my hope is we can have more bipartisan support for things like that because it was simply an attempt to respond to a

g.a.o. recommendation where there are 50 different job-training programs at the federal level. certainly we can do better than that. certainly we can streamline and still protect the kinds of individuals that the statute asks us or requires protection. the veterans, the folks who are on limited income that we can help put in place for employment. because after all, all of us believe that we are a society built on hard work. built on playing by the rules and getting ahead. so i welcome the gentleman's commitment to those types of things. he mentions the need for us to invest and to look to the future. in fact, i have not only a budget and spend aing plan of the future but a real mentality on this floor -- a real spending plan of the future but a real mentality on this floor of how we can work together as americans.

really the priority that we place in this country on medical research, on research and development, it is a seed of the future. while we are constrained by the current fiscal situation, it does bring to light setting priorities. we're not going to be able to fund everything. but certainly we can agree on trying to find medical cures, trying to understand how we can better discover therapies, treatments so people can live longer and have a better quality of life. these are the kind of things i look forward to working on with the gentleman as well and i accept his invitation and look forward to being able to sit down. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that. in following on his observation, clearly what he says is we need to focus on priorities. i think he's absolutely right on that. i think one of the sad things is posture assed a fiscal

in this country presently that does not focus on priorities, unfortunately, and that's called sequester which in effect looks across the board at cutting both the highest priorities and the lowest priorities in similar ways. i would hope that we could obviate the sequester. i think it's bad for the country, i think it's bad for our future, i think it's bad for the growth in our economy and i would hope that we could also work on that and towards that end i would say, mr. leader, you have talked about and in fact we've passed legislation that was designed to encourage and to require the passage of a budget by the senate. the senate has now passed a budget. we have passed a budget. the president has now presented a budget. so that we have three alternatives on the table now.

i would hope that as soon as the senate passes its bill to us, which i expect to be shortly, that we would go to conference in purr susan of an agreement -- in pursueance of an agreement that would give us a fiscally sustainable path for this country, give us confidence in this country, that the congress can work, that the nation's board of directors can work in compromise balanced with respect to how we move forward with the finances of america. now that we have, as i say, a senate-passed budget, a house-passed budget and a budget presented by the president of the united states, obviously there are things that each person in the country can disagree with and agree with, presumably in each one of those budgets. and i would hope that we would be going to conference as soon as possible so that we could

address this critically important objective. i ask the gentleman if he has any information with respect to the intention to go to conference as soon as we receive the senate bill which as i say i think will be shortly. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that i too am glad that we finally have seen the senate act and pass a budget. i mean, that is an accomplishment in and of itself. and the president finally has proposed his budget. so the gentleman's right. we've got some things on the table that maybe we can start to discuss. i know that chairman ryan and chairman murray are already in discussions about a path forward and i look forward to the results of those discussions and in concert with the gentleman's point earlier, with setting priorities, it just seems to me, mr. speaker, that the best way forward is to find areas where

we agree and let's go make some progress on those things. we again this town is full of -- we again, this town is full of division and disagreement, but there are things we have in common, in agreement, in these three documents that i believe we can work on together. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and i would simply observe and he knows this as well as i do, that there will be an agreement, things that he perhaps does not agree with and there will be things in agreement that perhaps i will not agree with. the secret in my view of getting an agreement is going to have a comprehensive agreement that accomplishes the objective of bringing our finances to a fiscally sustainable path, that's credible, that's believed by ot only the economy, investors, by the american people, but also by the international community.

toward -- we've talked a lot about confidence, as i've indicated in the past, you've talked a lot about confidence in the past. i think we all agree that our economy needs confidence to grow as robustly as we want it to create the kind of jobs we want. toward that end, can the gentleman tell me what plans we have at this point in time for the debt limit extension? i know that there's been some discussion of bringing a bill to the floor which will deal with that issue. can the gentleman perhaps elaborate on what the plans are with respect to the budget debt limit or the debt limit that confronts us, that will hit some time around may 19? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and as the gentleman may know, the majority has committed itself, as he indicated, the gentleman indicated, mr. speaker, has

committed itself to a budget that balances in 10 years. it is our desire that we can come to some agreement on how to do that. and this is where the difficulty again comes in, where the president's proposal and budget raises a lot of new revenues. and some estimates have indicated $1 trillion in new taxes. and doesn't ever balance. so, we certainly have got a gulf between us but it is our intention to work together, to avoid the situation of default and we are and do intend to consider a bill that will ensure we meet our legal obligations and do not default on our debt which i'm sure the gentleman agrees with me, mr. speaker, is the responsible thing to do and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i certainly agree that defaulting on the debt is an extraordinarily irresponsible thing to do. and in fact we shouldn't do it.

and in fact, we shouldn't use it as a leverage point in my view to pretend that somehow going ver the debt limit without extension is an acceptable political leverage point for either side. both sides have sort of blamed the other for the deficits, as we've confronted these debt limits. we've never come close, except in august of 2011, to defaulting, which was the first time, as the gentleman knows, we were downgraded. by one point, by s&p. that's an irresponsible policy and i agree with the gentleman. the advantage of a conference on this issue will be that transparently the american public will see the debate, the gentleman indicates a 10-year objective of balancing

the budget, without revenues. i personally believe that's impossible. i've said on this floor that if there were no democrats in the congress of the united states, either in the senate or the house, that frankly your side of the aisle could not pass either the appropriation bills or the revenue bills or tax cuts that are suggested in mr. ryan's budget which would accomplish your objective. i think we'll never know that, which is i think a happy circumstance on your side, that that will never be put to the test. but having said that, i would hope that we could get to a place where we say the debt limit is not going to be subject to political maneuvering. furthermore, let me say that the bill that we've been hearing about, in the "wall street

journal" there was an article that appeared just yesterday, i think, a credit rating firm said tuesday, it wasn't clear whether the treasury could legally prioritize bond payments over other government obligations and they went on to say, if it did so, it was very likely, very likely the firm would downgrade its triple -- a.a.a. rating of the u.s. debt. in other words, even if we say we're going to pay the debts or as some people have said, even if we say we're going to pay the chinese first and not invest in those things such as basic biomedical research to which the gentleman referred and i share his view of that being a priority of our country, and to cut those as we pay the chinese or other creditor nations back for what we borrowed, that would not be in the best interest of the united states. so i would say that in both instances, either pretending

that we're going to go over the debt limit and avoid it by simply paying the debt first and then cutting other things in some sort of order, neither of those policies is consistent i think with our responsibilities as members of congress. so i would hope we would make it very clear, and i tell you we'll do it in a bipartisan basis, mr. leader, extending the debt limit -- i use a very example for my constituents. you go to macy's. you take out your macy's credit card and buy $200 worth of goods. you go home, next week you and your wife are sitting around the table or you and your husband are sitting around the table and say, we are in debt too much. we'll limit it to $100. macy's sends you the bill to $200. you send them a check for $100

and say we have a debt limit of $100. macy's says, we're sorry, too. we won't give you more debt and we will sue you. the debt limit is not a realistic -- it's much more political demagoguing way of dealing with one another and dealing with the finances of this country. i would hope you and the speaker, both of whom i know have said not extending the bt limit is not a viable option. i hope we can in a bipartisan way extend it and extend it early enough so it doesn't become an item of consideration by the rating agencies or the international community. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to my friend, talking about going to macy's and making the charge of $200, i think most families would

also think it's prudent to figure out how they're going to pay that bill before they go about incurring it. and that is the spirit in which i think the majority approaches the debt ceiling to say, how are we going to tell the people that we are going to pay off the debt that we've now gone ahead and incurred? and i think a little bit of forethought here, planning into the future, how we're going to pay the bills is the emphasis. and i've always agreed, as the gentleman said, the debt ceiling is something that is necessary for the operations of government. we'll bring a bill forward that will ensure that we don't go into default, but i do think that we should be mindful of how we're going to tell the public we're going to go in the future and pay off these debts. because as the gentleman has many children and grandchildren, he doesn't want

his kids nor do i want mine to be shouldering the debt and paying our bills. we should be really committing ourselves not to just borrowing more, not to just taking more from taxpayer dollars because we've done a lot of that this year already. the gentleman talks about the need to proceed with revenues. we already have close to $650 billion i of additional static revenues, taxes that are accounted for because of the fiscal cliff deal. so it's not that there's no revenues in the mix here. so again i look forward to working with the gentleman. i appreciate his commitment to longevity in this country, sustaining economic growth or at least restarting it again so we can sustain it and joining him in that effort. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the way to do that plan of how amor ties our debt and --

ortize our debt, basic biomedical research, the way to do that is with a plan. the way to get to a budget is go to conference and come to an agreement. the problem we've had is reaching compromise. it will be necessary to compromise, as the gentleman observed and as i know we have very substantial differences, but if the differences continue to create gridlock and no action, those children of which you spoke and i speak are going to suffer. so i would hope that we could move forward. the president's budget, i tell the gentleman, as he probably :1 ws, has about almost 3 ratio which is probably what most of the bipartisan commissions, some 2:1, some 2.5:1. i know the gentleman disagrees

with that ratio, but it is certainly the president's view which i share that he has made a very positive proposal, agree with it or not, a number of your members observed it was a useful document, hopefully we can go to conference, hopefully we can have compromised reach and put our country on a sustainable path we desperately need. unless the gentleman wants to speak i yield back the balance f my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill s. 716 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 716, an act to modify the requirements under the stock act regarding online access to certain

financial disclosure statements and related forms. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the bill is passed and a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, over a century ago the federal government pledged to

accurately manage our forests when we had the national forest center. timber harvesting is a core part of this duty. a portion of the revenues reaped from the forest would go to the counties containing mall forest lands to sue plant the local tax revenues. unfortunately, the federal government has failed to uphold this commitment. one example is revealed when you compare the harvest of adjacent lands. in the fifth district of pennsylvania, a company acres in owns 120,000 the allegeny plateau. colin pines sustainably harvest the same amount of timber on less a quarter of the acreage. this has deprived rural counties of revenues needed to fund local schools and infrastructure projects. mr. speaker, we must restore active and healthy management

of our forests in order to have revenue stream for our rural counties and help rebuild these robust economies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the members and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. to help commemorate the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg and the gettysburg addressed, i've introduced legislation, h.r. 1513, to preserve the historic lincoln train station in gettysburg. he arrived at the lincoln train station in 1863 prior to delivering the gettysburg address the following day. the lincoln train station also served as a hospital during the battle of gettysburg, transporting wounded soldiers during the battle. it plans to utilize the station

as a downtown gettysburg information center. it is to preserve this historic site without using hard-earned tax dollars. the legislation expands the boundaries of gettysburg national military park to nclude 45 acres of donated run. this legislation specifically forbids the use of eminent domain for acquisition of property and will not utilize any funds. mr. perry: i applaud the gettysburg foundation and the park to increase public understanding of the heritage and lasting significance of gettysburg and gettysburg's place within the context of the american civil war and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom kentucky rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of what would be the

236th birthday of henry clay who once represented the same district which i am honored to serve today. as one of kentucky's most celebrated statesman, henry clay proved that an unwavering dedication to principle and a practical commitment to compromise are not incompatible values. as the great compromiser himself demonstrated, they are instead the tools of statesmanship. mr. barr: henry clay was working to save the country to substantial solutions, not short-term fixes that merely push the problems on the back of future generations. as we consider how to deal with the almost $17 trillion national debt, i call on my colleagues in congress to remember henry clay's resolve because now is a time to come together in the spirit of statesmanship to cut spending and balance our budget for the sake of future generations. mr. speaker, as a proud graduate of henry clay high

school, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, sir. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. throughout the week we have been hearing from souls who have asked us to have mercy on them and to pass comprehensive immigration reform. thousands came to petition the government. there were mothers and fathers and children, and i am listening to their cry as america has listened and as the statue of liberty often said to bring you those who are in need . today i introduce save america comprehensive immigration act, 1525, h.r. 1525, to have an earned access to citizenship -- earned access to citizenship,

family reunification, border security, supporting our border patrol agents and a number of items that will bring us together. i hope that we can move this legislation forward. let me quickly say that 50 of us signed a letter this week to stop the filibuster on sensible gun legislation. thank goodness the other body now will move forward to answer the cries of other americans who have been the victims of gun violence. it is certainly in keeping with the second amendment that we have the opportunity to have universal background checks, to rid ourselves of assault weapons and multiple rounds that killed many in the various mass killings and to have the ability to help those who have mental health needs. we can do this as americans and as members of congress. i ask that we move forward and respond to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thanks to the gentlewoman.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from washington, mr. heck, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. . mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. on friday, march 15, last month, william booth gardner passed away in his home in tacoma, washington, after a courageously battling the raf ands of parkinson's disease for 20 years. born in 1936, he was 76 years old. booth gardner will be remembered for many things. he will be remembered as washington state's 19th governor, having served from 1985 to 1993. he voluntarily retired after two terms with sky-high job approval ratings and was subsequently appointed as ambassador to gatt,

now known as the world trade organization, by his good friend, president bill clinton. he will be remembered as a person of means, some would say considerable means, who began his lifelong pattern of pay it forward by volunteering to work with children in the inner city while he was still in college. he even coached jimi hendrix in football. he will be remembered for turning around a scandal-ridden pierce county government as its first elected county executive and bringing it into the 20th century. he will be remembered for his impish sense of humor. at the end of the long campaign for the aforementioned county executive position, so familiar was he with his opponent's speech that he delivered it, verbatim, at the last campaign appearance. it was the only time his opponent was left both

figuratively and literally speechless. booth gardner will be remembered for leading washington state through a stunning era of progress. he was a national leader in civil rights. he appointed our state's first african-american to the state supreme court. he signed an executive order banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in the state work force way back in 1985. way before it was the popular thing to do, at the time he said, the only thing i care about is if they are competent to do the job. he pushed forward a trainload of environmental protections. for example, he signed an order protecting wetlands knowing their importance to ensuring clean water, while most of the rest of us were still thinking about wetlands as large mud puddles. he was a national education leader. he chaired the education commission of the states and

fought for standards before that was popular. he expanded choice for students, and restored a then deteriorating higher education funding system. he leveraged his very considerable private sector experience to be a great manager of state government, implementing, again, before it was popular, commonsense ideas like a rainy day fund and lifecycle capital budgeting. governor gardner really shined in health care. when he chaired the national governor's association, he triggered the national debate on health care and for improving access for low-income families and containing costs for all of us. booth gardner will also be remembered for the academy award nominated documentary that bore his name, booth gardner's last campaign. it eloquently told the story of his successful advocacy in our

state of the death with dignity initiative which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters. i'm often asked about how and when i first met booth. it was 40 years ago this year. i was a 20-year-old, very lowly committee clerk in the washington state house of representatives. i took paperwork over to the chair of the cincinnati education committee, and to my great surprise, then state senator booth gardner invited me into his office. never having met me. and simply said, sit down and tell me about yourself, denny. little did i know that day that many years later i would have the unbelievable honor to serve as his chief of staff. booth gardner will be remembered for many things. but mostly i think he will be remembered for governing when government actually worked. and it was due in no small part

to his steadfast commitment to civility, respectfulness, and collaboration. for my own part i will remember him as boss, mentor, and the truest and dearest of friends. i now yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from the first congressional district of washington state, seventh congressional district of washington state, dr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: thank you very much, deny. although it makes me sad for the reason we are speaking here today, i'm honored to say a few words about my friend, governor booth guard nemplet a lot of people will remember us as adversaries, and that's true for a brief time.

we ran against each other for governor in 1984. and i lost. it might come as a surprise to you, but i didn't particularly like losing, so after the election i went off to a place i had up in the san juan islands to lick my wounds on lopez island. it's exactly there that booth found me a few days later. he called and said, i'm going to be up in the area, i have a place over on shaw island, i'll come over and see you. and so he drove his boat over and we met. i had a 40-acre farm and we walked around the property four times talking about our visions about the state, about the election, about the campaign, and where we wanted the state to go. booth and i both loved the state of washington. by the time we landed on my front doorstep, we solved all of washington's problems. booth had a unique

characteristic which i think denny alluded to and that is, we had a senator in the state by the name of warren magnusson, who used to say you can get a lot of things done if you don't care who gets the credit for them. booth really did believe that. and i have been working on the basic health plan for the working poor in the state for a number of years before he got to be governor, and i hadn't been able to get it through the republican governor and the republicans in the legislature. it was my passion project. giving the poor who fell outside of medicaid but were working an opportunity to buy into the health care system in some way. it was one of those gaps between what the federal government did and what the private insurers and employers were doing, and there were lots of people who were working full-time but couldn't get health care. and so we put together this program. he told me that day, we were

walking around, he would do everything he could to get it passed, and he kept his word. also unusual. he put everything he had into it. when it was funnished, he signed it in the middle of my district, in a little clinic called, country doctor, in the middle of the city, on capitol hill. that bill has helped the working poor of washington all over the state get medical care and is one of the first public options. it's so good for the state of washington that senator cantwell took it and put it into the affordable care act. it's now in the blueprint for the safety net that we are developing in this session of congress. booth lived on beyond his days, his ideas, his willingness to make something happen, carried into the fore and he never walked around telling anybody about it. just did it. that walk with me was really the

beginning of it all. only health 't care. i was the ways and means chairman in the senate, so i had a lot to do with how the budget got put together. if the governor won't sign it, you can't get it passed. so he had and i had lots of talks. he was willing to sign a bill that created the largest settlement for women workers in this country under an equal pay for equal work. he signed it after a lawsuit that the state had lost, and i convinced him that we ought to settle the case and let women move ahead in the workplace. and booth said, good idea. finding a partner like booth, one who is willing to get past politics and jump in the deep

end with you on some issues that weren't exactly sort of centrist, sometimes he took some real risks. it's not a very common thing in politics. and -- but with booth it was common. the best interest of the state always came first. although occasionally i would go over to his office and find him, they would say he's gone. where is he? he's gone up to coach his girl's soccer team in tacoma. he had all kinds of interests and all kinds of concerns about kids, and he was willing to put everything he had into it both in the office and out of the office. now, some of his most important work, in my view, and what shows his real character and why i feel bad today, is that when he left the governor's mansion, he was in fairly good shape as far as we knew, went off to geneva

to work for the gatt trade organization, and while he was over there the diagnosis was made of parkinson's. parksonism is a very, very difficult disease to cope with. your mind is active. everything is active. your body just won't cooperate. and booth had this disease and struggled with it for 20 years, as you heard. now, death is a frightening thing for all of us to think about. none of us want to think about death. it's not something that's usual table conversation or much of a conversation out here on the floor. but booth was willing to look at it straight on. and he was willing to talk about it in a way that few other people were. he wanted to talk about what people's options were, and he saw the suffering he was going through it himself and felt that everyone should have the right to choose how they want to end

their life. in a final directive when you go into the hospital, you tell them whether you want them to resuscitate you or not. all of that, he looked at all of that anti-one thing that was obvious to him was there comes a time when there is no hope and there is no question what is going to happen and people ought to have the right to make their own decision at that point. it's called death with dignity. now, he took that issue on. here's a man who is struggling with a debilitating disease of his own. no political advantage whatsoever in doing it, none. but he came and spent his time. he was sick, he was -- it was hard for him to get up and talk. sometimes he could only talk a few sentences. someone else would have to take the podium because he was unable to continue. there weren't any donors watching. there was no elections to be prepared for. it wasn't even an issue that affected him directly.

because the requirement of the law was that you had to have two doctors say that you had only six months to live. and with parkinsonism it's not possible for any physician to say that. so it wasn't something he's doing for himself. it was because he thought it was right for the people in the state of washington. you rarely find someone with that ability to get out of their own self-interest. he just believed in it. he believed it was best for the people of washington and he wasn't going to let his sickness or anything else stop him from getting it done. it passed by about a 54% majority. booth was a great man. they say people are -- they pass twice, once when they die, and once when people stop telling stories about them. the stories will never stop about booth, i can stand up here

and tell them for a long time, but he was a great man. he was a good governor. he was a good father. good husband. and he was my partner. and my friend, and i'll miss him very much. rest in peace. i yield now to doc hastings from packer. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank another colleague from washington, mr. heck, for having this special order. i didn't know governor gardner that well. we come from different political parties, that's one reason why you don't build a close association, but also my last two years in the legislature was his first two years as governor. i don't have the special relationship that mr. heck and mr. mcdermott had with him, but the one characteristic that i

did realize with him was -- has been talked about a great deal by my colleagues, and that is that he was a very friendly guy. when mr. heck was on the floor a moment ago saying as a clerk, he called him into his office and treated him like an equal, and i found that characteristic the same in my two years when i was in the legislature with mr. heck -- with governor gardner, even though we are a minority party at that time. . probably the story that i remember best on a personal note dealt with my daughter. in the washington legislature and i assume other legislatures are the same way, when sine die comes, it is done at precisely the same time. and the doors of the house chamber is open and doors of the senate chamber is open and the joint rules require that the gavel drop at the same time.

so it's quite a -- it has to be organized and so forth. and my daughter -- my oldest daughter happened to be a page on that sine die. it was going to be my last sine die, as a matter of fact. i told her, why don't you go behind the house podium and you can see how that works. and so she kind of snuck behind there and managed to get that view. and then after sine die, typically in our washington legislature, there are a number of get-togethers. the governor's office happens to be on the floor below the senate chamber and parties are going on and so forth. so my daughter -- we were going to drive home -- she put on a sweatshirt and the sweatshirt was a remembrance of her going to the state volleyball finals. and so she had a bunch of names and all her classmates wrote their names on there. so we walked down to the governor's office and he looked at her and grabbed her and, you

know, wanted to know what all the names were, where -- what happened. did they win the championship? all this sort of stuff. just i guess so typical of the type of individual that governor gardner was. so i can't talk the policies that my previous colleagues spoke about, but i can talk about that one particular issue. just turns out that my daughter is here in town this weekend with her three daughters and we were talking about that last night. she says, yeah, i do remember that where he kind of put his arm around me and made me feel very welcome. so he was a -- he was a governor that was forward looking. i now he's thought about very, very well. my part of the state is different than the other part of the state politically but there's no question, at least in the second term, he did very, very well in my part of the state. i didn't necessarily like that, but that's part of politics.

so we -- he will be missed and the editorials around the state that spoke of him i think were very true, but just from a standpoint of personality, that's my association with him. he certainly will be missed. and with that i'd like to yield to the newest colleague from -- one of the newest colleagues from the state of washington, the gentleman from the sixth kilmer. mr. mr. kilmer: thank you and thank you to my colleagues who spoke from washington state and i am batting cleanup. i didn't service with booth gardner nor have i run against him, but i actually met him when i was a kid. there's no doubt that booth gardner's legacy of accomplishments is impressive. and i can stand here and list them off, both from his role as governor and for his

involvement on trade issues at the federal level. but i think it says more about the kind of man booth gardner was when we don't just talk about what he accomplished but we talk about what kind of man he was. as someone who met him as a kid, i was very much struck about the fact he was exceedingly civil and very, very kind and seemed to have interests in every person he represented. regardless of one's race or religion or orientation or gender or economic status, he seemed to care about every person he represented, including a little kid in port angeles, washington, where i was born and raised. i met booth for the first time when i was a kid and he was a candidate and my mom was involved in his campaign. i was struck by the fact that he was spending an inorder nate time talking to -- inordinate time talking to me even though

i wasn't old enough to vote. i met him as a high school senior. i received a scholarship to go off to college, and booth, as governor our state at the time, -- osting a luncheon to for all of the scholarship recipients. he came to me and my mom to say hello. i was struck by the extent he seemed to care about my mom and about how much he cared about me and as an 18-year-old i just thought it was really cool that a governor expressed that level of interest. over the years i'd run into him at political events or often at educational oriented events or events in pierce county where e was our first county executive. he'd start by saying, how's your mom, and many years later, just this last year when i decided to run for congress, i was very touched that he came to my kickoff in tacoma and

parkinson's by that point meant he could not walk and struggled very deeply to express himself. and i went over to thank him for coming and kneeled down and thaad him and i could tell he was struggling -- thanked him and i could tell he was struggling to say something. i knew he would ask, how's your mom, and i thanked him for that and i told him she was doing just fine. another thing i'll say about booth and his legacy is the legacy he leaves behind of his family. his grandson, jack, actually interned with our campaign. and he's an extraordinary young man who spoke very eloquently at the memorial service that was held in honor of governor gardner. so you can look at his legacy of accomplishments when it comes to education or protecting our environment or extending health care services to folks who need it or his work to improve our economy or

improve civil rights or you can look at his extraordinary business legacy as someone who is a leader in our business community, but for me his legacy as a guy who truly cared about others, that's how i'll remember booth gardner and today i will tell all who are listening that my mom's doing well but she misses booth gardner and i miss booth gardner and the people of washington state miss booth gardner. so thank you, mr. speaker, and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr.

speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, sir. mr. gohmert: a lot going on this week and certainly worthy of discussion here at the end .f the week one of the important topics that has been discussed at both the senate end and the house nd is the issue of immigration , legal immigration and illegal immigration. back when my friend, steve king, and i were meeting with people from the british government about their handling of immigration, they were offended by the term that steve and i were using of illegal immigration and we were told that that's not appropriate in england. i asked what words did they use and i was told the appropriate terminology is irregular migrant.

i was concerned that sounded too much like some kind of body function. i hated to use that term. anyway, it -- when people emigrate into a country illegally, it's illegal immigration. and it is a problem. now anyone that goes down to the end of this hall just outside these two doors here and heads on to the senate floor, immediately what is seen above the president of the nate's chair are the words eplur bus uninumb, latin meaning out of many one. i heard a colleague before say it means out of one many, but we all get mixed up at times. e pluribus unum means out

of many one. in school we were taught it means immigration and out of many becoming one people, becoming americans is what made us strong and the termination for much of this country's history was that we were a melting pot. i believed it then. i believe it now. i believe that that has been one of the great strengths that has made this country one of the greatest -- the greatest country in the history of mankind. israel.than solomon's more liberties, more conveniences, more input into the government and to the way the government works. the people i know, my friends on this side of the aisle, agree -- everybody i know of agree we want

immigration to continue. our country allows more immigrants into this country than any other country in the world. no other country comes close to allowing the number of people to emigrate into this country, to comes with visas into this country. nobody comes close. we are an extraordinarily generous country, and for those who've wondered about whether they should be proud of our country in the past, one of the greatest pieces of evidence would probably be the fact that people all over the world, those that hate us, those who admire us, at least a billion, maybe 1.5 billion in estimates been made want to come to america.

there is not a country in the world that so many people would like to come to and enjoy the freedoms we have. unfortunately, there are many who want to come to this country to destroy the freedoms we have. because they look at our country and they say, no, unless you have something like shahrya law or something -- a country in which you have a powerful benevolent dictator, e it religious leader or be it benevolent sectarian or secular dictator, they think we would not be nearly so deck dant. i prefer our government -- decadent. i prefer our government. our government, asselin consaid, that under god was -- our government as lincoln said, that under got our country was by the people and for the people. there's not been one like us. now, i have heard -- got called

into the show of my friend, sean hasity, and he knew just -- hannity, and he knew just about history, our country being founded out of many. he said there was nothing about god in our beginnings. this young man apparently showed his ignorance and the weakness of teachers and whatever school he grew up in ecause the fact is e pluribus unum was not our national motto, from the 1700's, it was part of the great seal, the great seal had two sides and still does. it's still the great seal of america. and on one side we have the eagle. i like the way the eagle has differed over the years. i like the way it is now better

than the skinny little eagle that was there back in the 1700's. but the eagle has a ribbon through his beak and on that ribbon, has always been the latin phrase, e pluribus unum, out of many one. that's on one side of the great seal. on the other side of the great that s a pyramid, and pyramid represents one of the greatest works of man. and there was a reason because the founders -- you read their writings, read their journals, ad their letters, they believed they had within their rasp what philosophers, john locke, so many philosophers had only dreamed about, that we might be able to govern ourselves.

so close. and they viewed it as a little experiment in democracy, and they believed that if we did it right that nations around the world would want to follow our example, so it was important. they recognized that this was a great achievement of man if it was done properly. . if you look on the back of a $1 bill, anybody still has one, mr. speaker, you note that one side with the eagle and the e pluribus unum on the beak, and the shield up here on the house floor doesn't have the ribbon throughout beak, it's beneath the eagle, but it has those words there. but on the other side, seeing the pyramid, here's a great well done work of man, and above that pyramid is a triangle, and in

that triangle is an eye. and there is a glow around that eye to represent the all seeing eye of god. looking at the work of man. and above that is a latin phrase that's above one of the exits down at the senate, the latin together it means ye god has smiled on our undertaking. beneath the pyramid or are the latin words, new order of things. new order of the agets. not new world order as some tried to say. but the way the founders looked at it, if we did this right, if we governed ourselves effectively and created the most

free nation in the history of the world by the grace of god, god would smile on our undertaking and it would be a new order of things because of the other nations that may follow our example. and it is good. i have heard people say recently it is christian, don't try to push my religious beliefs on anyone else, but it is a part of who i am, and as a matter of it at elieve it was 36 least most of the signers of the declaration of independence, weren't just christians, they were ordained christian ministers. hard to imagine if over half of the congress now as the coin continue nental congress was in those days was made of ordained christian ministers. i'm not advocating that at all.

i'm historically making the note. that's where we came from. that's who was inspired to start this little experiment in democracy. notous christians, but ordained christian ministers. and they knew if they did it right this place would be blessed and it would be a source of blessing for the world. and they did like the idea out of many come one nation. and that has continued today as most of us strongly support the idea of allowing more immigration into this country than in any country in the world . mexico doesn't allow near the freedom for immigrants that the united states of america does. it it goes down a little tough to be criticized by the nation, leaders in mexico, who demand

more rights for immigrants into the united states than they would ever consider affording united states citizens who were going into mexico. but it's true around the world. now i'm told that some students are taught, we are not really a melting pot, we are more of a tossed salad where people retain their individual natures and don't really become one people so much. we just retain individuality. mr. speaker, i can tell you having studied history, continuing to study history, that is a recipe for the end of a nation. people need to come together as one people.

it i find from data, hispanic friends, some of them have pointed out that actually in the hispanic community, the vast majority support the idea of having english as the official language. my dear friends in tyler, whose parents immigrated from mexico started the most successful restaurant businesses there, and my friend has just branched off and started another restaurant, but he said that his parents were adamant, you will speak only english in our home. now to be sure his parents spoke spanish between themselves, but his father told him, if you -- you could be anything in this country, but if you're going to be everything you could possibly be, you have to speak good english. and in doing so you can be anything. he was right. gus has been a city councilman, county commissioner, he's a

leader in the community. a good guy, friend. that's why it breaks my heart when i hear people, it's normally of the liberal political persuasion, who say, no, no. we need to educate hispanic immigrants in spanish. because when you study what happens in those cases, you are compelling children who can end up being president, if they are native born americans, president of the united states, they could be president of the country, but when you teach them in spanish rather than english, you are relegating them to being manual laborers when they could be president of the company not working out in the field for the company. so that's what conservatives believe in. we want everyone to have the sky

as the limit for what can be abelieved. we even want at the white house right now, we would prefer that women be compensated on an even par with men, which is not happening right now. we want everyone to be treated with equal opportunity t not to be treated equally but with equal opportunity. because when you take away the incentive to work hard and do well and achieve, you again can compelling a country down a path that leads to the dust bin of history. i have related numerous times, but in the soviet union when i was an exchange student there one summer and visiting a collective farm, communist farm,

a collective socialist farm, a progressive farm, if you would prefer that, as some of my friends prefer not to be called socialists, they preferred to be called progressives, it was a progressive farm. where everyone was treated equally and everyone was paid the same number of rubles, and i was shocked having worked on farms and ranches around east texas growing up, because i learned that if you're going to work out like that, back then there were -- if you were lucky enough to get to drive a tractor instead of walking through the field all in hay or working with cattle or horses, we didn't have cabins over the tractors, we thought it was pretty terrific if you got to drive the tractor instead of walk along and work, but here i was at the

progressive farm, socialist farm, communist farm, whatever you want to call it and most of the farmers were sitting in the shade. and i had a couple years of russian at texas a&m and i spoke my best russian at the time, and asked the question, it was mid morning, when do you work out in the field? i looked out in the field, i couldn't tell what they were working and what they hadn't. it didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference. i couldn't tell what they were even growing out there. it looked kind of greenish brown, none looked too good. this was the middle of the summer. i knew from my work, you want to start early and try to finish by 3:00 or 4:00 at the latest before the sun gets its hottest, and here they were in the middle of the shady area not looking, looked like they worked all morning. and the people there laughed and

i thought, oops. maybe i didn't say it properly in russian. one of the guys responded for the group, i make the same number of rubles if i'm here in the shade or if i'm out there. in the hot sun. he said, so i'm here. and there in a nutshell is why a progressive farm will not ever really work. because when you give people the same amount of money to work and sweat and produce as you pay them to sit in the shade and not do anything but laugh and joke and cut up and have fun and eat snacks, then i don't care how dedicated you are, at some point you'll quit working out in the hot sun and you'll sit in the shade and no one will have food to eat.

that's why socialists or progressive societies always fail. so how does a free enterprise system fail? free enterprise systems always fail when they become so progressive, so socialist that hey begin to reward completely the same amount for working as they do for doing nothing. and this administration has been at the head of just destroying the welfare reform that was done in 1995, 1996 and yes, i'm pleased president clinton takes credit for it now, he certainly didn't at the time, he fought the republican majority over it, over and over. he vetoed it. when finally there were enough votes to override the veto, president clinton signed it. and now he takes credit for it.

but it was welfare reform, and what you learn from that, if you go back and do the studies -- was surprised knowing the liberal bent of harvard, to be at harvard for a seminar and have a dean have charts that said, since the great society legislation started in the 1960's, here is a chart of single mothers' income when adjusted for inflation. and the graph showed a flat line . when adjusted for inflation, single mothers since the 1960's when the great society and all the give away programs began, the welfare system, the welfare state began here in america, single moms flat lined. when adjusted for inflation, they never improved their situation.

on average. some did. but on average it was flat lined. and then he said, since welfare reform where people were required to work who could work, here is what has happened to single mothers' income, that was since people were required to work who could work, and then adjusted for inflation, there was a huge rise for those 10 years in the income for single moms. now, i know the people that passed the great society, welfare legislation in the 1960's, they wanted to help. i know they did. i know friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to help single moms, they want to help anybody who needs help, but there is a question of how much do you help when you incentivize people to never reach their god-given potential?

and how much do you help when you incentivize working and producing and becoming productive and participating in society? who helps more? i know the intentions are equally on -- equal on both sides. who helps more? it's never been more graphic than when you look at the income for single moms after welfare reform and for the 30 years before welfare reform. and now this administration has taken the best thing that newt gingrich did as he led to a republican majority and led in balancing the budget, but even better, he helped single moms more than anything that any democrat had done for the 30 years preceding that majority by elevating their income and begin to have them feel some self-worth. because they could do jobs. and they had value and they had

worth. that they did not feel when they were flat lined and just taking the doles that the government provided. the romans learned the hard way, you provide bread in circuses, and eventually you kill off incentive. let's cut off the bread and circuses and he did it. there was so much massive rioting like we've seen in greece, like we've seen in other places in europe that are broke because you can't -- once you have degraded as a society to the point that more people have been convinced to sit back and just accept what the government gave them instead of using their god-given potential, then you are not likely going to ever get back to your greatest days again. you're done. it's just a matter of how long

until you hit the dust bin of history. the reason i'm still in congress, the reason i've continued to run is because i've still got hope. i've still got hope we can preserve, perpetuate for more generations the greatest gift than any group of people have as a secular nation and that is the gift of this country. a country that saw its founders coming over, pilgrims -- right down the hall in the rotunda, there is the great painting, that massive painting of the pilgrims having a prayer meeting, praying for the land that they would come to. that famous prayer meeting that they had onboard the speedwell,

they had two ships, the speedwell and the mayflower, a lot of people don't know that, but that prayer meeting was from holland before they went america. and then to the speedwell, when they got ready to leave from england to come to america began to take on water, so they had to cut their group. the mayflower was smaller than the speedwell. they had to cut their group down in size and get the hartiest and most likely to be able to plant that settlement in america where christians could have prayer meetings, where they could say what they believe, where they could say without fear of retribution that i believe marriage is between a man and a woman. they could say all of the things they have been taught in the bible, all of the things they believe as christians and

have a land where christians .ould not be persecuted other groups came as christians seeking that land that god would allow them to live in without persecution. you know, jesus said you'll suffer for my sake. i didn't suffer for jesus' sake growing up as a christian. people who are christians didn't suffer. but now we're persecuted and now if you say, you point out that jesus sanctioned marriage, point out that in genesis god ordained marriage, he saw a man alone and said that's not good so i'll give you a helpmate, a wife. you start talking about those things, then as a christian you're about the only person, the only group in america that

its politically correct to actually persecute and condemn and discriminate against and say, as my friend rick santorum, was told, gee, you believe what's been the history of great societies for thousands of years that a marriage is between a man and a woman because biologically by nature -- even if you don't believe in god, by nature that's how a species continues is by marriage between a man and a woman. and now we're persecuted for that? we're persecuted because we baby ou know, i believe a is a life deserving protection, well, that's some christian nonsense. you ought to be a criminal, you ought to be put behind bars. don't try to protect. and all the while what some of

those folks are saying we need to protect the most innocent among us, is there any more innocent being in the world than a child ready to be born? they've done nothing wrong. hey just want to live. i want immigration in this country. i want hispanics coming from their nation and come here and become one people and be part of that e pluribus unum but i don't want them to tear down my history and act as if it never was true or act as if when you look to the west and you see the washington monument, that when that was finished over 100 years ago after the whole nation was contributing and

they might finally brought it to a conclusion and finished it off, they capped it with a capstone and on that capstone there's writing on three of the four sides of that capstone that's made out of what was an extremely valuable and rare metal back at the time called aluminum, but on the side facing the capitol by design latin ted two words, meaning prayer be to god. john adams and john quincy adams and abraham lincoln or going back to george washington when he resigned to the

military and his prayer was we would be following the divine author of our blessed religion without a humble imitation in these things we could never hope to be a happy nation. i understand things have changed but don't tell me that is not our history. it is. don't tell me those words are not up there. they are. and even though the park service for the time took the capstone that the tourists could see and turn it where you couldn't see it, it doesn't hide the fact that up there on the top of the washington onument those words are there. it's not like we couldn't read praise be to god, no. they knew that would be the highest point man had

constructed in our capital city and they wanted to ensure that sun irst rays of god's illuminated anything in this town it would be the words praise be to god. that's why it's there. now as a christian, i'm supposed to turn the other cheek. not always good at it. but that is what i'm supposed to try to do. but as a part of the government we have an obligation to protect this country, to provide for the common defense, to make sure that whether enemies are foreign or domestic that we protect what has been entrusted to us as servants to protect and that's not happening sufficiently right now. because there are people coming into this country that want to

destroy what we have. they want to bring us down before a monarch that they want to set in place. there are some who simply want to come for benefits. i am so grateful that most of the people that come want to come to enjoy the freedoms and to get a job and i'm so thankful we have so many immigrants, first generation immigrants, who come wanting to work. of are -- they have been immense help, especially after 50 million abortions, we're needing people to help. but i want them to have a chance to be president of their company, and if they're born here, to be president of the country. we need to be one people, and we need to have people come legally. since we're allowing more immigrants to come in legally than any other country in the

world, why not make sure the people that are coming are going to be helpful to america and not hurt america, not end this great experiment in democracy? that's part of our job. and then we have this article from friday, april 12, 2013, om -- this is from radio woai. the debate on immigration reform has no political impact but the debate is having a major impact on south texas. officials say the number of people entering the u.s. illegally is way up, and tragically the number of undocumented immigrants who have been found dead in the unforgiving texas brush country is way up and is on path this year to best last year's record for the number of people found dead in the ranch country.

so why are more people dying in the harsh brush country of texas? the article goes on -- linda vickers, who owns a ranch in brooks county, which is ground zero for the immigration debate, pins the debate on talk of amnesty and a path to citizenship for people who enter the united states illegally. she recalls one man being arrested on a ranch not long ago. she said, quote, the border patrol agent was loading one man up and he told the officer in spanish, quote, obama's going to let me go, unquote. border patrol agents report that immigrants are crossing the border and in some cases surrendering while asking, quote, where do i go for my amnesty, unquote. when you have amnesty waving in the wind, you're going to get an increase, vickers said, and

when you get an increase, especially with this heat, you're going to get an increase in deaths. she says the current increase in illegal entries began last summer at almost exactly the same time as president obama unilaterally announced plans to no longer deport young people who came to the u.s. as children with their illegal immigrant parents. washington is directly responsible for these deaths, she said. brooks county routinely has the largest number of illegal immigrant deaths each year because smugglers come up u.s. 281 from the rio graunda valley, but kick -- grande valley but kick their human cargo out of the truck before reaching the border patrol checkpoint. quote, if that individual illegal immigrant can't keep up, they're left behind, she said, and you're going to die out in this heat if you can't

find water, unquote. i know none of my friends on this side of the aisle want people to die like that. i know that. deeply care about so many just as the democrats do. as a christian i'm supposed to love all people. i don't want them to die in the texas brush country, and if the administration or people in congress promising amnesty is loring people out as so many -- luring people out as so many indicate who have firsthand knowledge, then we should not be luring them to their deaths. we need to talk about one thing right now. let's have a secured border. so when the report came out two, three weeks ago that there were over 500 people that entered illegally at one place

and that not even 180 or so ere actually picked up or seen by cameras by the border patrol and fewer than that were picked up and there were over 30 people bringing drugs into this nation that would poison american children, american people, then we're not ready to talk about resolving the issue of the people that are here because until the border are secured -- not closed. i don't want it closed. we need it open for people to come in legally. but until it's secured so we can control who comes in, we should not be talking about a pathway to anything but deportation. let's secure the border, and then people will be amazed how