the pornts of having these adjustments occur annually, regularly, and dependably. it's essential that congress provides for the needs of our heroes, the brave men and women who answer the call to serve in our armed services, and for their families as well. i thank chairman miller and chairman runyan for their work on this important issue, and i urge my colleagues to support the american heroes cola act. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from maine reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: we'll reserve our time. i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. speaker. i would also like to thank the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member for sponsoring this legislation and chairman and ranking member of the full committee for bringing it forward.

i'm pleased to be a co-sponsor of the american heroes cost of living adjustment act. and i again want to thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this forward. yesterday i had the opportunity to visit arlington national cemetery with other members of congress and had the opportunity to place a wreath on the too many -- tomb of the unknown soldier. this incredibly moving experience reminded me of the ultimate sacrifice given by so many of our veterans. for those that return from service wounded or developed disabilities as they aged, veterans benefits are what allow them and their families to live in somewhat level of conference. it's often the difference between paying the mortgage and putting food on the table or going without. the legislation before us offers veterans security and guarantees that cost of living adjustments will happened automatically and not depend on yearly congressional approval. in addition, h.r. 570 will substantially increase benefits for the most severely disabled veterans receiving fegs monthly compensation. -- special monthly compensation.

it also protects veterans from benefit cuts should a chained c.p.i. index be adopted for social security. while oppose adoption for the chained c.p.i. to social security, i think it's important we act now to take the issue off the table for veterans benefits. i represent thousands of el paso veterans that have served our country and rely on v.a. benefits to make ends meet. they deserve the security of knowing that those benefits will be adjusted when their cost of living rises. i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maine reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: mr. chairman, we have no other speakers at this time so we are prepared to close if the ranking member is as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, mr. speaker, h.r. 570, as amended, is a solid piece of legislation. one that the veteran service organizations supports. that the committee supports. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. with that, mr. speaker, i have no further speakers so i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i once again urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 570, as amended. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 570, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 324, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 324, a bill to grant the congressional gold medal collectively to the first special service force in recognition of its superior service during world war ii. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, each will

control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. cotton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous materials for the record on h.r. 324, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cotton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cotton: mr. speaker, i rise today to seek swift approval of h.r. 324, a bill to grant the congressional gold medal collectively to the first special service force in recognition of its service in world war ii. the bill introduced by my colleague from florida, mr. miller, has 324 co-sponsors, befitting the storied history of this unit. mr. speaker, the bravery and valor of the army special forces, or the green berets, are well-known to most americans. but many don't realize this unit was born out of the first special service force and the

courageous soldiers that fought with it during world war ii. the award of the congressional gold medal in recognition of their service will help ensure this unit attains the historical recognition it deserves. formed in 1942 to take on the hardiers jobs in the most adverse conditions, the first special service force was composed of both american and canadian soldiers. the unit fought bravely in the italian mountains against a lead germany unities, and the herman germannit, they defeated forces. after fighting south at the center of the line, and participating in a successful assault in several nearby mountains, sadly over 1,800 of the first special service forces, fighting soldiers, and their 800 support troops, there were 2,300 casualties suffered, and 250 combat days before the

unit was disbanded in december of 1944. mr. speaker, the men of the special forces fought with their faces blackened by their own boot polish. they were so feared by the nazi defenders they called themselves the black devils. the unit took that name as its own. calling itself the bevel's brigade. proud -- devil's brigade. proud of their strength and bravery, they left cards with their patch and insignia with the phrase, the worst is yet to come on corpses in enemy territory. a move he voo was made on this service and today it has evolved into the army's green berets and a similar unit in canada. mr. speaker, today we hear stories of brave men and women in uniform defending freedom around the world. i have seen some of this awe inspiring bravery first hand in both iraq and afghanistan as a soldier myself.

but as we hail our soldiers of today, let us also remember the heroism and bravery of the greatest generation during world war ii. this legislation authorizes the strikeing award of a single gold medal that will go to the first special service force association in helena, montana, the original training site. and the sale of broncos duplicates. i ask for immediate passage of this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to give great support for h.r. 324. let me say, mr. speaker, at the outset that the congressional gold medal is our highest honor. and there is no greater recipient that we could give this honor to than the first

special service forces. known as the devil's brigade. they were courageous. they risked their lives. they were the unit that helped to liberate, as a matter of fact they led the liberation from the nazis of france, italy with daring, with courage, with skill. so it is very important for us to stand here today and to give great recognition to this unit. there is a special bond between canada and the united states. and that special bond started at world war ii. for it was the first unit and the only unit where two nations, canada and the united states, formed a force that accomplish hat many felt were impossible.

you know, the lord jesus christ said that there is no greater you no greater love, that can show than one who would give his life for another. what a great honor this is. mr. speaker, i am just proud to join with my colleague, mr. miller from florida, my good friend, and mr. cotton from arkansas to give this recognition, the nobility of purpose, to the first unit. today, mr. speaker, we are proud to have our navy seals. our green beret. our special ops. those special soldiers who go where many times few others

would go, but the foundation of that was the devil's brigade. i can just see that -- imagine that nazi soldier who wrote that note, scared out of his wits, when he called them, the black devils. when they would go and put shoe polish on their faces so that they could be expertly disguised to go in and to help to liberate europe from nazi germany. so it is with great pleasure that i stand here to join my colleagues in urging unanimous passage of this extraordinary legislation to honor this extraordinary group of soldiers. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. cotton: i appreciate that

reference to john 15:13, greater love at-no man that this that he lay down his life for his friend. certainly many members of the devil's brigade did that as they do today in our special forces. now, mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, the sponsor of this legislation. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i also thank my friend, mr. scott, for his kind words. i also want to thank chairman hensarling, the ranking member waters, and subcommittee chairman campbell with his ranking member clay, all the members of the financial services committee, and the house leadership for their support in bringing to the floor here today h.r. 324. it is a bill that grants the congressional gold medal to the members of the first special service force. i also want to thank the members of the first special service force association. specifically mr. bill wound for his advocacies and association's efforts in continuing to spread the inspirational story of a

truly heroic group of american and canadian service men. i would be remiss not to thank congressman al green of texas and congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz of plafment for -- of florida for encouraging support from their caucus members for support of this piece of legislation and the 324 members of this body who have co-sponsored the bill. i join my colleagues today in support of a bill that was -- that bestows upon the first special service force the congressional gold medal. it's congress' highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievement and contributions for their superior service during world war ii. the first special service force was a covert world war ii military unit born through the efforts of president franklin roosevelt and prime minister winston churchill. the force conducted ultrahigh-risk military missions in italy and in france.

once sent into action, the first special service force never, never failed a combat mission. the first special service force achieved remarkable success in battle and contributed prominently in the liberation of italy and france. most notably the force conducted battles south of casino, mountain monte, two peaks critical to the german defensive line. during the night of december 3 of 1943, the force ascended to the top of the precipice face of the mountain where the force suffered heavy casualties and overcame fierce resistance to overtake the german line. the first special service force .ost a total of 2,314 men original 34% of the combat force.

these heroic service men represent the breadth and trepidity and courage and they have earned our country's deepest gratitude and highest praise. though many of the brave troops of the first special service force have been lost to us, this gold medal is an important step in immortalizing their service in honoring the forefathers of today's special forces. . with just six days remaining until memorial day, i cannot think of a more appropriate way to honor the heroism and sacrifice of the warriors of the first special service wars -- force and i urge all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and to all of the men and women who have guarded our great nation in the name of protecting and defending liberty that we hold so dear, we say thank you. and to all of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice, may you forever remain in our

hearts and in our prayers. and with that i thank the gentleman for yielding 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 arkansas reserves. the gentleman from georgia. >> yes, mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i just take this opportunity to join all of us in the congress of the united states to absolute the first service special forces. mr. scott: for the outstanding work that they have done. and urge unanimous passage on this legislation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield the balance of his time? mr. scott: yes, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. >> i yield myself the balance of my time and i join my colleagues, the gentleman from georgia and florida, -- and the gentleman from florida, for urging passage of this important legislation to honor

the devils brigade. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield the balance of his time? >> yes, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 324 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. cotton: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. cotton: i request the yeas and nays on this question. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1344 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1344, a bill to amend title 49, united states code, to direct the assistant secretary of homeland security, transportation secretary security administration to provide expedited air passenger screening to severely injured or disabled members of the armed forces, and severely

injured or disabled veterans and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. brooks, and the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. gabbard, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. brooks: as a member of the committee on homeland security's transportation security subcommittee, i am proud to be a co-sponsor of this commonsense piece of legislation that will increase accessibility and privacy for our wounded warriors at airport checkpoints. this legislation directs t.s.a. to develop and implement a process, to facilitate the ease of travel and to the extent

possible provide expedited screening to our nation's -- through our nation's airports for severe injured or disabled members of the armed forces and veterans. the last thing our heroes need is to face unnecessary scrutiny or hassle or be forced to answer endless questions about their conditions. when all they want to do is board a plane to fly home to their loved ones or maybe to a job interview. this bill would ensure that our wounded warriors, those dedicated men and women who have been severely injured while fighting to protect our nation, are treated with the highest dignity and respect when traveling through our nation's airports. i was pleased to find out that shortly after administrator pistol testified before the transportation security subcommittee on t.s.a.'s efforts to advance risk-based security, t.s.a. began to offer expedited screening services to severely injured members of the armed forces and veterans, provided they contact the t.s.a. in advance of traveling.

while i support t.s.a.'s newly adopted protocols, i feel this bill is necessary because it codifies current t.s.a. policy and endures -- and ensures that it will remain intact during future administrations. mr. speaker, this bill not only benefits severely injured and disabled members of the united states armed forces, veterans and their accompanying families, but it also supports the t.s.a. administrator's intent to develop a more risk-based method of screening for all passengers. expediting travel for our military heroes is an important step toward reasonable transportation security reforms that allow us to focus precious taxpayer dollars on the unknown travelers and the real threats. as we look forward to this upcoming memorial day, let us honor the all too often painful sacrifices our wounded warriors have made for our nation by adopting this important and commonsense piece of legislation. i urge my colleagues to support

the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from indiana reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1344, the helping heroes fly act, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1344. in response to documented grievances, my fellow service members made because of various challenges and trying experiences that they went through at airport checkpoints across the country, i introduced the helping heroes fly act, to ensure that the transportation security agency, working alongside with veterans advocacy organizations, developed sensible screening policies that honor and respect the service and sacrifice of our nation's injured and disabled heroes. on march 27 of this year, just a few days after this legislation was introduced, the

transportation security administration made an announcement of some improvements they'd made in this area, as they took steps to expedite airport screenings for severely injured members of our armed forces. with these changes, individuals can presently request assistance ahead of time and move through security checkpoints without having to remove their shoes, light outer wear jackets, or hats. taking off a jacket while maybe a simple inconvenience for you and i can be a very physically challenging task for someone who, for example, has lost the use of an arm. while this announcement was a good step, it didn't go nearly far enough as there are still more improvements that need to be made. as i've spoken with wounded warriors and listened to their experiences, i've heard stories that have been very -- varied and included things like having to take off a prosthetic leg, putting the leg through the x-ray machine and then having to balance on one leg going through the full body scan

without help from anyone. this is unacceptable. severely injured and disabled active duty and veterans both experience widely varied screening protocols among different airports and even among screeners in the same airport. this makes it very hard for a wounded warrior to anticipate and prepare what will be required of them to make sure that they are ready physically and mentally. again, this may not seem like uch to us, but to someone, a trained and hardened warrior, learning to adjust to these severe injuries can sometimes be difficult and can be the difference between a smooth and dignified screening experience or one that is filled with frustration, shame and pain for the injured service member and delays for all people waiting in that screening line. another issue that's frequently come up has been privacy. veterans have shared with me their own experiences of having to take off prosthetics, despite t.s.a. guidance that

it's not necessary, and in the instances where extra screenings of these prosthetics is necessary, it's been done in public view, even when clothing needs to be removed. no one, no one should be required to remove their shirt or pants in public. nor should scans of sensitive or private areas be viewed by other airline passengers. again, this has been already a humiliating, shameful experience for some veterans when there's absolutely no requirement or necessity for it. the disabled american veterans have spoken in strong support of this legislation, stating at some airports, our amputee members receive relaxed screening while at others these screenings are horrific. perhaps it's t.s.a.'s purpose to make screenings unpredictable. some screenings have required these amputees expose their prosthesis, when they lack the ability to reposition their clothing and t.s.a. agents are not allowed to help them. nor do they allow spouses or traveling companions to enter

search areas to assist them. so our objective with this legislation is to ensure consistent treatment by screeners, greater attention to privacy skerns and consulting with these -- concerns and consulting with these advocacy organizations who speak for our wounded warriors and make sure they have a voice in the process. this bill before us today, the helping heroes fly act, achieves these improvements by requiring t.s.a. take into account the privacy of the individual being screened. it also mandates training of screening officers on the expedited protocols to make sure that no matter where you travel, no matter what city you're in, you will have consistent screening procedures so you know what to expect. t.s.a. is also required to consult with these advocacy organizations to make sure that as these changes are implemented, that the unique needs of our wounded warriors are implemented to the best of its ability. to ensure these changes over the long-term, this legislation requires regular reporting to congress as well as maintenance

of the t.s.a.'s operations center, that these wounded warriors and veterans can contact for assistance as they prepare to travel. mr. speaker, as you well know, members of our u.s. armed forces are entrusted to protect the security of our country with their lives. by definition, these individuals pose very little risk to aviation security. and should be consistently screened in a manner befitting and honoring their service and sacrifice. so i urge my colleagues to ensure our nation's wounded warriors are treated respectfully and urge them to vote yes in support of h.r. 1344. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves. the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker, and i appreciate you yielding on this and i appreciate not only the gentlewoman from indiana but the gentlewoman from hawaii for

bringing this legislation. i bring a little bit of different perspective to this. as a chaplin in the military and working with our -- chaplain in the military arc wonding -- and working with our wounded warriors, those coming from a body that is vibrant, now they're in a position they've never been in, and counseling in those roles, and sheing them having to go through this -- seeing them having to go through this process which is inconsistent and frankly unfair, i think this is the reason i strongly support this legislation. but i also support it from a different perspective. it's having a daughter who has been in a wheelchair since she was able to walk, as we call it, roll. she's never known anything different. and so we've had to adjust over time and she's adjusted in ways of going through screenings and going through processes like that. but when you balance what our wounded warriors, heroes who come home, who had healthy bodies and now have bodies that are not healthy, this is something that will provide them a measure of dignity and

it is an honor to stand here and support this legislation. because i believe that an inconsistency in this area is an inconsistency in what we believe as americans and what those men and women have done for us. we have to remember that in times of war now it is not like it used to be, where these wounded would have died on the battlefield. now they're coming home, they're coming home to live productive lives, great lives, because those sacrifices that they have made. it is time that we in this legislation stand for them in the fairness -- and the fairness that they deserve for what they have given to us. i congratulate the gentlewoman from hawaii and also from indiana for sponsor this -- sponsoring this and i look forward to voting for this and urge my colleagues to do so and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from indiana reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, i yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the subcommittee on border and maritime committee, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is ecognized.

ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you. mr. speaker, i am so pleased to be able mr. speaker i'm so pleased to be able to come to the floor today as we approach this week to memorialize those fallen heroes and as well at the same time acknowledge those who yet live who served and wounded, even today as we stand on the floor in the backdrop of enormous tragedies among our civilian population, in oklahoma over the last couple of days and in texas and elsewhere, this is an important, very important legislative initiative. as the former ranking member and chair of the subcommittee on transportation and security and a co-sponsor, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1344, the helping heroes fly act of 2013,

and i congratulate my colleague, my new colleague, for this outstanding legislation. ms. gabbard from hawaii, thank you very much. and to the manager, thank you very much. it's important and i'm glad we are standing here together in a bipartisan manner. i support this legislation because it eases and facilitates expedited passenger screening at airports for service members who are severely injured or disabled, along with their families. and of course the thoughtfulness in introducing this legislation is of course appreciated because it's necessary legislation. i thank you for indicating that even as a t.s.a., of which we have oversight over, is formulating policies, it's good to codify it, to make it law. these heroes deserve their law. the helping heroes fly act requires transportation security administration to maintain an operational center to provide support and facilitate the

movement of these disabled service members and veterans and it requires t.s.a. to publish protocols so disabled service members and veterans and their families will be able to contact the operation center and request expedited screening. the bill also requires that these protocols be integrated into the training of t.s.a. agents. i know that there are many ports if you will for our returning heroes. i happen to know texas has had a very large number of our men and women go to iraq and afghanistan and places beyond. i have been to hawaii and know the transition there of many who are coming from -- on r&r from places around the world, and i know that there is a place where many come home because it was their home, and yet they come home disabled with prosthesis and other wounds that require their privacy. i'm glad that this bill acknowledge that not only are they heroes but they are

deserving of the respect, admiration, and commendation, and respect again of those who would expedite them going into a secured area. mr. speaker, more than 2.2 million veterans, one in 10, have been disabled or seriously wounded in the service of our nation, and disabled veterans typically find it much harder by some estimates, twice as hard, to readjust to civilian life. the least we can do for these heroes is make it a little less burdensome and difficult to navigate the obstacles, barriers, and checkpoints that have been erected in the afternat of geffen to enhance the security of air travel and rightly so. most of these inconveniences are necessary, but no less burdensome, to those who suffered typical -- physical disabilities depending the nation from those who make air travel dangerous and deadly. let's give them respect for what they have done to secure the homeland and make us favor. the legislation before us strikes an appropriate balance and between these competing

interests. i have seen the operation of t.s.a. and t.s.o. officers, and some of the what they call the specialty officers. allow me to thank you publicly for the work you have already done and the sensitivity you have done. i have seen these soldiers, these heroes coming home at dulles. i have certainly seen them in the airports in texas. i have seen them in uniforms, i have seen them disabled, with families. i saw one young man who was wandering in my airport and obviously in uniform but had not a good day. i don't know what might have been impacting him, but we stopped and i hailed over an officer in uniform, a t.s.o. officer and said you won't be alone now. we'll find out where you need to go. one of the factors of this particular legislative initiative that is good is that wherever you land sometimes, it may not be your home airport, every airport is different and i think they work themselves up to

make sure that they work to make it exciting and confusing. thank you for the helping heroes act to help improve airport security screening, but also thank you for giving them a helping hand. you are helping the veterans as well. this authorizes the wounded warrior screening program requires t.s.a. to maintain an operation center. these improvements will facilitate and expedite air travel for disabled veterans and service members. more importantly, they help our nation's heroes to be shown the respect, as i said earlier, and the appreciation of a nation that is so grateful. mr. speaker, i strongly support this legislation and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the helping heroes fly act of 2013. i'm glad to be back in the well again this week of honoring our soldiers and those who have fallen, i'm delighted for the leadership of my colleague on homeland security committee and manager on this great bill. i hope that we have a very

strong vote. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves. the the gentlewoman from indiana. >> mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to be yeelingd two minutes of my time to a distinguished gentleman who has also served his country admirably in the military, and someone who also serves on the homeland security committee, with congresswoman gabbard and myself, the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to start out by thanking the gentlelady from indiana and of correspond from hawaii for this very significant and impactful legislation, particularly privileged to speak in favor of this and knowing that ms. gabbard from hawaii currently serves. as a combat in arms just like myself currently right today. t.s.a. started a expedited screening program in 2011 called precheck, but just recently expanded the program to include active duty members of the

military. most recently just this march to severely injured members of the military. i must say that having served with some of these members, there is a member of this house that was severely injured, and i served right along her soldiers, i flew with those soldiers in iraq myself. many of these injured soldiers, service members, want to continue to soy. they want to. that's their call. but they cannot for their own good and the good of the mission. but their heart's in the right place. and so while it's great that the t.s.a. has recognized severely injured members of the military in that regard, what about these veterans who want to serve but cannot continue to serve? and this bill rightfully extends similar benefits to severely injured or disabled veterans and members of the armed forces. increased and more stringent security is understandable in the wake of 9/11, and kind of a bitter irony that many of these members that have been severely injured join just because of those events, how ironic is ite

of security for the injuries they received because they answered the call of their country. service members i know don't ask for special recognition or any recognition for being soldiers or service members. and certainly not for the injuries they received. have received as a result of their service. so i stand in very strong support of this legislation. i thank the gentlelady from indiana and hawaii. i urge all my colleagues to vote yes for this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from indiana reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. swalwell: mr. speaker, i rise to support h.r. 1344, the helping heroes fly act. i'm a proud sponsor of this bipartisan legislation introduced by my friend, congresswoman gabbard. congresswoman gabbard is a person who knows a thing or two about what it's like to be a

combat veteran who comes back from the battlefield and has to use our airports. fortunately she's back in one piece, but we know all too well many of our veterans are not. and this bill eases their ability to move throughout our airports. it extends benefits similar to the expedited precheck program to severely injured and disabled veterans and members of the armed services who fly through t.s.a. screening airports. as it stands now, many of our nation's wounded warriors report that screening protocols are not properly standardized at airports around the nation. consistent treatment by screeners would help create certainty for the newly injured and give greater attention to addressing their privacy concerns. despite t.s.a. guidance to the contrary, some veterans report having been required to take off prosthetics in public view during screenings. this is a difficult process that our injured and veterans should not have to n cure. in january i met with staff sergeant jason from livermore, california, from my district. he was severely injured by an

i.e.d. while honorably serving in afghanistan and lost brothe his legs. this bill would help ease the transition back home for wounded warriors and heroes like sergeant ross. the continued sacrifice and selfless service of our nation's heroes, a group he exemplifies withis distinction, is immeasurable. that's why we as a nation must live up to our responsibility to properly support the men and women of our armed forces when they return home. we must leave no soldier behind and we owe our troops more than just thank you for your service. today it is too easy to spend money, and we spend over $1 billion a year recruiting people into our armed services, while we are not doing enough to take care of them and keep the promises we make, whether it's providing g.i. funding or making sure the disability claims are taken care of. currently the average wait time for a disability claim ranges between 316 and 327 days. this is far too long. the oakland v.a. which reserves the veterans of my district has one of the worst backlogs in the

nation. at a time when our wounded warriors are left waiting so long to receive the care they have earned, helping to n sure our nation's heroes are able to travel seamlessly and without hindrance when they return home is a step we must take. i want to thank again my colleague, congresswoman gabbard from hawaii, for sponsoring this bill. i'll always support legislation that helps our returning service members and their families receive the care and thanks they were promised and have earned. i urge my colleagues to vote for the helping heroes fly act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves. the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. brooks : mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. if the in just a moment hawaii has no further speakers, i'm prepared to close once the gentlewoman does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. it's been an honor to stand here on the floor today in a bipartisan manner with my

colleagues. i want to thank the gentleman from indiana for managing this, and her strong support and advocacy for this issue, which is symbolic of us taking action to honor our heroes, especially as we head into memorial day. you heard from many members why this is a good bill and why it should pass. it's been subject to scrutiny by all the stakeholders, and it has resulted in a bill that will be efficient and effective. one example of steps we have taken to make sure that this is an efficient bill is making sure that as we provide training as a central requirement torques make sure the consistency in our airports exist, the provision requiring employee training was modified to make it clear that only screening personnel who participate in these expedited services will be mandatory, required to be trained under this bill as opposed to requiring every single employee of the t.s.a. to be trained, even when their job has nothing to do with passenger screening

responsibilities. this modification ensures the department's limited resources are spent in the most efficient manner, while also ensuring the consistent policies and treatment that is our objective of this legislation. i'd like to take a moment to highlight the support that this bill has gotten from veteran organizations. in addition to the disabled american veterans, i also have letters of support from the wounded warrior project. the american legion, and the paralyzed veterans of america. the wounded warrior project sums it up perfectly as they say wounded warriors should not have sacrifice their privacy encounter stricting policies and proceed yours or extended travel delays. we support this to offer expedited screening and protect the privacy of our wounded warriors going through this process. we also commend the proposal to require the t.s.a.s to continue to consult with veran service

organizations as they develop these improved screening processes. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. before yielding back, i just want to take a moment to thank the chairman of the committee, mr. mccaul, and the ranking member, betty tomorrowson, whose strong support for this bill allowed it to move very quickly and be considered on the floor here today. scommeet chairman mr. hudson, and ranking member richmond, as well as sheila jackson lee, along with my colleague, mrs. brooks , from indiana have also been incredible champions and supporters. last but not least, i would like to take a moment to recognize senior professional staff, brian, who has been invaluable in providing his assistance in guiding this bill through the process. mr. speaker, this is a commonsense measure that allies with the intelligence driven, risk based approach to security that t.s.a. is striving for. it addresses the clearly identified problem and provides a solution that will serve and

honor the sacrifices of our nation's selfless heroes and great leaders. i ask my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from hawaii yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. brooks : mr. speaker, i -- on behalf of myself as well as congressman mccaul, the chair of the homeland security committee, we would like to commend congresswoman gabbard for -- of hawaii not only for her service and moving this issue, but for her military service. i'm very proud to be serving with her and we are so pleased that this is being done in such a bipartisan manner. we've enjoyed a new, strong friendship and i hope there are many more bills to come that we can work on together. i must say that we know that there are so many brave men and women throughout this country who have been severely injured

while fighting. in fact, according to the employment and disability institute at cornell university, there are 6,800 working-age civilian veterans in indiana alone who have had the most severe service-connected disability rating. and this past weekend, when i was out at the indianapolis motor speedway, in honor of armed forces day, on sunday, and as we -- as we swore in the young men and women who have agreed to step up and serve in the national guard, and they were reporting to basic training that day, i knew that this bill was on the house floor this week. and it was quite emotional to see these young men and women, who we know are -- teen them and their families are providing the most incredible sacrifice. and i just am very pleased that we are working on this bill in this manner. to sit by while one of these

heroes, and to me all of these young 18 to -year-olds that i saw in front of me -- 18-year-olds to 22-year-olds that i saw in front of me were heroes. and while we pray that they are not injured but those who are injured and those who provide that critical sacrifice cannot be treated like potential enemies at our own airports. here at home and particularly at our airports it should put us all to shame. our wounded warriors are a special group of citizens in this country. they are a trusted group of citizens and we can and must do more to treat them as such and to recognize their commitment to our nation. with the memorial day holiday fast approaching, this bill is a timely tribute to their sacrifice. i must also say that this weekend, at the indianapolis 500, before the race it is the most moving ceremony when our armed services march down pit lane and many people, a quarter of a million people who will be there, say it is probably the most moving ceremony they have ever witnessed.

and so we look not only for the safety this weekend at our race, but it is a wonderful reminder of the incredible sacrifice all of the men and women in the military give day in and day out. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 1344 as amended and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from indiana yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1344 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the the is passed -- gentlelady from hawaii. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are

ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, s. 982, the freedom to fish act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of

the bill. the clerk: se 982, an act to prohibit the corps of -- the corps of engineers from taking certain actions to establish a restrickeded area, prohibiting public ac -- restricted area, prohibiting public access to waters down stream of a dam and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 982. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: s. 982, the freedom to fish act, would prohibit the corps of engineers from restricting public access to the vicinity of the 10 dams on the cumberland river in kentucky and tennessee. this bill, this legislation, was introduced in the senate by the leader, senator mcconnell,

and also by senator rand paul of kentucky. and our own authored by the gentleman from kentucky. it gives the public, the two states and the corps of engineers more time to carefully review conditions at these facilities. and to deal with the immediate threat to fishing, tourism and the economy. i applaud our leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today. this is an excellent example of congress exercising our constitutional authority to oversee federal agencies. far too often the executive branch and the federal bureaucracy operate without input and guidance from congress. my colleagues on the floor of this house every day criticize rules, regulations and actions by unelected bureaucrats that hurt our districts, our constituents and our economy. congress has the right, the constitutional duty, to oversee federal agencies and provide them with clear guidance and direction. as chairman of the transportation and

infrastructure committee, problems with the u.s. army corps of engineers are frequently brought to my attention by my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. republicans and democrats. i am pleased to work, whenever possible, to address these issues with clear guidance from congress. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california . mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. pending measure was introduced in the senate on may 16 of this year, 2013, and passed the very same day. while the bill is apparently a senate-revised version of the legislation introduced in february of 2013, no committee hearings or markups were held on either bill. since 1996, the corps has been required, the army corps of engineers has been required to establish restricted areas for hazardous waters upstream and down stream of all corps dams.

as written, s. 98 would revise the current agency policy and would also prohibit the army corps of engineers from establishing any restricted areas and hazardous waters at dams and other structures in the cumberland river basin for a period of two years and also require them to remove any physical barriers that already exist to prevent access to the hazardous areas. if, after both-year moratorium, the corps decides to implement new restricted areas around these dams and other structures, it would continue to be prohibited from erecting any physical barriers to prevent people from entering hazardous areas. currently the corps -- madam speaker, i do have serious concerns over this piece of legislation because it does pose risk for public safety and national security. currently the corps restricts access to certain areas above and below the dams of the

cumberland river basin. in order to keep people from being sucked into the waste or from having their boats swamped or sunk but unplanned releases from the hydropower units which are very, very much untimed. the reasons they do this is very simple. to prevent people from drowning and to restrict access to federal dams that would be targets for terrorism or destruction. without full-time law enforcement, patrols areas above and below dams are not constantly monitored and the corps has not been able to alert and rescue people who get into trouble. they have to be to base it on people who are both nearby to help affect a rescue. 14 people drowned in the last few years and there have been 20 near misses where there is no corps staff to help. in fact, according to a report y worcb tv in chattanooga, tennessee, since 2009 there have been three fatality notice

hazardous waters immediately down stream of those dams on cumberland river. the waters are so hazardous at these locations that wearing a life jacket is ineffective and i repeat, ineffective. to legislatively preclude a federal agency from protecting public health and national security seems toa very unwise course of action and i have significant concerns about the precedent that this would set -- that would be set by this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to -- three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, the author of the house version of this bill, i yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. >> i want to thank you and ranking member napolitano for agreeing to bring this important legislation to the floor. i will tell you, last september the army corps of engineers

made a decision that the 10 dams located on the cumberland river, that they would put up a barrier of fishing near these dams in the tail waters. and despite opposition from the governors of tennessee and kentucky, the fish and wildlife service of kentucky and tennessee, senator alexander, senator corker, congressman jim cooper, marsha blackburn of tennessee, steve fincher, myself, rand paul, mitch mcconnell and others, we wrote letters to the corps, we had public meetings with the corps, we sent petitions to the corps, we had phone calls with the corps and asked them to delay the implementation primarily because of the sequestration and the amount of money that it would take to put these barriers up, which almost would be $3 million. despite our best efforts, and we had meetings in which 400 or 500 people attended, they refused to delay the

implementation. mr. whitfield: i so i rise today to support this senate bill because it delays the implementation for two years. and want to thank the gentlelady for bringing up the safety issue. all of us are very much concerned about the safety issue. but i would like to point out that in the 42 years of the history of these dams on the cumberland river in tennessee and kentucky, there have been 881 drownings in the collective lakes and waters, not including the area immediately around the dam. there have only been 14 drownings and any drowning is too many, but in 42 years around the dam, where they are focused on, there have been 14 drownings. and i might say that of those 14 drownings, five of them occurred on the banks, two of unknown causes,

three were because people were not even wearing life jackets, three were because they were wearing the life jackets improperly, and only one drowning occurred in 42 years where the person was wearing the life jacket properly. so i would say to the corps, the real safety issue relates to the collective waters, not around the dams. and of course we all are very much concerned about protecting the homeland, homeland security , and i will tell you, in these very rural areas of tennessee and kentucky, where these dams are located, many people are out there fishing and -- my time's expired. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. whitfield: thank you. these are very rural areas. and i will tell you that the fish and wildlife service provide a great deal of protection and enforcement of broken laws in this area. and many of these people are

quite familiar with each other and so i'm not going to be able to address the homeland security issue in detail except that it is enforced, many of the people who fished there through the fishing competitions and for the economic growth know each other. but the real -- on the safety issue, i would just say, 14 drownings in 42 years around the dam itself, 881 in other areas, and so we're not asking that this be a permanent restriction, we're simply asking the corps to work with the governors, the fish and wildlife services in both states, the senate and the house and local county judges to address it in a more permanent way. and so i would respectfully request that you approve this senate bill which will simply delay for two years for additional study. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. it would bethar corps has not r

been effective in getting back to the parties that have asked for information and working with them. and it would be very much interesting to know whether or not it's because of sequestration or budget whatever. but will they later? i yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, congressman cooper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. . >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i hope we have an overwhelming vote in support of it. the freedom to fish act is a very responsible piece of legislation put forward in the senate by my colleague, senator lamar alexander, in the hearing on the senate side, senator feinstein, pointed out to the army corps of engineers with us how reasonable senator alexander was trying to be, how reasonable this approach was. mr. cooper: i think we can say with some certainty that this is

something that should be overwhelmingly supported by this house. for my colleagues, the cumberland river is perhaps unknown to you. it's a beautiful river. every elected official that i am aware of in our area, democrat and republican, supports this legislation. safety is an issue, but so is overreaching. our friends at the corps occasionally they are a little bit tone deaf, especially if they get transferred in an out a little bit too quickly. this is an amazing little way to fish here below the dams. some of you not realizing fish is this big, some of these fish are 30 and 40 pounds. this is a magnificent recreational resource that has been unfairly harmed by proposal corps action and by officials who will soon be moving away from our area and living in other part of the country. he's a fine gentleman but this is a chance for us to claim our local rights, traditions,

freedom to fish. i ask ply colleagues to support s. 982, it's a very reasonable approach to try to solve this problem, soffing this dispute with the corps. support s. 982, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i do rise today to support this legislation and to support the sportsmen from tennessee and kentucky. this is an issue where there is bipartisan agreement. one of my constituents said it so well, they are so frustrated with this suasion, and we heard from so many of them on it, they said, you know, you turn on the tv any night and you see government overreach, whether it's the i.r.s., admitting that they have targeted conservative groups or d.o.j. wiretapping

reporters, and then you get home to tennessee and at the local level what you see is the corps of engineers coming in and saying, well, by the way, we are going to change something. and you're not going to be able to fish. fishing in tennessee is a traditionle -- tradition. it is a favorite pastime. sportsmen have been fishing along this beautiful cumberland river for years. as mr. cooper said, it is a beautiful place to be. and since the dams were built i have to tell you there are now generations of tennesseans, you will see families out together fishing. and we have about 900,000 registered anglers in our state, and i have to tell you, i think our office has heard from almost every one of them on this issue. they have been very persistent. and one thing i would want my colleagues to know is that our

sportsmen in our states are wonderful stewwards of conserving our natural resources and the great outdoors. and they exercise personal responsibility in protecting their favorite place to go fishing. it is really to the disbelief of the army corps of engineers that we already know when it is safe or not to go fish in these tail waters. what we are saying is let's right this wrong, and let's allow individuals to get back and enjoy the freedom to fish act. pass it today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i really appreciate the information from my colleague on the other side. it is only for two years, which is time enough to be able to have the corps and the

individual participants be able to come to some agreement. the fact that there is, according to my colleague, no fishing, i think it's only in certain areas which would be at the lip of the damn and below the -- dam and below the dam where the spill is where there is danger of boats getting swamped. it is something that we need to look forward to and seeing what happens. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. barr: mr. speaker, spring is upon us. a season that is important to several of kentucky's signature industries. not only does spring signify horseracing and the kentucky derby, it also marks the beginning of the adventure and outdoor tourism season as well. tourism is an $11.7 billion signature industry in my state.

employing over 166,000 kentuckians and accounting for one in 10 jobs across the commonwealth. a major part of kentucky tourism stems from one of america's favorite pastimes, fishing. in my district, the kentucky river is enjoyed by many, and it stretches from the daniel boone national forest and meanders through horse farms in the central bluegrass. specifically in franklin county. fishermen especially enjoy fishing in the kentucky river's tail waters surrounding locks and dams. there is it is notorious for having an abundance of fish. unfortunately the army corps of engineers has decided to prohibit tail water fishing in its sister river, the cumberland, while many of my constituents travel to engage in their favorite pastime. this is yet another example of government overreach where this time the government is telling us how to fish in water systems

that have been safely utilized for generations. we must not allow the corps to set a precedent for regulating how kentuckians and americans alike spend their time outdoors. as our fragile economy continues to recover, my constituents tell me that they plan on sticking closer to home to recreate this spring and summer. overregulation of fishing is a deterrent to family time and harms our local businesses that depend on the revenue from seasonal recreation and tourism. i ask my colleagues to join me in support of the freedom to fish act. which places a two-year moratorium on the corps' plan to restrict access to tail waters in the cumberland river. this will allow us time to implement -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. shuster: 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 30 seconds. mr. barr: this will allow us time to implement a permanent plan to halt the army corps from setting a precedent of

restricting access to any tail waters going forward. i am an original co-sponsor of this legislation and i applaud the leadership of mr. whitfield, my colleague from kentucky, and that does exactly this, protect fishermen in rural economies and americans' rights to choose how they recreate. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from frog jump, tennessee, mr. fincher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from frog jump, tennessee, is recognized for two minutes. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. chairman. for yielding. i have had the privilege of fishing on the cumberland river at barkley dam. and my grandfather took me many times to fish there. high this would work and why it's such a good fishing spot is when they would release the water from the top of the dam and when it would come under, in the back of the dam, the waters

would roll up anti-big fish we talk about would roll up off the bottom and that's why the fishing is so good. it's like we don't have enough things to do in washington that we are dealing with this issue today. i want to thank mr. whitfield for bringing this up, but commonsense solutions to problems, are what we should be talking about. and the corps in many respects they do good work, but bringing this up, stopping the fishing from occurring at the dams and on the rivers, cumberland river in specific, is ridiculous. we need to get down to the business of america. let's let people fish where they have always fished like my grandfather took me to barkley dam over and over and over time and time again. get to the real issues. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation today and let's give the power back to the people. commonsense solutions for real problems. with that i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i

think our colleagues haven't -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california has yielded. mr. shuster: i'll close. once again i just want to applaud our leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today. as i said earlier this is an excellent opportunity, excellent example for congress to exercise our constitutional authority over these federal agencies. with that i urge all my colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation s. 982. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the 982. h.r. 982 -- s. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: i move to suspend the rules and agree to senate concurrent resolution 16. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the us croo. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 16, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitors center for the unveiling of a statue of frederick coug last -- frederick douglass. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i would also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks on the

concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. miller: i rise in support today, mr. speaker, of senate concurrent resolution 16, authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitors center for the unveiling of a statue of frederick douglass, a great abolitionist. frederick douglass is a pivotal history figure in american history who had an unyielding dedication to equal rights to abolition of slavery, and advancement of women's suffrage. his brave actions and compelling writings inspired and forever changed this grateful nation. born into slavery, frederick douglass escaped to new york in 1838, disguised as a free uniformed sailor. and upon achieving his own freedom, he quickly and unwaveringly turned his life's mission to seeking freedom, justice, and equality for all. frederick douglass inspired in african-americans the fums that

one's achievement cannot be limited by one's color and the american dream is within reach for all americans, regardless of race. over a century has passed since his death, yet his contribution to american society is very much alive today. his tireless dedication, brilliant words, and inclusive visions of humanity continue to inspire people of all races. in considering the remarkable achievement of frederick douglass and his contributions to our rich history, his presence within the united states capitol will honor this institution and serve as an endearing testimony to this nation's struggle for freedom and for equality. i want to thank the senator from the state of new york, mr. schumer, for introducing this concurrent resolution as well as my colleague, ms. norton, from the district of columbia, for her work on this. and i certainly urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise in strong support of senate concurrent resolution 16. i would like to begin by thanking chairman miller for her help in bringing this resolution to the floor. i also thank ranking member brady for his long-standing commitment to placing a district of columbia statue in the united states capitol. when he chaired the committee, the committee approved my bill that would have given the district two statues in the capitol, the usual practice under federal law, but we are pleased to have our first statue and grateful to the house leadership for permitting this bill on the floor today. we especially thank senators shoe mer -- schumer and durbin for their help in getting this resolution, as well as the bill authorizing the placement of the douglass statue in the capitol passed in the senate. the district of columbia has no

senators, so we are fortunate we have distinguished allies like senators schumer and durbin. like the residents of the 50 states, the residents of the district of columbia have fought and died in all our nation's wars and have always paid federal income taxes. the residents of the district of columbia are fighting for their equal rights as american citizens. since 2002, our one component of that fight has been to achieve statutes representing the district of columbia placed in the capitol like the state which will fulfill every obligation of citizenship which the district does. .c. residents chose douglas -- douglass to represent them in the capitol, not because he's an international icon of human

rights and civil rights, he's especially important because he s not content to rest on his historic national achievements. he knew where he lived and was deeply involved in the civic and political affairs of the district of columbia. douglass, a strong republican, served as recorder of deeds of the district of columbia, as united states marshal here, as a member of the d.c. council, its upper chamber then, and because the republican congress gave the district a home rule government, he was able to actually run for office in the local government at that time. douglass was also a member of

the board of trustees of howard university for 24 years. ouglass made his home in the neighborhood of southeast washington which is now the frederick douglass national historic site administered by the national park service. in choosing douglass, it was important to our residents that douglass also dedicated himself to securing self-government and voting rights for the residents of the district of columbia. many americans may not know hat d.c. residents have only nonvoting even representation in the congress or a local government and even today has no vote on the floor of the house and no senators, although our residents pay federal income taxes like

everybody else and fight in all the nation's wars like verybody else. the vote had both home rule and a delegate for a brief period during reconstruction, and then was without any home rule government or any representation in the congress r over 100 years until the 1970's. "life and biography, times of frederick douglass," douglass commented on the unequal political staff us of his hometown, the district of columbia and of its residents. most of what douglass wrote in the 19th century holds true today, and i am quoting douglass from his autobiography. these people are outside of the united states. they occupy a neutral ground

and have no political existence. they have neither voice nor vote in all the practical politics of the united states. they are hardly to be called citizens of the united states. practically they are aliens, not citizens but subjects. the district of columbia is the one spot where there is no people of the for the people, of the people and by the people. its citizens submit to rulers whom they had no choice in selecting. they obey laws which they had no voice in making. they have plenty of taxation but no representation. in the great questions of politics in the country, they can march with neither army but are relegated to the positions of neuters. i have nothing to say in favor of this anomalous condition of

the people of the district of columbia and hardly think that it ought to be or will be much longer. well, douglass did not minutes his words. he -- did not mince his words. the statue of douglass in our capitol will show his dedication to human rights and democratic rights. his statue in the capitol will remind district of columbia residents that they, too, will partake of these values one day. his statue will offer the same pride that other citizens of our country experience when they come to the capitol and see memorials that commemorate the efforts of their residents and their significant

contributions. and the douglass statue offers other americans the opportunity to see the residents of their nation's capital honored as well in their capitol. i reserve the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia reserves. the gentleman from michigan reserves -- the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from the district of columbia for her very eloquent words, and we are all looking forward to the unveiling of this statue of this remarkable american that is such a critical component of our history, our proud history. and with that i would urge all

of my colleagues to support this senate concurrent resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan yields the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to senate concurrent resolution 16. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> regarding my desire to address h.r. 3 and my motion

filed yesterday. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up his resolution? does the gentleman call up his resolution? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: resolved, that the house of representatives shall not consider h.r. 3, the northern route approval act, because, one, it violates rule 21 of the house and, two, it affects the degree nit and integrity of the proceedings of the house since it is nconstitutional. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from florida wish to present argument on the parliamentary question whether it represents privileges of the house? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i rise today to address h.r. 3, the northern route approval act, and my resolution raising a question of privilege regarding the matter. this is a privileged motion and therefore outside the scope

under rule 10. mr. grayson: rather, this is a question regarding the privileges of the house collectively, its safety and dignity and integrity of the proceedings, pursuant to rule 9. it is not invoke to change in the rule or in their interpretation as prescribed by house rules and manuals at page 420. consideration of this bill exceeds the rights of the house collectively and brings into question the degree dignity and integrity of the house of representatives under house rule 9 because, first, it is unconstitutional and, second, it is an earmark. i presented this matter to the full house in h.res. 225 as a question of the privilege last night, and i notice the question immediately following the only vote series of the day. mr. speaker, pursuant to rule 9 of the house, you must now make your determination as to whether or not this is an appropriate question of privilege and hold the vote on

the resolution offered before the house. before that happens, i'd like to address the two claims i made on the bill offered by the gentleman from nebraska and find in favor of my question of privilege. h.r. 3 is unconstitutional. the constitution does not permit congress to execute the laws. the above is taken from the supreme court's ruling in boucher vs. sinar. the bill before us violates this principle. congress creates the laws and it's up to the executive to execute the laws. under section 3 of this bill, however, the final environmental impact statement issued by the secretary of state on august 26, 2011, and the presidential permit required for the pipeline prescribed in the application i d on may 4, 2012, -- believe i have. may i continue? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman shall not discuss the underlying bill but to the matter of privilege. mr. grayson: respectfully, mr. chairman, i believe they are intwined. i can't see how i can do one without the other. may i continue? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. canada son: the trans keystoneline l.t. to the department of state includes the nebraska reroute evaluating the final evaluation report issued by the nebraska department of environmental quality in january of 2013 and approved by the nebraska governor shall be considered or deemed to satisfy all the requirements of the national environmental policy act of 1969 and the national historic preservation act. this is a clear attempt by this body to execute the law of the land and that is prescribed by the constitution. again, mr. speaker, the executive must execute the laws . h.r. 3 runs afoul this

requirement. the supreme court held that interpreting a law enacted by congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of execution of the law and that's exactly what's being proposed here and forbidden by the constitution. the exercise of judgment in the bill before us concerning facts that affect the application -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's remarks should be refined to the question of privileges of the house. the gentleman's remarks are going to the underlying bill which are not a question before the house currently. mr. grayson: well, mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman is unwilling to refer to the question of privilege, the chair is prepared to rule. mr. grayson: well, mr. speaker, it's not a question of whether i'm willing to. as i indicated before, the two are inextricably linked. the speaker pro tempore: there are two different questions. one is the question you're trying to propose in your motion. the other one is a question of privilege. we are here debating the question of privilege.

whether this resolution constitutes a question of privilege. mr. grayson: i understand that. i don't think the chair can properly be informed of the question without the material i'm providing to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. grayson: thank you. the supreme court held that interpreting a law enacted by congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of execution of the law and that's exactly what is being proposed here. the exercise of judgment in the bill before us concerning facts that effect application of statute constitutes application of the law. it is an unconstitutional act that this body should not entertain. it violates separation of powers and violates the principle underlying the prohibition of bills of attainder. statements are deemed in this bill to be in compliance with laws the executive has been tasked with executing, the national environmental policy act of 1969, known as nepa, and the national historical

prohibition act, as you see section 3 of h.r. 3, it's referenced there. this is an impermissible execution of the law. congress, through this bill, is attempting to apply the facts of the keystone x.l. pipeline environmental statement to the body of law and deciding they comply. this is unconstitutional and brings into question the dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will give the gentleman one more opportunity. the question of constitutionality is not a question of the privileges of the house. the gentleman should refer to the question of privileges of the house, and if the gentleman is unprepared to do so, the chair is prepared to rule. mr. grayson: mr. chair, the last words i just said were this relates directly to the matter before the chair. may i proceed? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed on the question of privilege. and i believe the gentleman knows the difference.

mr. grayson: mr. chair, i stand by what i said. may i proceed? the speaker pro tempore: you may proceed. the chair is prepared to rule. mr. grayson: i don't think you can properly do that without being fully informed without the facts here. may i proceed? the speaker pro tempore: proceed. mr. grayson: were not satisfied with writing the laws, we want to execute them as well. this discredits the institution not only within the federal government, but also in the eyes of the american people. we must not allow the house to be degraded this way. . the bill states the environmental impact statement satisfies nepa. the environmental impact statement was for a different project, the keystone x.l. pipeline proposed in 2009. a pipeline would have terminated in the gulf coast. the nepa process --

the speaker pro tempore: the chair has heard sufficient arguments. the arguments the gentleman is making are proper arguments for the merits of the proposed legislation. not on the question of privilege. the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from florida seeks to offer his resolution as a question of the privileges of the house under rule 9. the resolution proposes a special order of business with regard to a specified legislative measure specifically mandates a measure not be considered by the house because it is unconstitutional and violates a rule of the house. to qualify as question of privilege, a resolution must affect the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity, or integrity of its proceedings. in evaluating the resolution under the standards of rule 9, the chair is guided by a fundamental principle illuminated by my precedent in section 706 of the house rules manual to wit, that a question of the privileges of the house may not be invoked to affect a change in the rules or standing orders of the house or their

interpretation, nor a -- nor to prescribe a special order of usiness for the house. that this resolution presents a question of privilege of the house under rule 9 embodies the contrary principle under which each have i member of the house would constitute a virtual rules committee able to place before the house at any time whatever proposed order of business he or she might deemizeable based on allegations of unconstitutionality or violations of the rules. in such an environment, anything could be privileged so nothing would enjoy the true privilege. accordingly, under the long and well established line of precedent as elucidated most recently by the ruling of august 10, 2010, the chair finds such a resolution does not affect the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity, or integrity of its proceedings within the meaning of clause 1 of rule 9, and therefore does not qualify as a question of privileges of the house. mr. grayson: i respectfully

disagree with the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 1412, by the yeas and nays. h.r. 324, by the yeas and nays. h.r. 1344 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion for the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1412, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 39, h.r. 1412, a bill to improve and increase the availability of on job training and apprenticeship programs carried out by the secretary of veterans affairs, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 416, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. unfinished is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from arkansas to pass h.r. 3 24 as

amended. the clerk: h.r. 324 a bill to grant the congressional gold medal to the first special force in recognition of a superior service during world war ii. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 415, its nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative,

the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is on the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from indiana, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1344 as amended on which yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1344, a bill to amend title 49 united states code to address the assistant secretary of homeland security transportation security administration to provide expedited screening to disabled members of the armed forces and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 413, the nays are zero, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and bill is passed and

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1412, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: 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. poe: mr. speaker, big snoopy government agencies can read emails that are over 180 days old without a person's knowledge or consent. that is just wrong. it takes a warrant to eavesdrop phone conversations but no warrant required to per reuss a erson's email?

that's why congresswoman lofgren and i introduced the online communication act. it would require a search warrant to seize a person's email. when a person mails a letter, the government cannot open the mail from the time it is placed in the mailbox, travels throughout the fruited plain and ends up in another mailbox. the law protects the privacy of this snail mail. when a person sends an email through cyberspace, the government should not be allowed to seize the content without a search warrant. at a time when we see more and more government invasion of privacy, congress should ensure that government does not press the delete button and elimination the constitution and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire eek recognition? >> 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 gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

ms. kuster: innovative small businesses all across new hampshire are using the internet to reach new markets, create good jobs and grow our economy. congress should be working to create an environment that helps these companies expand and hire, not adding new bureaucratic barriers and red tape that will impede growth. but that's exactly what the so-called marketplace fairness act would do. this legislation would force online retailers to collect sales taxes on behalf of over 9,000 tax jurisdictions worldwide, creating a web of bureaucracy that would stifle small businesses. later this week, i will return home to new hampshire to hear how this tax will impact granite state entrepreneurs. i urge my colleagues to do the same in their states and to stand up for small businesses by opposing this misguided legislation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> request 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. >> i rise to honor two brave federal law enforcement officers that lost their lives during a training accident last friday. they were member of the hostage rescue team. they have taken -- members of the hostage rescue team dedicate their lives for training for critical terrorists and hostage in criminal situations. they rescued a 5-year-old boy who was being held hostage by a 65-year-old man in alabama. they spent many years serving their nation by putting themselves at risk for others who were in danger. mr. collins: tragically, they died during a maritime counterterrorism exercise. their team was performing off the coast of virginia beach. both these men leave behind young families and our thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones during this difficult time. nd i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize and celebrate the centennial of the city of carrollton texas. mr. marchant: the city of carrollton was incorporated 100 years ago on june 14, 1913. carrollton has truly blossomed into a prosperous and exemplary city. from the population of 1,600 in 1950, it has grown now to over 130,000 residents and is home to thousands of successful businesses. i am proud to say that my family has been able to be part of this great history. it was my privilege to serve as mayor of carrollton from 1984 to 1986. my brother, ronnie, served for years as a city councilmember and currently my son, matthew,

has the honor of being the city's mayor. mr. speaker, on behalf of the 24th congressional district of texas, i ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of the city of carrollton, texas. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i seek 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, memorial day is a day our grateful nation devotes to observing the extraordinary sacrifices paid by so many brave military men and women. mr. yoder: they died to protect the ideals and we will never forget them. mr. speaker, while we continue to work on behalf of the american people here in washington, let us remember we work for people outside the beltway, many who are searching for employment. with the unemployment rate

proposed at 9.2%, i'm heart reminded n we are those that cannot find work back home. let us honor those devoted to this country that they gave their lives and those who defend us on the front lines abroad by putting these brave men and women first at home in line at home to provide for their family and realize the american dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. clyburn of south carolina for today and mr. diaz-balart of florida for monday, may 20, through wednesday, may 22. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the

gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, 13 years ago on may 8 of the year 2000, 19 marines lost their lives in a tragic plane crash at mirana regional airport in arizona. it was a crash on the part of the pilot, lieutenant colonel john brough, and the co-pilot. the course decision to assign blame to the pilots has been a point of controversy ever since the year 2000. mr. speaker, two years after the accident, i received a letter from the major's wife, connie, who lives in the district i represent, the home of camp lejeune marine base and new river air station.

i will quote from her letter to me that i received in 2000. i contact you in hopes that leaders of integrity, free of bias, would have both the intelligence and the courage it takes to decide the facts for themselves. if you do that you'll agree that human factors/pilot error findings should not stand as it is in military history. again, i respectfully ask for your support. please do not simply pass this matter along to general jones without offering the support my husband and his comrades deserve. please remember these 19 marines can no longer speak for themselves. i am certainly not afraid to speak for them and i believe someone else has to. even though it's easier to put to rest and forgotten, please join me in doing the right thing by taking the time to address this important issue. mr. speaker, she further stated, and i quote.

with so many wrongs in the world, we cannot make right, i ask you consider an injustice that you can help make right. i realize you alone might not be able to amend the report, but you can certainly support my efforts to permanently remove this black mark from my husband's honorable military service record. military leaders continue to refuse to amend this report, but i am certain that there must be by other means making the change given the controversy of this aircraft and the marine corps' vested interest. surely there is an unbiased ethical way to rightfully absorb these pilots. please help me by not only forwarding my request but also by supporting it. mr. speaker, i hold up now a photograph of the v- 2 osprey. it is a very unique plane and at the time of this accident in the year 2000 it was an

experimental plane. these two pilots, john and brooks, were not experimental pilots. they had no training in flying an experimental plane. this plane itself should never have been asked to do what was done that night. in fact. secretary of defense dick cheney was trying to eliminate the v- 2 program and i was in congress at that time and i remember vividly it was a major fight here in congress whether we were going to fund the v-22 program or not fund the program. and again secretary of defense cheney wanted to scrap the program. the marine corps wanted the v-22. they were convinced this was a plane they wanted desperately. but they asked two pilots. one of night hhull 71 which landed without too much trouble, it landed -- but it

was the plane that was crashed and killed 19 marines. since receiving connie's letter, i have done everything in my power over the last 12 the to clear the names of two pilots. who has frustrated me was the marine corps will not acknowledge that these pilots could not be and should not be held at fault because they had and those in the that flies helicopter, vortex ring state. but at the time of this accident, bell boeing, who produced this v-22, and the marine corps had no idea how they should react, the pilots to vortex ring state with the v-22. mr. speaker, i have brought a little model with the approval of the house to the floor.

that will show that the plane can go from a helicopter mode to a plane mode where it flies like a regular plane but at this point bell boeing and also the marine corps did not understand vortex ring state and how it could impact this plane. hen this plane is coming down. what happened was that the vortex state made this plane flip over and the plane crashed and 19 marines were burned to death. mr. speaker, the wives of these two pilots, all they're asking, the lawsuits are over. bell boeing has been sued for millions and millions of dollars. it has been disclosed so no one knows the exact figure, but i can tell you after talking to the attorney for connie and trish that the lawsuits are over. i have spoken to brian

alexander alexander, who handled the lawsuits for 17 of the 19 families in new york. he said the lawsuits are over. so basically all we're asking the marine corps to do is to please just issue a letter to connie and trish that clearly states that your husband flying this v-22 was not prepared, had to handle vortex ring state, because bell boeing and we, the marine corps, did not understand it either. so how can we train pilots if we don't understand what we're trying to train them in? . it has been frustrating to get the marine corps to bring peace gruber.brow and vince there was a book called "the dream machine." the history of the v-22 and all the problems it's had along the way and the fights we have had

in and out of congress to make this plane a reality for the marine corps. but something i want to read from "the dream machine." . where the actual line for the osprey was that the developmental test pilots -- i'm going to read it again, where the actual line existed for the osprey was something the program's developmental test pilots had not determined through hundreds of test flights to explore that part of the osprey's envelope had been planned. they had been planned to have hundreds of tests, but, but, it further states that the osprey program manager and marine corps colonel at the time told me years later that the tests were scrapped in 1998 to save time and money. the navy department was going to cut the osprey's programs' budget for the program by $100

million. after consulting with the boeing engineers in consultation with the tests, the program manager decided they could save $50 million if they didn't do the tests for the osprey at high rates of descent. these pilots in 1972, following behind night hawks were descending and yet, no one knew what the parameters were. the pilots did not know the parameters. the marine corps did not know the parameter and neither did bell boeing. so how could these pilots be held responsible? it is honestly unfair. i knew the general that oversaw marine aviation. a assistant at the time was brigadier general who is now a

commandant in the marine corps and they knew that the v-22 was under premmedous pressure by secretary of defense cheney to scrap the program. sadly i say this because i know both of these gentlemen, and they are fine fellows, that dead men can't talk. and these two pilots had no one to speak for them but their wives. connie gruber down in jacksonville, north carolina, trish brow over in maryland. and they have children, trish has two young boys. and connie has a beautiful little girl named brook. mr. speaker, this has become an obsession with me. i'm not an expert in flying and i don't know how to keep a plane in the air to be honest with you, but mr. speaker, i have had so many people join me in this effort and one of those people is an expert. he was working with the v-22

program when he was in the department of defense. and i want to read his comments, mr. speaker, for the record. the failure of the manufacturer bell boeing and the navy to characterize the slow speed high rate of descent-handling qualities of the v-22 through flight testing, the failure to describe to the air crew and failure to provide an adequate warning system were the causes the air crew not error. following the mishap and my discovery of these facts, i became vocal within the v-22 affixity in an attempt to blame. but they were committed to fixing the blame on the air crew . it would have jeopardized the program, which remains the

highest for the marine corps. that is so sad that this expert, an engineering expert would make this kind of statement that i just read for the record, mr. speaker. he knew, and he knows that at that time these two men who had no one two defend them had to take the blame to save the program. america's greatness is because we are a country of integrity and honesty. and the research i have done on this and found out that people that knew these men that flew with them, fellow marines would tell you that john brow and gruber were not prepared to happen and nor anyone understood vortex ring state and how to react to it. now that the program has been saved, there is no reason that the marine corps cannot give a letter to connie gruber and trish brow.

clearly stating that at the time april 8, 2000, that we, the marine corps and the bell boeing, the manufacturer, we did not understand vortex ring state because no one had done the testing. because they cut the programs. they cut the testing. and mr. speaker, truthfully, what is so ironic, shortly after this crash on april 8, bell boeing played tom mcdonald an experimental pilot who spent 700 hours flying the v-22 time after time and getting it into the vortex ring state and figuring out how pilots react to it. because of that work, we have warning systems in the v-22. the pilots when they get into vortex ring state, the warning system starts lighting up on the panel. they hear a sound in the head

phones that says sink. sink. sink. so they know how to handle vortex ring state. i continue to call on the marine corps to do what is right. the corps has one of the greatest respects of the american people because of integrity and courage. well, mr. commandant, the right thing to do is to prove integrity and courage by giving the two wives a one paragraph. mr. speaker, further, i have had so many people hell with this -- helped with this effort that the availtor at the time of the crash was phillip cole. he has joined in this effort. and i read what he said. there is a rush to blame pilots and to cite facts that relate to pilot performance.

rather than cite the true root causes of accidents. the design and detail in an aircraft or vehicle is often the root cause of an accident and a particular make or model of an automobile that is crashing too often say toyota or chevrolet, they wouldn't blame the drivers but say something is wrong with the automobile. the marine corps has always seemed to blame the pilot. mr. speaker, this is why this has become a passion for me personally and i couldn't be where imtoday without so many experts who have joined me. i want to mention jim schaffer. jim's call name was trigger and was in the air at the time of this plane crash and saw his friends go down and burn. mr. speaker, this is not right for these two wives to carry the pain now almost 13 years, april

8, 2000. we have already passed april 8 of 2013. all they are asking from the marine corps is a simple letter to say at the time we did not understand, bell boeing didn't understand, so therefore we couldn't train your husbands, so therefore your husbands couldn't have known how to react. they have all these warning systems that i just mentioned a moment ago. mr. speaker, i am not going to let this go. i have a meeting with the secretary of defense, chuck hagel, on the 10th of july and has already confirmed the date. i have accumulated so much information on this issue that i probably could have a small library that people could come in and research this accident, but i have great respect for chuck hagel. i remember him as a senator when i came out against the iraq war and was getting beaten up in my own district. i did not know senator hagel at the time, but he called me at

work, he said you're right, iraq is an unnecessary war and i want to meet with you. and he had his staff to show me maps on iraq and the fact that there were never weapons of mass destruction. for that, i'm of the firm belief that i will meet with him for 30 minutes, is all he could give me. and i think he will understand that this is not about me, walter jones. this is about honor. this is about respect and the two dead pilots deserve this, mr. speaker. just a few more points, mr. speaker, before i close. kurt weldon, when they were fighting this program, secretary cheney was fighting this program in 1998, 1999 and 2000, the one man in the congress and i was here at the time was kurt weldon.

congressman from pennsylvania who took on the administration, that took on dick cheney and said we've got to have this program, we got to have this program for the marine corps. the marine corps wants the v-22 and this is their future plane. kurt weldon has joined me and i want to share from a letter. kurt wellon and these are his words -- weldon and these are his words. i found it outrageous that the marine corps has failed to clarify the characterization that the pilots may have contributed to the tragic accident. , for the colonel april 8 v-22 accident and his assessment that it would be morally wrong to place the blame on the pilots. everyone save the united states

marine corps has acknowledged that the marine corps has formally acknowledged the facts and summaries of this investigation and publicly and clearly restored the outstanding commitments of these two brave marines. there could be no waivering. facts are facts. mr. weldon stated, you have my support to appear at any public event to set the record straight regarding the need for the united states marine corps leadership to stop playing games and correct the public record regarding the incident and fully clear the names of these two american heroes. mr. speaker, i want to read that one more time to close by kurt weldon, former united states congressman who fought and saved the v-22 program for the marine corps. he saved the program. unwavering support

to set the record straight regarding the united states marine corps leadership to stop playing games and correct the public record regarding the incident and fully clear the names of these two american heroes. mr. speaker, there are so many people who have joined me in this effort. i'm going to name a few. the three investigators now retired, but at the time, colonel mike morgan, a helicopter pilot himself. lawyer phil stackhouse, and lieutenant colonel ron radish, i just made issue to. these three men were sent to arizona the day after the accident and they were sent there to investigate the wreckage, the burned wreckage that killed 19 marines. all three of these men, mr. speaker, have joined me in strong letters to clear the

names of john brow and brooks gruber. i made reference earlier to colonel jaime schaffer, v-22 pilot, friends of these two pilots, he also has joined in saying that at that time, we did not understand vortex ring state and we didn't know how it would impact on the v-22 osprey. mr. speaker, i hold this up because it is a very unique plane, goes from a helicopter mode to like a plane to flying with the propelers in front of it and goes back up. jim schaffer has said that john brow and brooks gruber do not deserve the blame for this accident. of a recollection nigs strong proponent. alexander, he handled the

lawsuits of the 17 of the 19 families whose young sons were killed. forceman, eric former aircraft investigator. he has joined us in this as well and phil cole and he has said he was on the inside and saw that these pilots could not be held at fault because they were not to be blame. executive director of project and government oversight, she has joined in this effort. d bob cox, reporter for "the ort worth star." down in the veterans cemetery

in jacksonville, north carolina. admit, trish and her sons, both those ladies have my promise, mr. speaker, that if we ever get this one paragraph that i would like to go to the cemetery at arlington and stand there with trish and matthew say, colonel, rest in peace, you will never be blamed again for this accident because you were not at fault. then, i want to go to the cemetery in jacksonville, north carolina, with connie and her little girl, brook. ooke was a baby when her dad was killed. she is 12, soon to be 13. she never knew her daddy. she's just seen pictures of him holding her as a little baby

and smiling at her. that just made it very, very special. these two men deserve in the eyes of god to be cleared. i am not the smartest man in congress and i do not profess to be one, but god gave me a ig heart and he put this on me almost 13 years ago. and what i have found out, mr. speaker, is we are right. we are right. the marine corps is wrong in this situation. the experts who helped develop the v-22 have said we are right and the marine corps is wrong. curt weldon, who fought so violently to save the program, deserves credit. he's joined and said these two men deserve to be cleared.

mr. speaker, i remember vividly a quote from voltaire. to the living we owe respect. o the dead we owe the truth. that's all this is all about is two uth that these marines were not trained, is it not understand, another did bell boeing, nor did the marine corps, they were not trained as to how to handle the vortex ring state. we've gotten a little bit further in the last year, but recently the marine corps rejected a letter that the wives had signed off on if they could change two words and the two words are the same word, the word solely, the word

solely. the pilots are not solely at fault. mr. speaker, that bothers me because i know, the marine corps knows they were not trained. now, if they had been trained as to how to act and respond to vortex ring state and the v-22, then i might could accept that word solely. but how in the world can you say that pilots who were not trained because bell boeing did not know how to handle vortex ring state in the v-22, the marine corps did not understand it so if they didn't understand it and they didn't train the pilots how could they be solely responsible? that is absolutely unacceptable to the wives and is unacceptable to me. so therefore, again, mr. speaker, i'm going to meet with secretary hagel on the 10th of

july. i will be prepared. i only have 30 minutes so that's fine. i know he's a busy man facing our military in the world, but if he'll give me 30 minutes, mr. speaker, i will show him in 20 minutes why these pilots should not be held responsible for this accident. america, i want to thank you and -- mr. speaker, i want to thank you and the staff for giving me this extra time. this is one of these things hat is a religion with me. i cannot imagine, because i don't fly much. i have been in a few small planes, and i cannot imagine the panic of these two fellows knowing that they got 17 young marines, privates and corporals, sitting in the back of this plane and how they must have felt i don't know.

god knows their heart because he was with them when they went down. all i could think of is the panic of something you have not been trained to handle, the panic of what do we do now. brooks, john, what do we do now? we got seconds. seconds. and then the plane flips and burns. i ask god to touch the hearts of the united states marine corps and the commandant. the commandant now is a fine gentleman. i know him. i have respect for him. but he was there the day and the night of this crash, and the whole reason for this mission was to show the anti-v-22's and secretary dick cheney that this was a emarkable plane, this v- 22

osprey because they could show how they could descend so quickly and help those held by terrorists. that was the mission they were on in in arizona, to show this plane was very unique and it would land and descend quickly and hit the ground and get these people out. well, the problem was no one understood the parameters of this plane and how it should descend, so therefore these 19 marines were killed. mr. speaker, i hope to be back on the floor right after the memorial break before i meet with the secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and talk about this again. i believe sincerely that we are all stronger people and better people when we admit we made a mistake. and when an organization that

the american people love so much, like the marine corps -- and i love the marine corps, mr. speaker, but quite frankly, when they will not give connie and trish a little paragraph, like i have already said three times today, that clearly states they are not at fault, it's very disappointing, to say the least. mr. speaker, in closing, as i do on the floor when i think about all our men and women overseas in afghanistan and iraq that i'm going to ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who've given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. mr. speaker, i am going to ask at this time that god will touch the hearts of the united states marine corps to give john to the families of

brow and brooks gruber. mr. speaker, i will ask god to please bless the house and senate to do what is right in the eyes of god for today and tomorrow. i will ask the president -- i will ask god to bless the president of the united states that he'll do what is right for god's people dodd and god's people tomorrow. -- and god's people tomorrow. i ask god please, god please, god, please continue to bless america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

you know, tell me one of these politicians up here who does not minimize their taxes. tell me a chief financial officer that you would hire if he didn't try to minimize your taxes legally. tell me what apple has done that is illegal. i'm offended by a government that uses the i.r.s. to bully

tea parties, but i'm also offended by government that convenes a hearing to bully one of america's greatest success stories. i am offended by the spectacle by dragging in executives from a company that is not doing anything illegal. if anyone should be on trial here it should be congress. i frankly think the committee should apologize to apple. i think that the congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and busy teen tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages for creating a tax code that simply doesn't compete with the rest of the world. this committee will admit that apple hasn't broken any laws, yet, we are forced to sit and apple is forced to sit through a show trial at the whims of politicians when in fact congress should be on trial for chasing the profits of great american companies overseas. we haul before this committee

america's greatest success stories and you want applause. i say instead of apple executives, we should have a giant mirror, ok, so we can look at the reflection of congress because this problem is solely and completed created by the awful tax code. if you want to assign blame, the committee needs to look in this mirror and see who created the mess, see who created this tax code that is chasing american companies overseas. our corporate tax code is double canada's. i never thought i would be complimenting canada for their tax code. it is double canada, double a lot of europe. why don't we set about the work that ours is too high? apple has 600,000 jobs they've created, american jobs, and we want to drag them before this committee to chastise them? i find it abominable. just in my state, we have 700 million dollars in sales from dow corning. they make the gorilla glass.

they were virtually out of business. in the 1990's, apple struglt. if i had to -- struggled. i guess i didn't have enough to invest in apple, but the thing is in the 1990's people were worried they might go out of business. you know, the one computer was not doing well and the one innovation that came back and we want to chastise them for their success? i mean, a couple years ago we did repatriation of foreign capital. we want the capital come home, don't double tax it. we tax it at 35%. let's tax it at 5%. i have a bill that would repatriate profits from foreign companies at 5% and put it into infrastructure. our country is short of money for infrastructure, but you are not going to get it at 35%. you're getting zero. let's create an infrastructure fund. there are probably 75 votes in congress and nobody will bring it up. why? they say it's the sweetener for overall tax reform which is illusive and a hill too tall to

climb and never seems to get here. why not tomorrow pass it? . if we had it at 5% that they would bring money home. it has to be revenue neutral, just pass it if it's the right thing to do. i would say with what we really need to do is apologize to apple, compliment them for the job creation they are doing and get about doing our job, look in the mirror and make the tax code better, fairer and more competitive. money goes where it's welcome. the tax code makes money not welcome. >> you are free to apologize if you wish. that's not what this subcommittee is about. this subcommittee is about investigating the tax code that is not working for the american people or businesses, where some businesses decide how many taxes they are going to pay, how many

they won't, what they are going to leave offshore, cooking up all kinds of arrangements. apple is a great company, but no company, no company should be able to determine how much it's going to pay in taxes, how many profits they are going to keep offshore and bring them back home and using gimmicks to avoid paying taxes. they make use of this country and use our law system and have a right to lobby and they do lobby here plenty, but don't have a right to decide in my book how many taxes they are going to pay. avoiding paying taxes in this country to me is not right and the american people know it's not right and if you want to hold up a mirror, you can apologize to anyone you want. this subcommittee is not going to apologize to apple. we did not drag them in front of this subcommittee. they have come here willingly to explain their system and we

intend to hear from them the system they use and we will hear from some experts. >> all of that hearing later in our program schedule. online at c-span. the flag at half staff as ordered earlier by house and senate leadership. you can see our coverage of the news conference from oklahoma city and the president's comments this morning also on c-span.org. at mitch mcconnell will not try to block immigration efforts despite complaints from some conservative leaders. judiciary committee has been marking up legislation. the immigration and border security bill. we'll take you live now. hey have been going since 9:30 this morning. >> don't light it -- >> i know. and then we'll have to all leave.

that's a nice thought. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and happy birthday, al. this issue has been important to me for a long time. i have made it clear during the course of the hearing what i think about immigration. and i acknowledge that there are opportunities for talented people to come to the united states and make a profound difference. about one out of eight americans are foreign born. but when it comes to the founders of high-tech startup companies, one out of four are foreign born. so they can bring added jobs to america and added opportunities and from the beginning, i agree with you, senator grassley, we weren't opposed, but we saw within that program the need for reform. i joined you in legislation. for several years we introduced it together. we got some bad press in some

parts of the world but i still stood by this and then became part of this negotiation. and i had to make a choice, am i go go to stay with my friend chuck grassley on a bill that i still believe in or join in the negotiation here in an effort to actually create a law, a law which i think will go a long way towards achieving the reforms we set out to achieve and i chose the latter and there is good reason for it. when you look at the underlying bill here, many of the things, senator grassley, really aspired to the goals we put in our legislation. let me give you a couple of things we ought to remember about the underlying bill plus this amendment from senators hatch and schumer. employers will be given a chance to hire a temporary foreign rker under h 1 b but first will be required to recruit americans, no exceptions, no

excuses. our bill senator schumer says and that is required under present law, so that is an improvement. our bill allows to sponsor a green card with anyone who graduates if they will be working in a stem job. why do we want to invest in the education of someone develop their talents to the highest level and then bid them fair well. if they want to stay in this country, it's a positive thing. we have an increase in visas. currently for skilled workers, limited to 65,000. our bill will go up to 115,000 and possibly 180,000, but one important point i want to make referring to an earlier statement. bill if e an escalator the unemployment rate reaches a certain percentage, no workers

can be brought in. it reached that and exceeded that in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and professional workers reached that 4.5%. there would have been no workers with those numbers under our law. we are doing our best to be sensitive to the american labor market for these professional skilled workers. you made reference to the fact that we now under this law with the amendment will require employers to post a job on the department of labor web site for 30 days before hiring a foreign worker and senator klobuchar stepped away and added language to put it on state work force agency web sites as well so there will be notice to american workers of these opportunities. let me say a word about these so-called h 1 b dependent companies. here's the bottom line. we feel if your company is hiring americans, 85% of the

time for skilled positions, we are going to treat you differently. if, however, it's less than 85%, we impose new standards and requirements. under the current law, dependent companies are required to promise they will not displace a u.s. worker for 180 days. under our bill we extend this to 360 days. time and again what we're saying is if you have a firm with more than 15% foreign skilled employers, you will have an additional burden to advertise, recruit and hire american workers first. i think that's consistent with where you and i started. wage levels that will be offered to these workers goes to a new level, twice the level of what is currently required by law. if there are those who think they can game the system and bring in cheap skilled employees, they won't be happy with this amendment. because this amendment puts a higher standard, dramatically

higher standard. we add portability so the worker, once they're here, there is an opportunity to leave. they aren't going to be treated like servants. they can be offered green cards and move to another job. i want to address the issue that you and i spent a lot of time on. most of us think about h 1 b employers as the big tech companies needing engineers. the reality is different. in fiscal year 2012, all of the top 10 h 1 b visa applicants were outsourcing firms. firms, many of them from overseas which aren't hiring engineers to work as engineers, but hiring them to be placed as engineers in america for a short time before they are sent back to the country of origin. that to me is gaming the system. we change it. as that bill did, our bill does, too. we phase it in over three years.

we went to the 50-50 limit. it is phased in over three years and that is an important reform. the point i'm trying to get to this. i would have liked to have seen a different amendment, different bill. you would have as well, but this is a dramatic improvement over the current situation. as to your point as to this being revealed this morning at 11:40, it's true, but it combines seven, eight or nine hatch amendments into one. the actual new language is fairly limited. you have a right to review it and i'm sure you will. but most of this language senator hatch offered earlier. senator hatch, a number of others, myself included, have leaned a long way in your direction to get your support for immigration reform. we hope this is a good-faith effort on both of our parts to bring support for this bill to

pass. we have made concessions i never thought we would have to make, but we have made those concessions to win your support. we need your support and want to pass this immigration reform bill. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would note that a vote has started and we have three, four minutes before we have to leave here. did you wish to speak before we leave? >> i can do this in three, four minutes. >> go ahead. >> in terms of senator hatch's support, it is very welcomed, much needed and appreciated, but the most important thing is that you have made the bill better. to those who are looking at this amendment and our underlying bill from current law point of view, i can say without any hesitation that the opportunity or the chance of an american

worker being hired in this part of our economy is going up, without a doubt. and i didn't know that south carolina was in the middle of iowa or you ta. there is 18% to 22% increase to the cost to hire a foreign worker because we changed the wage level. we consolidated four wages into three and this is from 18% to 22%. that is real money to employers in this country and there are fees associated in certain circumstances so the combined costs of hiring someone who is not an american citizen is real to the companies in question. and if you want to make sure an american worker has a good chance of getting one of these jobs, the best way to do is to charge more. that is what we did and i'm trying to lower the cost of business in general, but i find myself aligned with senator durbin and senator grassley.

i don't want to bring anyone in as a foreign worker until our american citizens have a first chance. and we are assured that by the wage levels. the tidesing, that's real. you have to prove that you went out there to find an american worker. the best way is it's cheaper for you to find one. what senator hatch has done is brought the bill back to reality. we went too far. we went overboard and made it too hard on these companies and put too much power in the hands of the bureaucracy that i really think we need to be a little more distrustful of the bureaucracy, republicans and democrats have created. the government is really big and find yourself on the wrong side of this government having to prove something is very difficult. you have moderated the bill when it comes to the burdens that we placed on employers to prove that they tried to get an american worker. i think what you have done,

senator hatch, is made this bill functional. now as to the high tech community, you have more visas than ever. we are addressing your problems. when you can't find workers here in america at a competitive wage, we are allowing you to bring people in your company so you don't have to shut down or move. if you can't find workers, you will go out of business or -- and this is a real balance. keep companies here in this as well as americans getting the first chance to get jobs. it is a much better compromise and to senator durbin, senator grassley and others, you accomplished your goal of making current law a better deal for the american worker and senator hatch you have accomplished your goal of making this program workable and best compromise. >> senator hatch has asked for 30 seconds before we go to vote

and when we come back as soon as we can after the vote, i would uggest that the proponents explain exactly which one we are voting on and we can do that when we come back. senator hatch. >> i just want to thank everybody for voting for this who did. this is a compromise and i thank senator schumer and the co-sponsors that created this controversy. i'm going to vote this bill out of committee, because i have committed to do that once this amendment passes. make no mistake about it, other four amendments, finance committee amendments and we are going to reserve those to the floor. we'll never pass this bill if we don't do it. i will be working hard to do that and if we don't get a

reasonable resolution of those four amendments, i have to vote against this bill on the floor. let's take amendments along and we'll find out what does pass. we'll stand in recess for 15 minutes and senator franken will be recognized when we come back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by ational captioning institute]

>> senate judiciary committee is in recess. there is a vote on the senate floor, vote on amendment to the farm bill by pat roberts of kansas. the senate judiciary committee has been working on amendments to the immigration and border security bill and we will have live coverage when they return here. another note about hearings, one we are covering tomorrow in the house, house oversight hearing looking at the i.r.s. targeting

of conservative groups. one co is reporting that will invoke her fifth amendment right not to incriminate. they say she is the one who triggered an investigation that wrongly targeted conservative groups. we will have live coverage on the networks tomorrow. back to immigration, the committee came in earlier today and gaveled out midday. when they return for the afternoon session, they took up an amendment offered by senator cruz. the provisions from the underlying bill. a i call up cruz 3 and i have second dre amendment that will clarify that this would not impact those who are granted asylum and i ask unanimous

consent. >> without objection, it will be amended by the second degree amendment which creates exemption for people who have received asylum. the amendment is before us. senator cruz. >> this amendment would remove the path to citizenship that is contained in the gang of eight bill. we are a nation of immigrants. every one of us around this table are the children of those who came here seeking freedom. and we are also a nation of a rule of law. and in addressing immigration, i believe we need to respect both leg asies. our immigration system right now is broken and overwhelming consensus across this country, bipartisan consensus, that we need to fix the broken immigration system and need to fix the underlying problem and not kick the can down the road,

not simply ensure that the problems we have today will recur later down the road and be even worse. in my view, for immigration reform to pass and credibly fix the problem, it needs three elements to be added to the current bill. first of all, it needs border security, real teeth in border security and regret that the committee rejected a number of amendments that would put real teeth. secondly, we should expand legal immigration and reduce the waiting periods and i have introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and increase temporary workers by 500%. but third, i believe for this legislation to solve the problem, there should not be a

pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally. if there's a pathway to citizenship, and that is number one, inconsistent with the rule of law. number two, it's unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules, who have waited in lines years and sometimes decades to come and number three i believe the pathway to citizenship is included in legislation that congress passes, that it will serve to encourage yet more legal immigration. it will not solve the problem. indeed, if legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship passes like it did in 1986, i have little doubt that we will be back here and instead of 11 million people 20 illegally we will be at

million or 30 million. our broken immigration system creates human tragedies, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who lose their lives in the desert preyed upon by coyotes to victimization and no humane system would encourage a perpetration of the status quo. in my view, we need a rule of law and ensures there are real and meaningful consequences for violating the immigration laws. and i'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system and in particular about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. if this amendment is adopted to

the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would till be eligible for our status. still be eligible for legal status and under of the terms of the bill would be eligible for l.p.r. status as well so they are out of the shadows which is the principal objective to provide a legal status. this amendment would allow that to happen. but what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve and second point to those advocacy groups that are passionately engaged, in my view if this committee rejects this

amendment and i think everyone here views that this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view, that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the house of representatives. i don't want immigration reform to fail. i want immigration reform to pass. i would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass commonsense immigration reform that secures the borders and improves legal immigration and allows those here illegally to come out of the shadows, we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together and this amendment -- if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically. i would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment. > i thank the senator.

this would virtually gut the ill and it has been a very careful balance by republicans gives a false promise of citizenship on one hand and on the other hand, takes it back because the vast majority of the 11 million who would not be qualified -- senator schumer you asked to speak. senator schumer and senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think this shows the distance that some of us are apart, because my good friend from texas who i knows does this with complete sincerity says this is the way to do immigration reform. if we don't have a path to

citizenship, there is no reform, many of us feel. it's the bottom line. you cannot have an america where some people come here and work and never can achieve citizenship. that is so against the lady that stands in the harbor in the city i represent. out of many, one. and that's what america has done for generations and generations. it has said come here, work hard and you can become an american. and it's a wonderful thing that still billions around the globe aspire to. to go to a system that has clearly not worked over there, where people will work, work, work and never become full citizens, presents two classes, presents a sense of alienation and we have seen it happen. most of the european leaders i talk to wish they had our

system. so this is the heart of the bill. this is not just some, let's do this, this, this and not do that. i would say to my colleague -- maybe you can pass it in the house that way. i doubt it. i don't think the house leadership wants to entertain this. but you won't pass it in the senate. you won't have my vote. you won't have the vote of a whole lot of people. and so i would just strongly urge that we defeat this amendment. it goes against everything america stands for. it's a hard path to citizenship. it's not easy. it's a long path to citizenship. but that torch will still burn brightly in the eyes of millions who are here and billions around the world. i don't want to shut that torch or stop the light from that torch from being emitted because that's what this amendment will do. two classesf s, flake.

>> thank you, i appreciate the spirit with which this amendment is offered. i know the gentleman cares deeply about the rule of law and ast thing we want to do is incentivize more illegal immigration. in 1986, we provided an opportunity for people to become citizens and didn't do the other elements of the bill. we didn't do enough border security and didn't do enough -- we didn't have a meaningful temporary worker program to account tore our labor needs, so the federal government was in a position of do we just let it go? 20 ave done that the last years. we don't want to be in that situation again and that's why i think this bill contains significant border enhancements and border security, but it also has the opportunity for those who are here illegally now who have committed no other crime other than having crossed the border illegally to have the prospect for citizenship.

it's a long and arduous task. it's 13 years before anybody can become a citizen but it is possible and it is out there. the gentleman says 20 years from now, we don't want to be in a situation where we have the same situation we have today. i agree completely. but nor do we want a situation where there is a significant number of people who would like to become a citizen but never can. and if you look at some of the countries in europe where you don't have that opportunity to become a citizen of france, germany, britain. we don't want that. we don't want second-class citizen that never has that prospect and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. that's important. people aspire to that. not everybody will seek it. in 1986, i think only about 40% of those who were offered the opportunity and a pretty easy path at that time to citizenship

actually took it. so a significant number in this legislation won't take that path either. but those who want to earn it, who want to do what's required in this legislation and it's significant, they ought to have that opportunity. that's what this country is all about and i hope we maintain that part of the legislation. and i yield back. >> i understand the senators from you tata and hawaii. -- you ta and hawaii. would you like a roll call vote? >> i would. >> as someone who has gone through the citizenship process, i don't even have a birth certificate, all i have is my naturalization documents. y of us who have gone to a citizenship ceremonies know this is one of the proudest moments for these individuals and their families and say that 11 million of these people who can attain

status can never ever aspire to become united states citizens in the fullest sense of the word to participate in our community i think is unwarranted and i would vote against this amendment. >> thank you. senator from you ta. >> we are a nation of immigrants and always have been and i hope we always will be. one of the things i think we need to do to continue to be an ima nation of immigration to treat those who come here and have respected our laws. there are those who have not obeyed our laws and need to treat them with dignity, respect and kindness. i do think that out of fairness to those who have tried to play by the rules, it might make sense to give an additional benefit to those who have come here. i have received a letter from a school teacher in you ta and

i'll recount a few sentences. e says my name is joanna and been working here in the united states. and i have made a lot of sacrifices to work here legally. my employer's application was rerejected twice do to coding mistakes. when the application was approved the visas were gone and had to wait. i had to leave the country and come back on october 1. the school year started in august and i was afraid i was going to lose my job but there was a substitute teacher hired. to summit up, i have gone above and beyond to obey the law and contribute to the community. that being said, i feel like the proposed immigration changes leave out people like me. i cannot come to terms with the fact that illegal immigrants who never made an effort to find legal employment, and someone

like me will not be given that chance. and so as i consider this amendment, i think of people who have done the right thing. i'm not saying there could never be a chance to grant citizenship to those who are here illegally. but we need to enforce the border first and i think we ought to consider the disparity when we pass this legislation. >> senator schumer? >> just briefly. joa nmp n was applying for -- not a citizen visa. anyone who has applied for a green card legally gets ahead of those who cross the border illegally. no one gains an advantage over people who have waited in line patiently. she could have applied for a green card if her employer wanted to help her do that and then she, if her application for

a green card, she would be placed ahead of all those who crossed the border after her. >> that's correct. and i understand that she was here on an h 16r7b b and did come here legally. >> senator blumenthal. > thank you. i respect the values that underlie the amendment, value of rewarding people who play by the rules and follow the law. here are other ways to avoid consequences, negative consequences that the senator from texas wants to avoid, stronger enforcement of laws at the borders, stronger enforcement of laws against illegal hiring, stronger enforcement of other features of this bill that are designed to prevent those negative consequences. i think that this amendment goes

to the very core and the values and traditions of america. the reason why people want to come here in the first place, which is we are a beacon of liberty for people who face oppression and demagogry a abroad and the statue of liberty that my friend from new york has described has always been a symbol of that beacon and the kinds of welcoming that we do as a people. and i think we would be diminished as a people by the kind of second-class citizenship. in fact, it's less than second-class citizenship. it is below citizenship. the two tiers of residency in this country that would be established by this amendment. so i am sympathetic to stronger enforcement, against violation of laws at the borders or within our country by employers and by

others who would prey upon people such as charging excessive fees, providing the kinds of recruiting abuses that we have sought to guard against and i hope that those kinds of measures can replace this one. >> any further discussion? >> mr. chairman. i would just say, senator schumer has made a strong statement, it's consistent with the views of the gang of eight that we have decided and that's the way it's going to be. no changes that go to significant provisions of our bill will be accepted. so i don't think that's ar healthy position and i wish that weren't the case. i wish we were in better shape. with regard to the european situation, i think it is instructtive. europe does not provide that

children become citizens. in europe, you have multiple generations of people who have lived in the country all about being able to achieve citizenship. that's not what would happen here if citizenship were not provided to those who entered illegally. in 2007, this was discussed, and i gave a lot of thought to it. i reached the simple conclusion hat never again after 1986 should we provide every single benefit to those who entered illegally, that we provide it to those. and the culmination of the benefits we offer is citizenship. and i just don't believe we find citizenship again on illegal acts of entering the country. this amendment would allow them

virtually every single economic advantage that apparently people came for but does not provide citizenship and that's the right position. i don't think there is a moral, a legal or constitutional argument that we must provide every benefit that we provide to legal entrants, to those who enter illegally. and i thank the senator for raising this important correction and we need tosh talking about it and shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. anyone else? >> in my opinion, the current bill does not fix the problem which republicans and democrats across the country want to fix our broken immigration system. this bill may well make the problem worse and may well

incentivize further illegal immigration, which means further human tragedies, further lives lost, further families broken up. further women and children ictimized by coyotes and traffickers. and i know no one on this committee wants to see happen. secondly, the senator from arizona made the point about the opportunity to become a citizen. anyone can have the opportunity to become a citizen if they come here legally. and one of the ways to ensure that is by expanding and improving legal immigration, creating legal avenues for those who want to seek the american dream. 'm the son of an immigrant who didn't speak any english and came here seeking the american dream. that is our legacy.

and i would note that this committee voted down my amendment to increase high skilled legal immigrants. and i think we should be more welcoming of legal immigrants to allow those who want to come here to work hard to create jobs and make our economy stronger to do so. but third, my friend from new york in responding had a statement that i thought was very interesting and i wrote it down. he said if we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform. and i don't disagree that that has been to date the position of the proponents of this bill. i don't agree with that position. and i would suggest to the millions who want to see our that ation reform fixed position should be very troubling because what that

position is saying, if the votes are not present in congress for a path to citizenship, that the senate is prepared to say, we will do nothing to improve the borders, do nothing to increase legal immigration and do nothing to bring the 11 million who are living in the shadows out of the shadows. i would suggest to those who want to see this program fixed that saying it's all or nothing. if there's no path to citizenship, quote, there is no reform. tying immigration reform hostage not path to citizenship is a strategy to pass a bill. it's a strategy to create partisan division. it's a strategy that may well result in more political battles, but not a strategy to fix the problem. so i would urge everyone in this committee to roll up our sleeves

and fix the problem in a humane way that secures the border, gets serious about fixing that problem and expands and improves legal immigration and does not unfairly treat legal immigrants by removing a path to citizenship but allowing as this legislation does, a legal status for those who are here illegally. that would be reform that a great many people across this country both democrat and republican would embrace and i would urge the committee to onsider the amendment. roll call]

>> the amendment is not agreed to. senator cruz -- senator hatch is till not here. you have cruz two and then flake three and flake four. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to call up cruz 2, which is an amendment that would prohibit those who are here illegally from being eligible for means-tested benefits, federal, state or local. and in addition, would exclude those individuals being eligible

for obamacare. as we have just discussed, i'm a proponent of expanded legal immigration. it is one of the great strengths of our nation that we welcome people around the worldcoming to seek the american life and the american dream. and yet one of the greatest challenges to being welcoming with immigrants is our ever expanding welfare state. indeed in a striking exchange that i would encourage people to google and watch, milton friedman, the late economist discussed the fact that prior to 1914, the united states had no limits. that we opened our doors to any who wanted to come throughout the country. and that was a state of affairs that was widely acceptable and positive for our country.

since 1914, we have had caps what milton friedman asked, what changed? advocate. 't a vocal what changed is we started to see the expansion of the ever- growing welfare state. and right now, our country spends roughly $1 trillion in federal and state means-tested welfare plans. there are seven billion people in the world. we don't have the resources to redistribute from hard-working american taxpayers welfare benefits to the many people throughout the world who are struggling. this bill would address that issue. the current gang of eight bill excludes federal welfare benefits, but does not include

state and local benefits, which means the instant this bill were passed, if it were passed, the roughly 11 million people who are here illegally would suddenly be eligible for billions, if not tens of billions of dollars in state and local means-tested welfare payments. beyond that this bill allows for all of those who are here illegally to be eligible for means tested welfare payments after they transition to l.p.r. status. this provision instead would say that those who are here illegally shall not be eligible for state welfare payments that we are going to protect the hard-working taxpayer. and one of the things we want to do to continue to remain a strong economy going forward is welcome those from throughout the world who will come and work

hard to stand on their own feet, to achieve the american dream, to provide for their family. and if we have a system where people are coming here not to be eligible for government welfare, but instead to have a chance at the american dream, that makes us stronger. and so i would urge the committee to adopt this amendment. >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, the succession of amendments from the junior senator from texas is worth noting. the first amendment suggested to all of the undocumented living in america whether they are dreamers or others, we don't want you. you can't be part of the future of this nation. the second amendment first having failed, the second amendment says, all right, so if you become sit accepts, under no circumstances will we provide any help for you. for example, if you happen to be

from a working family and need assistance on a means tested pell grant or need assistance when it comes to a federal loan, no. so the education of your children is not our concern. how about the health of the children? well, if you don't have enough money to afford health insurance and end up with some assistance from medicaid, even under obamacare, you are saying the health of your children is not our concern. what kind of america are you thinking about, senator cruz? that we would have millions of citizens here who couldn't get a helping hand when it comes to education, couldn't get a helping hand when it comes to basic medical care for their children? that isn't an america we want to live in. you are looking at a senator who got a government loan to go to college, a means-tested government loan to go to college and law school and ended up with

a full-time job. somebody thought in previous generations that it was worth it for my parents who had limited education, limited income, that their son would have a chance. i hope some people, few think it was a worthy investment. your amendment says we will never make that investment. you're here, but you're on your own buddy. don't expect this country to lean in your direction or help you through tough times or provide education or basic health care. that isn't an america i want to be part of, and i will oppose this amendment. >> any further discussion? >> mr. chairman, i think that the senator didn't say we don't you, but he did basically produce language that is consistent with what the

sponsors of the legislation have said, that people under this legislation receive welfare benefits for 13 years and he is carrying that principle out. >> would the senator yield? >> yes. >> isn't it true that once those under the 13-year process become citizens will be eligible? >> under this legislation. >> and under this amendment, they would not be? >> that is correct. at least that's my understanding of it. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chairman? i would like to say two things in conclusion. first of all, i think it's unfortunate that my friend from illinois would cast apetitioners n terms of my motivations. and in particular saying, we don't want you hear. among the amendments that i have

introduced are two amendments to expand legal immigration and one of those two, every member on the democratic side of the aisle voted against, said no, we don't want more high-skilled immigrants here and voted not to increase temporary skilled workers. this is an issue that is near and dear to many of us on our committee. it is near and dear and personal to a great many of us. and the purpose of the amendments that i have introduced here are to fix the problem, to secure our borders and improve legal immigration and to fix the problem, which is what i think a bipartisan majority of americans want. i think it is unfortunate that this committee was prepared to do nothing on immigration if the path to citizenship is not included. to leave the 11 million in the

shadows on the path to citizenship is not included. i think that is a less than compassionate outcome. senator's hink the statement that those here illegally should be eligible for all sorts of means-tested benefits is inconsistent with the repeated statements of the proponents of this bill. the proponents of this bill have been on television frequently in the past weeks and months saying those who are here illegally would not be eligible for welfare. and yet my friend from illinois gave an impassioned speech as to why he believed we had a moral obligation to extend welfare benefits to those who are here illegally. and i would note that if the proponents of this bill believe what is being said on television, this amendment

should be adopted unanimously because this amendment codifies what the proponents of this amendment have been telling the american people, will not be eligible for obamacare or welfare. and the fact that my friend from disagreement ch with it, i think makes clear that one of the consequences of this bill if this bill were passed, would be to put yet another burden on hard-working taxpayers that would harm our economy and ultimately would encourage yet more illegal immigration because if the status quo is those who come here illegally shall be granted citizenship and welfare benefits, then that is disrespecting rule of law. one of the reasons that people come here because unlike many nations in the world, rule of law means something. we don't simply set aside our

law and i think kicking the can down the road, not solving tch problem is inconsistent with the obligation all of us have. and i would urge the committee to adopt the amendment. >> the clerk will call the roll. roll call] >> six yeas, 12 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is by senator

flake. flake four. >> flake four, yes. the underlying legislation makes clear that those granted registered professional immigrant are not eligible for federal means-tested benefits. there has been a concern raised over this prohibition and this amendment seeks to rectify that. this amendment would ensure anybody who has r.p.i. status and been convicted of fraud leptly claiming or receiving means-tested benefits would have their status revoked and in order to provide sufficient oversight to make sure this provision is being implemented, this directs the secretary of health and human services to conduct regular audits to ensure that r.p.i. immigrants are not fraudulently receiving means-tested federal benefits. this is important and we want to make sure that while they are in

r.p.i. status, they aren't eligible for means-tested benefits and if they are frud lently convicted of doing this, their status is revoked. >> i think this amendment is a commonsense way to ensure that he status -- i think the underlying bill already allows d.h.s. to revoke their status by and h.h.s. and g.a.o. already regularly conduct audits of h.h.s. programs to determine compliance. i hope they at least coordinate it so we aren't re-invepting the wheel. i have no objections to this amendment.

>> i'm going to support your amendment. i want to raise a question and nothing you have to change right now but between now and the floor, i think it would be a etter thing if we had somebody that was somebody other than the secretary do the aweding and i would suggest the -- auditing and i would suggest the inspector general. >> we will look at that as we go to the floor. >> voice vote? those in favor say aye. of the amendment. good. izza has been ordered. either that or we all go to senator feinstein's house for dinner. d let me tell there is a lot better than anything we would get here. but i'm afraid nobody would come back to make a quorum.

it would be so much nicer than here. but and she is much nicer than i am. but senator franken, we were going to recognize you. >> i supported the hatch-schumer amendment. and i did it because i want this bill to get a strong bipartisan vote in the committee. i also want to say i appreciate the work that my colleagues have done on this including senator hatch, including senator durbin, especially including my colleagues, senator klobuchar and senator schumer. but i want to say that i have heard real concerns from labor on this and i'm going to be listening to my friends in labor

over the next few days and weeks and i want to be sure that they think this bill has the provisions that it needs to protect american jobs and american workers and i want to make sure that americans stem graduates, in going around minnesota, encouraging kids, because i was a sputnik kid, to study stem. and i want to make sure that stem graduates have the jobs and the skills that they worked so hard to develop. and i reserve the right to push for further worker protections on the floor, but i'm voting for this. thank you. . . well get this bill out of committee and, again, i appreciate everybody has helped us move along, but i think we all know that once it gets on the floor of the senate, there