he learned the woman had been trapped for around 40 minutes. because of his valiant efforts an service to jersey county, i'm proud to honor the actions that deputy chris jones took on april 23 of this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom kentucky seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the i.r.s. has broken faith with the american people. the agency responsible for administering our tax code has admitted targeting americans for their political beliefs. american families across the country are disappointed and fearful. they are disappointed that the administration that promised home and change has used its enforcement power as a political weapon. mr. barr: they are fearful of a government that's expanded under president obama at an alarming rate. they are disappointed that our president has not taken

responsible -- responsibility for his administration's behavior. they are fearful of corruption that's the logical result of a rapidly expanding bureaucracy and an administration that confuses playing politics with leadership. hard working families deserve better. federal agencies have a responsibility to be above politics. and we have a responsibility to hard working american families to hold accountable those who politicize decision making and those who are untruthful about those decisions. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> jail time and firings are in order. on friday, may 10, the i.r.s. submitted -- admitted to targeted scrutiny of conservative groups on

applications for tax exempt status. hundreds of groups have been targeted. and went beyond those just tea party or patriot in their names. since then there has been resounding opposition on both sides of the aisle against the i.r.s.'s abhorrent actions. the president called this incident outrageous. frankly, mr. speaker, it's beyond outrageous and completely unethical. mr. weber: for those involved in this best i expect them to be held accountable for their awe dishes abuse of power. did i mention firings and jail time are in order? thomas payne said it this way, government is at its best a necessary evil, at its worst an intolerable one. i'm randy weber and that's the way i see it here in america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> with the greetings to my

friend, jim widthrow, i would like to rise today and remind everybody of the importance that it is we participate in this memorial day weekend. to remember those who have fallen, honor those they left behind. a lot of times thought of as a weekend to go out and have barbecues or watch car races on tv or sports, like that. it's really rewarding for us -- rewarding for the heart to participate on monday in one of your communities, for those watching, take that time. mr. lamalfa: to honor the veterans, it will make you feel better as an american. then our obligation as citizens is to fulfill our role as voters, as people that hold our government, government officials accountable. when you hear veterans say they don't recognize the america they once fought for 50, 60 years ago, it really hurts. let's uphold the honor of our nation that they fought for and

be participants in our government in the process and hold all that accountable and honor them in that ultimate way. we give thanks for their service and god bless them. please participate on memorial day this weekend. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the making college more expensive act. this legislation is an attack on students and undermines the dream of higher education. if we are serious about getting our country back on the right track, putting people back to work and ensuring we remain competitive in the global economy, we have to do more to make higher education more accessible and more affordable, not more expensive.

without congressional action, the interest rate on federal subsidized stafford loans is scheduled to increase from 3.4% to 6.8% for more than seven million students. rather than fixing this problem, this legislation makes it worse. this bill will hurt young people and middle class families who are already struggling with crushing student loan debt. the idea that as a country we make money on the pursuit by young people of their education is plain wrong. simply put, the united states government should not be making a profit on student loans. and there are several proposals pending before the house today that would give students access to college at the lowest cost possible. the student loan relief act, the responsible student loan solutions act, and the bank on student loans credit act would each preserve low interest rates for students.

but the bill before us today is will republican idea that cost more for working families and millions of students. according to the independent nonpartisan congressional research service, students with five years of subsidized stafford loans borrowed at the maximum amount would owe $4,174 in interest under the current rate t would rise to $8,808 if we allow interest rates to double on july 1, but under this proposal, students would owe a total of $10,109 in interest payments on their loans. hidden within this bill is a blatant bait and switch scheme that allows students to borrow money at one rate before their interest rates skyrocket. we have seen this before. our friends on the other side of the aisle like to claim that putting student loans into the marketplace is a cure all for increased student debt, but in this case the marketplace is

code for billions of more dollars in interest payments as this bill would prevent students from enjoying the lowest available interest rate. this is just wrong. our young people deserve more. it's in the interest of our entire country to ensure as many young people as can have access to higher education. college reject the make cost more expensive act and try to make college more affordable for millions and millions of americans. i thank you, mr. speaker. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. thank you, mr.

speaker. we found out a great deal we didn't know before. getting more details, intriguing that we have the i.r.s. fficial, ms. lerner, who knew, found out about the outrageous practice of targeting what would perceive to be the president's enemies, people that wanted the constitution followed. people that felt they had been taxed enough already. the tea parties. constitutional groups. pro-israel groups, conservative groups. people that could have made a difference in the last election.

one reporter asked before, why would people even be bothering to get legal status? why would they even apply to the i.r.s. to get 501-c-3 or 501-c-4 status? and the answer is because that's the way the government is taking over people's political abilities because you can't call people to washington or call people to come state their opinions without normally raising money. if you don't have a legal -- legally recognized group by the i.r.s., then the i.r.s. will come after the individuals that engage in pooling money and helping pay people's way to get them here. they'll come after the individual. so we have forced people who want to make their voices heard

collectively into begging the i.r.s. for legal status. and the threats are there if you don't get their legal status. -- legal status recognized. then when we see what the i.r.s. basically, an arm, of the democratic party to help defeat or help prevent people from having legal status, it is absolutely incredible. and especially when you find out they wouldn't even give them an answer yes or no because these people at the i.r.s., ranking officials, they knew if they denied a request, gee that could be appealed.

they might get an answer before the election, how are we going to let that happen? not in time to make any difference in the election. so it's what most people who care about the constitution have been afraid of for so long. i have heard some people, some friends, some republican friends, say they think richard nixon was a great president. but i have read transcripts of conversations, and anybody that will say one thing to one person and turn right around immediately thereafter and say exactly the opposite to another person and play them against each other, i just can't consider that to be a great president. we know that under the nixon administration the i.r.s. was used to target an enemies list, but now we find that under this administration it's been used and abused as a process, as a

political arm in ways that richard nixon would never have dreamed possible. never dreamed that anybody would get away with this kind of activity before an election. especially after watergate. but so it has been. we want to take this time to make sure, mr. speaker, that eople are aware and the record contains the stories of different tea party groups and the difficulties they have had. and in that regard i am quite proud to recognize my friend from new mexico, mr. steve pearce, hopefully it won't hurt his reputation for me to call him a dear friend, but for such time as he may use. mr. pearce: thank you. we'll hold those comments quietly between ourselves here.

thank the gentleman for yielding. you bring up a point that absolutely must be discussed in public. we need to highlight those things that are going on right now from our government towards its citizens. our founding fathers understood this policy very well, this concept. they said when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. when the government fears the people there is liberty. i hear constantly from people in america right now that we fear the government. we fear the retribution. we fear that they are going to come in and take things from us, that they are listening to us at all times. not many would discard that as simply paranoia until now. an 83-year-old grandmother, albuquerque, new mexico, i have known her for the last 15 years since i got into political circles, she's probably the most

joyful person in all of politics because she's here for what comes in the heart not for what it can do for her. she's a naturalized citizen here, born in indonesia, came here, ended up from 12 to 16 spending time in the japanese internment camps because of her origin, not japanese herself. so she has experienced a government that would become heavy handed in a time of war, but the government had become heavy-handed over political processes is completely different government than that during world war ii. she helped establish the children's freedom squollarship -- scholarship fund where she hands out patriotic coloring books to youngsters in the albuquerque area. and because of these activities that got the attention of the i.r.s., they came in and audited and harassed this 83-year-old

grandmother. at an email before the scandal broke about one of my constituents who said, i was audited and we couldn't figure out why. i talked to my accountant. during the audit we couldn't figure it out. there was no unusual question. he said but during the audit i noticed a handwritten name across my file. said i just made mental note of it. after an audit that asked nothing specific, the auditor asked, do you know, and he read the name. the guy says doesn't ring a bell to me. it did. on the drive home he said, wait a minute, that's that meeting i went to three years ago. that's the meeting where i said, i don't want to be a part of this group. they are interested in the constitution and the debt. i said i know about all that stuff. he writes a small check. leaves, never goes back. one meeting with a guy who later formed a tea party, wasn't even

formed, causes an audit. . to single you out to persecute you, we have a different set of rules that then qualifies as persecution, and when this government is willing to do that, it causes us to say, wait, this is not pair noah. this is just -- paranoia. this is just a justifiable fear of our government. small school in my hometown wanted to charter itself, submitted a 501-c-3 application. the application was never handled. it went on and on and on. our office made a call, and then the person listed on the organizational chart was called in for an audit. i will tell you we were told by the administration spokesman

yesterday, mr. lew, treasury secretary, there's absolutely no indication this was anything political. there's absolutely no indication this was anything but political, mr. lew, regardless of what you all say down the street, understand that the american people are frightened of the government. and they also think with respect to the idea that we're going to hold people accountable, we hear that. we're going to hold people accountable. we're going to bring them in, we're going to look and hold them accountable. the american people look with a little bit of curious disregard for those statements. and why would americans be suspicious of the government that they won't actually do anything to the people involved, that they won't actually get to the bottom of it? well, there's a track record

within the last five years that caused the american citizens to look with disdain at any promises that there will be nalties, that the wrongdoers will be punished. you start with the fort hood shooter. he has not yet been brought to trial. murdered dozens of people. drawn $287,000 in pay because they can't take him off the payroll until he comes to trial. meanwhile, the victims can't get their pay from the government that they're supposed to receive, and the american people understand that injustice is occurring from this white house because they will not pursue convicting a man that everyone knows has committed murder. you can say that's one instance. you can then take a look at fast and furious. i was one of the first call for attorney general holder to

resign and we should look more closely about his participation in the fast and furious where rifles were sent across the border and came back and killed an american employee of the border patrol, and yet no one has been held accountable for one action there. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman will yield? mr. pearce: yes. mr. gohmert: i think it's worty to note that a-- worthy to note that apparently when a fox news reporter wanted to look into this fast and furious information and hopefully get the scoop, get the bottom line of what really happened, instead of this justice department doing as it hold the american people, as the attorney general and all these other people said, as part of this administration, we're going to get the people

responsible for this, instead of being diligent and relentless in getting to the bottom of what happened, who pproved these 2,000 or so guns being sold to criminals that will be in criminal hands ultimately used to kill hundreds of mexicans? mexico should be outraged at what this administration has done. instead of doing that, they go after a reporter that wants to find out what happened. they end up going after his phone records. they go after his email, from what we've learned, apparently. possibly other family members. and they still all these years later haven't given us real information on who was

responsible, who authorized sell of forced the those guns. they used fast an furious to demand more gun control legislation. and we have a president that goes down to mexico in the last couple two, three weeks, and tells them about how outrageous it is that america has been selling guns to criminals that are using them in mexico. dawned his hat and said, thank you very much. my administration did that to you. sorry. oh, no. he blames america without actually saying, please, i beg your forgiveness. this was my administration's doing. they haven't even gotten to the bottom. instead go after the reporter that tried to find out what happened. that's even more outrageous, and it goes to just what the

gentleman was saying about people wondering, how can we trust this administration when they said they'll get the people responsible and they've done no such thing and i yield back to my friend. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman and his points are well made to continue the discussion of why americans might be skeptical of why anyone will pay any price for what has happened in the targeting of certain groups in this country by the internal revenue service. it's also important that we look at other cases which have not yet been prosecuted and which wrong dl doing occurred. m.f. global, commodities trading firm, jon corzine, democrat elected official, took over that firm. it's against the law when you have your money in these trading accounts, whether it be merrill lynch or whomever, it's against the law to take your money out and use it for

corporate organization activities, and yet jon corzine reached in the customer accounts and pulled out $1.5 billion from accountholders and spent it to try to keep his failing organization together. his efforts failed. m.f. global filed bankruptcy. that was in 2011, and still mr. corzine has not had to answer any questions, has been convicted of no wrongdoing, has not been brought to trial, hasn't had a grand jury paneled. bernie madoff, we saw him take billions from investors and for decades the regulators had the reports he was doing it, and not one regulator has been held accountable for their oversights, for their omissions. no one has ever checked. so when we hear this

administration say, trust us, we're going to get to the bottom of thirst scandal and we're going to hold people accountable, there is in fact an anger building among the american people that says we do not think washington will hold anyone accountable. you have the a.p. reporters whose phone records were gotten -- not just the ones involved, but the broad pool of reporters and yet nothing is happening to those in the justice department who did that. benghazi is another element to where we believe no one will ever be held accountable. in fact, the secretary of state, hillary clinton, says what does it matter. what it madam speaker, ma'am, is someone -- what it matters, ma'am, is that someone allowed to be killed without reinforcements. drones were there.

lasers locked on to the artillery -- to the artillery that were firing rounds into that compound and no one says a word. d so we have the attorney -- and so we have the internal revenue service holding investigations and audits for law-abiding citizens like this 83-year-old grandmother. meanwhile, there are over $1 billion of unpaid taxes by federal employees. why doesn't the internal revenue service go after the federal employees who refuse to pay their own taxes? the highest profile case is mr. geithner who became treasury secretary, and we were told, he's such an important person. he can't be held to account by small actions like that. yet, one political party, one political viewpoint has been singled out by this administration in order to put

the chill on people who might be involved in activities that was disagreeing with the government. we've seen governments like this before in american history. we've seen tyrants before. we've seen tyranny before in world history. i think democrats, republicans and independents are going to stand up on these issues and demand accountability from washington. i think the american people are coming together with a will and a backbone that will stand up and say, you, the people who perpetrated these evils and these crimes, will be accountable. that's what makes this country great. that's what makes this country the envy of all other nations because we have a constitution that our founding fathers put in place which gives the people the power, the government is working at the approval of the american people. i think the american people are coming together across racial

lines, across party lines, across religious and cultural lines to say that we demand an accountability from our government officials, that we will not allow any citizen to be treated this way. the nation spoke this way when it was richard nixon, and i think the nation will speak this way under this administration. the parallels are extreme. when the government gets too strong, it's time for the people to stand up and say, no, you are not all-powerful, that we, the people, do establish and/or dane. i think the american people will question this stablishment in ordaining. i yield back to the gentleman and appreciate the opportunity to speak. mr. gohmert: thank you. i'd like to yield to the gentleman for a question. 's my understanding that the albuquerque tea party was one

that filed for 501-c-4 status three years ago. i don't know if the gentleman's familiar with the albuquerque tea party. mr. pearce: i am. i've been there many times. people are concerned about the size of government and the debt and deficit. they understand this is the biggest risk we face and they speak articulately and coherently about that. they are groups that hold elected officials accountable for their actions. i think those are positive things. mr. gohmert: well, apparently also after two years of waiting got a multipage letter from the really king for extensive, intrusive information that it sounds like the i.r.s. should never have had to inquire about. but here again, it sounds like another case where the i.r.s.

knew if they ruled on whether or not they would have 504-c status they could have appealed, probably got a good case based on what the i.r.s. has been doing. wouldn't give them an answer. mr. pearce: we've been listening before everyone recognized it was a nationwide scandal, we were hearing these reports. and no matter whether we disagreed with the obama administration on policies, would never believe that these reports to be true. so we investigated but you could never substantiate and now then two, three, four years later to find out it was systemic, that it was intentional, that it was politically motivated causes one to fear for the very institution that we call our constitution and our government.

mr. gohmert: well, reclaiming time momentarily. it's interesting we find out as people have been digging deeper over the last few days that the president of the united states met with anti-tea party i.r.s. union chief the day before the agency targeted the tea party. the national treasury employees union president kelly commented on the relationship between the anti-tea party i.r.s. union and the obama white house and made this statement, quote, for me it's about collaboration, unquote. . it is also important to note, i don't know if my friend is familiar with executive order 13522, i wasn't until just the last couple days, but

redstate.com had done a job of finding this. this was an executive order that the president ordered beginning that requiring government agencies collaborate, nsult in predecisional discussions with union bosses that would have to be off the record, unrecorded, and private beyond the reach of anyone seeking to get information about the conversations. and it in fact this administration said, predecisional discussions by their nature should be conducted confidentially among the parties to the discussions. this confidentiality is an

essential ingreedent -- ingredient in building the environment of mutual trust and respect necessary for the honest exchange of views and collaboration. well, this is the president that was going to have the most transparent administration in american history, yet i didn't know in 2009 he ordered these agencies that ought to be completely transparent, ordered em, his employees, to have meetings before they make important decisions with union bosses. that tells us something, too, about the atmosphere that was being created when a union boss gets to have secret conversations with government officials that cannot be retrieved by any of us, wanting the administration to be transparent.

we know those unions were anti-tee party -- anti-tea party, wanted them eliminated, and make the decision abouts targeting the pea party. something seems awry. i yield to my friend for comment. mr. pearce: i would agree with the gentleman something seems wry. the american people have a fascinating, intuitiveness about them. it's reported that the unions spent $40 million to defeat scott walker. the reason scott walker won? he won 40% of the union vote. the people who are supposedly represented by the union bosses understand that when their leadership begins to take this country in the wrong direction, that they will exercise their voices and they will speak up. that's the very powerful reminder that we as people have

at the ballot box, when the american people are left without government interference, without government threats, without the i.r.s. intimidation, the american people choose rightly an awfully big percentage of the time. so i have the ultimate belief, because i'm hearing democrats here on capitol hill as outraged as republicans, i heard republicans under the nixon administration as outraged as democrats, is when we come together in a common belief that our nation, regardless of political viewpoints, represents all viewpoints. that we all have a right to speak. that we all have a right to compel. that's what's made us strong throughout history. so those democrats who now are saying that the i.r.s. and this administration have gone too far on the strength of this country as republicans were under the nixon administration, i have the ultimate belief that we as

americans are coming together again in our core principles to understand that no government, no matter which party is powerful enough to come in and have watchdogs over us, to allow members of their party to take $1.5 billion from segregated accounts without being held accountable for the criminal actions, they understand that we cannot break the laws of this nation and other nations sending guns to a foreign country illegally, not even the government can do that. and they understand there's something intrinsically wrong hen we hear the pleas of our embassy personnel saying we need help, and we refuse it. the american people have had enough. doesn't matter that it's democrat. republican, it would be enough, too. i think the the american people are coalescing into an idea that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. i believe that coalescing will

provide us the framework for a new political institution, don't know what it will look like, don't know how it will shape up, the american people are saying enough is enough. enough corruption, enough scandals. let's start cleaning up the mess. that's what i hear from constituents from both parties every week i'm at home. we are going to continue our work here, but i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate his bringing this issue to the floor. mr. gohmert: thank you very much . it is an important issue. we have a report here indicating it of the currently countless numbers, trying to get account of groups that were targeted, we have seen reports that groups, jewish and christian groups that were very supportive of israel, got heightened scrutiny by the

i.r.s. dela were deemed apparently not supportive -- that were deemed apparently not supportive of the president as the i.r.s., at least their leaders wanted them to be. obviously that was after , nsulting with the union boss the i.r.s. employees. let me just say i know many i.r.s. employees. and there are those who are raid to comment because of concern over the repercussions. but they are outraged because they came in to the i.r.s. and they were taught and they were trained. you cannot have any conflict of interest. you cannot make any decisions based on political bias. you cannot have ever owed the i.r.s. any money.

you're going to work for us. there was outrage among some that were afraid to speak up told you couldre not underpay through withholding what you will ultimately owe on your income tax. or if you file an amended return where you fail to initially inincluded -- include income, you may be fired from the i.r.s. the first thing this president does is go out and hire a guy who swore i i believe it was three or four years in a row, he swore to his employer that he would pay the taxes that were due and owing if they would just give him all the money. he would see the taxes on that money was paid, and lo and behold those taxes were not paid as he swore he would. and not only was he not barred

from working for the i.r.s., he was made the boss over the i.r.s. the boss over the entire treasury department. but the greater phoenix tea rty in arizona filed for a 501-c-4 in october of 2010, and after waiting two years, received a letter demanding an inordinate amount of information. and so far even now this internal revenue service has refused to give them an answer on the 501-c-4 effectively keeping them out of the litical process for the 2012 election cycle, and now working, apparently, even now, to keep them out of the 2014 election cycle. amazing how effective the i.r.s. can be when one administration can use them to further their

goals. the mississippi tea party filed for a 501-c-4 status in 2009 on september 28, 2010, the group received a letter from the i.r.s. wanting additional information, including what the relationship was with the tea party patriots, but their analysis got rather abusive. the portage county tea party in ohio applied for tax exempt status, and they received incredibly onerous questions it, harassing questions, and they answered them, gave them information that no one should have to provide. four years later they are still waiting on an answer. that's the mississippi tea

party. they are still waiting. the portage county tea party. they are still waiting. it's just incredible. albuquerque tea party, we already mentioned. really abusive the requests that were made by i.r.s., harassing them. texas patriots tea party filed for 501-c-4 status in june of 2012. they received numerous follow-up questions, and have not heard back from the i.r.s. about their status. so they were effectively kept out of the 2012 political process. again apparently there are reporters that are so far removed from how political process has been forced to work, you got to have the i.r.s. approval or they will come after you individually when you try to engage in any type of group

effort. it used to be there was a freedom of assembly. you could carry people, assemble people as you want. you could pay for their bus fair. heck, unions do it all the time. but they have a very special status. obviously with this administration. one of the great scenes in video history was my old friend, andrew blackbart coming out of the coliseum and seeing all these protesters, and he starts asking them about their signs. what they mean. can they give specific examples about when glenn beck lied? things that they had on their sign. can you give me -- they couldn't. and andrew was amazing. i didn't see it. beginning of the video. he saw it immediately. these people were plants. they were handed these signs by

their union. they were bused out there and told to stand there and talk about people lying and just demean individuals and organizations as instructed by their union leaders. got to the bottom of it, there was a note somewhere that if it was produced by the union. so he got to the bottom of it, and he had a camera that followed him as he would ask questions, very pointedly, it became very clear they didn't know what they were there about. they couldn't give individual examples. they were told go out there and be a protester, and the unions took care of it. when the cameras were making them look bad, they were ordered to get back on the union bus and leave the area by the union bosses. andrew had that gift. he could see right through all the baloney. and it's a shame he's no longer with us, but what he has left is

an organization that's doing even more amazing things. the iowa county patriots from michigan. filed for 501-c-3 status, august 22 of 2011. they are still waiting for a, quote, specialist, end quote, to approve their application. despite numerous attempts to get clarification from the i.r.s. so they were totally kept out of the 2012 political process because of the partisan i.r.s. leadership that was -- would not even give a ruling on these things. it wasn't a problem for organizations that were supportive of the administration, apparently. there were groups like the luisa, virginia tea party in virginia that -- louisa,

virginia tea party in virginia that decided not to apply after they heard from other tea party groups just how abrucive the i.r.s. was being. and their leaders didn't want to go through individually what other tea party leaders were having to go through. so the louisa, virginia tea party never got their lawful status from the i.r.s. all of those people were effectively kept out of the 2012 political cycle by this partisan i.r.s. work. and effort. an organization from florida also heard about the horror stories of how abusive the i.r.s. became if you applied

for legal status as a tea party, so they didn't apply. so once again the i.r.s. was successful in their political endeavors in silencing another group of people from florida during that political cycle. goose creek 912 project from south carolina, they were preparing to file for a 501-c-3 status or 501-c-4, but after they heard about all of the harassment of other tea party groups, they voted unanimously not to file. the i.r.s. partisan efforts worked another -- worked. another group of americans were silenced because of the partisan political work of the i.r.s. he mclien tea party in

illinois, another case where they decided not to apply after they got word of all the horror abuses about the i.r.s. , of individual tea party leaders and the individual tea party -- tea party constituents themselves. of the intrusive, abusive questions and information that was being demanded by the i.r.s.. the lanier tea party patriots from georgia also heard about the widespread massive abuse of tea parties that applied for legal status. so yet another group of people was silenced by the partisan abusive internal revenue service. as i said, i know numerous

employees of the i.r.s. that would never think of being abusive like this. it is completely an anomaly to their way of thinking. it is counterintuitive to everything they've been taught and trained. but somehow this administration comes in and all of a sudden they see the i.r.s. as the greatest political gift any partisan group could ever have, and they use and abuse it after consulting as ordered by the president of the united states, they are ordered to have secret meetings with union bosses before they make decisions which we now know occurred before they made decisions to o after the tea parties.

hmm. so the president of the united tates signs an executive order government orders agencies, an agency that is supposed to be completely nonpartisan, nonpolitical, to meet with an extremely political, extremely partisan boss before they make decisions. it is staggering. so we know there are some that ask, you know, did the president know, not know? when you see that the president of the united states ordered meetings with partisan union bosses before decisions could heads by administrative of the i.r.s., doesn't seem to

me to matter much whether the president knew they specifically targeted the tea party. he ordered them to meet and to take in consideration what the union bosses said. he ordered that those be completely confidential and yond the scope of freedom of information act request. then there has to be some responsibility taken where the buck ultimately stops. the roaing county tea party filed for 501-c-4 status in february of 2010. they demand -- they received demands for excessive amounts of information some of which are not required by law whatsoever. st two weeks ago after three years, over three years and

ing kept out of the 2012 election cycle, having any input -- not just the president's race, but on issues . most of these, they didn't care about political candidates. they cared about issues, and they knew if they could form these political tea parties they could have an effect, whether it was a democrat, republican or libertarian or independent that came forward, they knew if they were a group as a tea party they could get powerful enough and have their voices heard loudly as they spoke loudly enough as a group that somebody, republican, democrat, libertarian, independent, somebody would step forward and say i support what you believe and i'm with you on the issues. they were not about a party.

they spent a lot of time being mad at the republican party, like i do. they weren't about a party. they were about the process. they wanted a constitutional country and a government that acted within the confines of the constitution, and the i.r.s. was determined to subjew subjugate o -- them, to abuse them, to make them pay for having the audacity to speak up or try to . eak up as did our founders can't help but note i was tickled some left-wing organization, they are not

using the brains, they are doing as they're directed, but came after me for saying here on the floor, chief of the i.r.s. might have shot the original tea party participants. well, obviously that's hyperbole, but i found in washington if you use sarcasm, ou speak metaphorically, aligorically, use hyperbole, it's often lost here. we were having a discussion, for example, about endangered species and i mentioned, gee, i understood, wasn't sure it was true but understood there had been a pair of spotted owls that we were told for years couldn't mate anywhere in

virgin woods untouched by human hands that might have been seen ating in a k-mart sign and sheer sarcasm. the irony, we know k-mart has been out of business. we may need to see if that's true and if so get k-mart signs, see if they ought to be declared endangered and maybe have a k-mart sign forest where, you know, these little owls could mate like crazy out there on the k-mart signs. i look over people and reporters, folks sitting there and you could see people looking at each other saying, do you think he's serious about it. anyway, it's an interesting place to not live but work here in washington, d.c. you have the rochester tea party patriots in minnesota, they filed for 501-c-3 status in august of 2010. the group finally received

their 501-c-4 status two years later in 2012 but not soon enough to have the kind of effect that they could have to ke nominees, potential nominees accountable for abiding by the rule of law, following the constitution as they wanted to do. the chattanooga tea party in tennessee, they filed for 501-c-4 status in november of 2009. the group received a letter from the cincinnati i.r.s. office in july of 2010 with extensive, intrusive, abusive questions and demands. after four years they received notification that they were approved. apparently, as this scandal was about to break, the i.r.s.

realized, gee, well, we got what we wanted. we kept them out of the 2012 election cycle so they could not have any influence whatsoever there, and we're about to get in trouble so why don't we start giving approval to some of these folks, and we're seeing that happen. the san angelo tea party, a town that my parents lived in briefly right after they got married. san angelo tea party back in texas. they filed for tax-exempt the s, but after receiving intrusive, abusive, mean-spirited demand for information that the i.r.s. had no business inquiring after, they withdrew their application. once again the i.r.s. didn't have a chilling effect. they had a freezing effect to

keep them out from being able to participate in the 2012 election cycle. san fernando valley patriots in california filed for 501-c-4 status in the fall of 2010. the group heard nothing from the i.r.s. until february of 2012 when the -- they received a packet from the i.r.s. in the mail giving the group a 20-daytime period to respond -- 20-day time period to respond. after the abuse, the demands, the intrusiveness, the outrageous activity of the .r.s., the san fernando valley patriots in california finally in august of 2012 felt like they had no choice but to crater under the abusive weight d power of a partisan,

mean-spirited i.r.s. leadership, and they pulled their application in order to protect their members from this kind of abuse. executive to say the order in 2009 by the president of the united states, current president, ordering the extremely partisan union bosses to be consulted on decisions by he i.r.s., find out that union boss met with the president right before the decision was made as well. i guess when you're the president you don't have to sign an executive order requiring that you have secret, confidential meetings with union bosses before you make decisions. you just do it. appears to be the case. and then we find out, gee, this

is a brand new story, this one by david french, that -- dated may 22, yesterday afternoon, that it wasn't just tea parties . it wasn't just constitutional groups. t wasn't just pro-israel groups. this article points out that e article title is "i.r.s. morality: defend planned parenthood, deluge adoptive families with audits." then, the article, skipping on own, it says during 2012 iling season, 90% of the

returns that claimed a refundable adoption credit were subject to additional review to determine if an examination was necessary. the most common reasons were income and a lack of documentation. . it notes 69% of all adoption credit claims during the 2012 filing season were selected for audit. the completed adoption tax credit audits, over 55% ended with no change in the tax code or refund due in fiscal year 2012. the median refund amount involved in these audits was over $15,000, and the median adjusted gross income of the taxpayers involved was about $64,000. these will be considered middle class americans.

the average adoption credit correspondent audit currently takes 126 days, as youing a lengthy delay for taxpayers waiting for refunds. it's interesting the i.r.s. has harassed a number of pro-life aoups, including at least one pro-life group not pickett planned parenthood in order to have or keep their tax exempt status. it points out this statistic. in 2012 the i.r.s. requested additional information from 90% of the terms claiming the adoption tax credit, and went on to actually audit 69%. more details can be obtained from the taxpayer advocate. it's really outrageous. and it's pretty clear to anybody

familiar with political process here in washington that most people that are very supportive of adoption are not in favor of abortion. so if you want to go against, as an i.r.s., if you want to go planned response of parenthood, you want to go after the opponents of killing babies utero, then if you go after parents that adopt children, a ry, very costly process, you can have a very chilling or freezing effect on those parents who just want to adopt a child. adopt children, give them a

loving home. and this i.r.s.'s morality as the article points out because of the current leadership that is now under scrutiny, go after these middle income folks who are not supportive of abortion, and want to adopt. we don't teach them a lesson. it's very clear. it just screams from the statistics and information that we get from the i.r.s. it's also worth noting as articles have that when people have claimed, not the adoptive tax credit, but the child tax credit that has been claimed has been shown many times by people who are not -- did not legally come into the country, and there .ave been articles about that of course -- everybody knows they'll never get a pulitzer

prize for incredible investigative reporting on the billions of dollars that may be obtained by people who come in to the country illegally and then learn you can claim a tax credit and get more money back than you put in. even if you don't have a social security number as the law currently requires to get that child tax credit, the i.r.s. thought, hey, we've got a good idea, we don't care congress says you need a social security number. we want to get all the tax income in we can. and we hear from some of the folks in congress that there are people somewhere out there in the shadows, so we'll just give them a taxpayer number even if they don't have a social security number, and let them get that child tax credit from there, so there are plenty of people that have come out of the so-called shadows to claim a child tax credit. and that's why robert rutger in

talking with him this week, he ays if people who are here undocumented, illegally, whatever you want to call it, are given legal status, then it will likely cost the country that these illion individuals will be able to get back in child tax credit once they are legally here, that many are getting even now. estimate from $1 billion -- one estimate i read was $4 billion that we are currently paying out from the treasury to people that are getting more back than they paid in. who are not legally here, don't have a social security number. so they are not going after those folks. not auditing, not going in and demanding to know where all these children you claim to get

ll this money back, $20,000, $30,000 you are getting back from the government for child tax credit -- no, they are not going after them. no. they much prefer to go after what some of these partisan political leaders in the i.r.s. see as their political enemies. when you have people like that heading up the i.r.s., you don't have to have an enemies list like richard nixon had. you got your friends at the i.r.s. doing it for you. so when we hear claims of outrage, and we see that these people have had -- have suffered absolutely no consequences from this president, the boss, as a result of their outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional activity, then it seems that maybe the outrage is not as loud as we are being told it it

originally has been. then when you find out that the a.p., certainly hasn't helped me any, but that doesn't matter, we are supposed to have a free press. they want to go after a guy that's conservative, that has a southern accent, that's their prerogative. but we find out that the white house, the justice department at least, the justice department went after the a.p. just like they did rosen at fox news, they go after the a.p. and get hundreds of phone numbers information because they say they are after this egregious leak, the attorney general told our committee last week, gee, most egregious things. one of the most egregious things he had ever seen.

turns out most of all of the leaks that allow him to go after a conservative group or to intimidate a gloup like the a.p. -- group like the a.p., to them they are egregious, when we find out, mr. speaker, he could have just looked at the records of a handful of people in the administration, he chose not to do that. it might have embarrassed the administration. he abuses the freedom of the press. it's time that people who are responsible are made accountable. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: mr. speaker, i appreciate the privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and to raise the

issues of our time and have this opportunity for this dialogue focused, asthat you well as the other members and their staff and the american people. mr. speaker, i came to the floor here one thing is support the statement made by the gentleman from texas, across the secretary general trum of the topics he addressed. he does see the world through a clear set of eyes and is not afraid to say so and we need more members like congressman gohmert who is fearless and courageous and constitutionalist and a rule of law member. and he understands the constitution and the law being attorney and a judge and a member in good standing of the judiciary committee for a number of years now where one can learn a few things about those topics, as well as bring their own expertise in. but, mr. speaker, that's the committee. the judiciary committee committee is -- the judiciary committee is where the immigration issue is going to process through up through and perhaps not through, and there

is tremendous amount of, i will say hurry up urgency momentum that has been created on the immigration issue over in the united states senate. it's matter of we could count it in hours the time that it's been since the senate passed and -- what do we call it? i call it an amnesty bill. a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which is the more modern vernacular for amnesty. that's a phraseology that was manufactured by people who couldn't quite bring themselves to say the truth on this. and that was the case back in 2006 and 2007 when it was george w. bush and his people that were pushing this comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty. and so what happened, mr. speaker, was we had an election last november. november 6 to be precise, tuesday, we would all know. there was a great expectation that republicans would win the majority in the united states senate. and a great expectation that our

republican nominee, mitt romney, would be elected as president because after all, who could imagine a second term for a man who refused to carry out his oath of office in his first term. and so the voters went to the polls. and there was a bit of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the people on my side of the aisle. and a good number of them stayed home. a number that is calculated to be about eight million voters. and about a million voters that normally would have voted for barack obama stayed home. but that's more than the difference between the election in the popular vote. and may well have translated into a difference in the election in the electoral vote. however, we know what happened in the election. the president was re-elected. there were some seats that were lost by republicans. net seat loss by republicans in the senate. we lost -- republicans lost some seats there in the house. maintained still a strong majority in the house. we expect to do so at least into

the foreseeable future. the results of that election were overreacted to by many people on my side of the aisle. how did we lose? and so of course the people that were the architects of these kind of campaigns wouldn't want to say, wouldn't want to take on the blame themselves. so they looked around to see where they could cast the blame elsewhere. they settled upon this theory on middle of the night so i would say in the morning of, which started at 12:01 a.m. the morning of november 7, 2012. and that theory that they settled on was that mitt romney would be president-elect that morning, and president today if he just had not been so strident on immigration. if he just had not said those two words, self-deport. that was the -- their theory was that was the reason mitt romney was not the president today. i will tell you, mr. speaker, that that is -- i think that's a manufactured theory. it's a flawed theory.

it's not based in fact in polling, in logic. in that it's likely true that if the hispanic vote was the decisionmaker on this election, and then if the hispanic vote went 71% for barack obama, i would ask those folks that think that you turn that vote around the other way by passing amnesty, can you tell us how it is that republicans can capture a majority of the african-american vote when typically african-americans in this country will vote 92% for the democrat? or 95% or 96% for the democrat if it's barack obama on the ballot. if they can't tell me how one should reach out to the african-american vote when we are the party of the abolition of slavery, where i can stand here and tell you that my great grand father, five times great, and for the record, people get things intentionally confused, that's great, great, great, great, great grandfather was

killed in the civil war. he was killed in the civil war fighting to put an end to slavery. they are an abolitionist family. 600,000 americans gave their lives in that struggle to put an end to slavery. roughly half on each side. roughly 300,000 on each side. more on the union side than actually on the confederate side by the data i'm looking at. mr. speaker, that -- the emancipation of the slaves and end to slavery and the blood that was spilled to compensate -- the blood spilled by the sword that was compensated -- to be compensated for the blood that was spilled by the lash seems to be forgotten in the political parties of today. when you look to see who -- what it took to pass the civil rights act in the 1960's, it took republicans in greater numbers in the house and senate to pass the civil rights act than it did democrats. there are a lot of southern democrats who were segregationist democrats. i would remind that. nonetheless, the promise of

what's coming out of the u.s. treasury and some of it's borrowed money from the chinese and saudis and others seems to have eroded the support for republican fiscal conservatives among the certain minority groups in this country, and others who are struggling to make a go of it. it's hard for them to see down the line a little ways as to how much more opportunity there is n america if we recreate the opportunity society that is being replaced by the cradle to grave welfare state we have in america today. not only is a cradele to grave welfare state, but it is a cradle to grave welfare state that promises a middle class standard of living. when i look at numbers that have been rolled out for, by -- by, for example, robert rector of the heritage foundation, the most senior, respected researcher on these topics, and

i know, because i deal with many, many of them, and i have the executive summary of the 102-page report, it's a special report dated may 6, 2013, the title is, the fiscal cost of unlawful immigrants and amnesty to the american taxpayer. the data in here should cause anyone in this congress to pause before they would begin to look at in any positive way on the senate bill that is their 844-page comprehensive amnesty bill. some of this data that's in here, mr. speaker, is shocking to people that haven't at least been numbed by the reality of it for some time. the average illegal household would be in the interim phase of this bill would be a net cost to the taxpayer, they pay tacks an draw down welfare. some would say that folks in this country illegally don't qualify for welfare. the truth of that is, there are 80, at leastle 0 different

means-tested federal welfare programs and those who are in this country illegally just qualify for some of those 80, not all of those 80. that is the truth. and it's been often distorted. but after that -- that would be -- so the net cost of the -- to the taxpayer, the interim phase for people unlawfully here now, that would be granted amnesty status by the senate version of the bill, the net cost to the average household would be $11, 460. borrowed against our children's labor, mr. speaker. after that interim, when they qualify for a larger number of those 80 different means tested federal welfare programs, post interim, is how it's defined by the researcher, robert rector, then the net cost is $28,000. the taxpayers would be subsidizing these household, in the interim,s for $11,500, then

when they qualify for more benefits, the net cost goes to $28,000. and when they retire, that's going to be a net cost to the taxpayers of $22,700. the robert rector says in his report and i'm going to quote from it because i think the language is very powerful, and he says, regrettably, let's see, this is the -- many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they'll help relieve the fiscal strains on an aging society. regrettably, regrettably, this is not true. now here's where i focused on this, mr. speaker. at every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits, and that's benefits exceeding taxes, unlawful immigrants on average are always tax consumers, never once generate a fiscal surplus that can be used to pay for

government benefits elsewhere in society. this situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty, close quote. that -- an irrefutable fact, mr. speaker. there are others that will argue that there's a dynamic economy and you can calculate this growth and dynamic economy. well, they're not calculating the cost to society. they accept that we're a cradle to grave welfare state. i've had this debate with art laffer, who i have great respect for. he is the author of ronald reagan's, all call it the laffer curve. i agree with that theory, to cut taxes and stimulate the economy that worked when ronald reagan came in in the early part of the 1980's, sworn in in january of 1981. art laffer was there, and i'm glad he was. the reagan years are looked back on as the transformative years when america wull pulled from the abyss of the malaise.

i gave him great credit. not only that, he's intelligent and he has a fantastic sense of humor. here's where i disagree with art laffer and where i disagree with some people in cato and where i disagree with, let me say, the purest of libertarians, is this -- many of them believe that labor should flow back and forth across the border as if it were any other commodity like corn or beans or gold or oil and that the marketplace will determine where that -- where labor will go just like it will determine where you send other commodities that i've listed. and that has the flaw -- the flaw in that rationale, mr. speaker, was spoken to by milton freedman, who i'm confident art laffer knew well and probably had this debate with him, but milton friedman, university of chicago economist, said, a welfare state and open borders

cannot coexist. and so that's, he might have turned that around the other way. but the principle is the same. yet we have this welfare state, a cradle-to-grave welfare state that guarantees a middle class income if you don't work at all you can draw down enough benefits to live as if you were working at a modest wage. milton friedman understood that. the welfare magnet will draw people in, they won't have the necessity to work in order to maintain that standard of living because it's being bought down, bid against, by the welfare system. and my debate with art laffer came out to be essentially this. when i make that point to him, that open borders in a -- and a welfare state cannot coexist, his answer is, end the welfare state. well, that would be nice if we could do that, mr. speaker. if we could at least ratchet it down and take that hammock that used to be a safety net and it was a safety net to keep people

from falling through, that was the original welfare system that we had, and now we have people in this congress that continually ratchet in another program here, another program there, manufacture this one here, that one there. there was only one, only one welfare program in the entire -- out of the entire 80 different means tested programs, only one that required work. some of us will remember the intense debates in the 1990's, the welfare reform debates in the 1990's, when this congress so aggressively and eagerly required the welfare-to-work program. and most of us in america have forgotten that the welfare to work program really was only one program. the tanf program, the temporary assistance to needy families program. all the rest of them, none of them require that there be work. only tanf. and the president of the united states, even though the law is specific and he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do so, the president of the united states simply waived the work

requirements in tanf. so this country now has no requirement, welfare-to-work, not even in one of the 80 different means tested programs that we have. we're seeing wealth transfer in this country, we're seeing class leveling in this country, we're seeing work and production and wealth punished and extracted from the sweat of someone's brow to pass it into the bank account or should i say the e.b.t. card of someone else. when that happens, john smith saw that that didn't work. he said no work, no eat. jesus said the same thing, you've got to work and earn your way. it's in numerous places in the bible, numerous places in the history. if you have -- think about your family. if you have one family member who won't do anything, they want someone to bring them food and bring them entertainment and don't want to go out and mow the lawn or scrub the floors let alone punch a time clock and

earn a living, how long does it take before the family says, i'm tired of that. i'm going to send you out into the world to earn your own way because you're digressing here. you're not developing your own skills. it's the way of the family. it's the way of the tribe. should be the way of the nation. gently, compassionately, take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. and nurture those who have an ability to g.d.p. to go out to contribute to the g.d.p. but we've lost that because there's a class envy wedge being driven, it existed before barack obama became president. it was driven hard in here when we had the previous speaker of the house, these class envy wedges driven in and the effort because somebody has something more than you have, to take from them and give toyota somebody that has less. it was -- perhaps i can find this while i talk, mr. speaker, but that was well articulated by

aaron rodgers, who has since passed away but the principal of -- principle of why people work and why they won't is, let's see, excuse me, adrian rogers. this is an important principle to make, mr. speaker. he was talking, dr. adrian rogers and he was talking about wealth and work. and i quote. you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. what one person receives without working for, at person must work for without receiving. the government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. when half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. adrian rogers, the late adrian rogers, 1931 to 2005. i never met him but with clarity, he spoke to this issue and more articulately than i am able to, mr. speaker. i appreciate his contribution to the discussion and our society. but there are people here who see this, they see that there's a political gain to be made by expanding a dependency class in america. and so, they decide that they're going to punish the rich, tax the rich, remember the tax rates had to go up on the upper income bracket. that was a demand of the president of the united states. he could have gotten just as much revenue by cleaning up the loopholes and it would have made it, given a more balanced tax plan than we have. but he had to raise the taxes on the highest bracket because that was, say, a notch in his belt a feather in his cap, to punish

the rich. that's -- there's been a political game to do that -- gain to do that, that's been the motive, because it gathers votes and expands the dependency class and when you do that, it keeps the people dependent on one party and this country and this society has one place where we block bad ideas. and that's here in the house of representatives. where there is a republican majority. where there's still a majority of us, i believe, that support and will defend free enterprise capitalism. anybody that's going to take the naturalization test to become the -- to become a citizen of the united states can look at the flash cards, they're a glossy flash card like that on a red backing. on one side it says, who is the father of our country? flip it over, george washington. who emancipated slaves? abraham lincoln. what's the economic system of the united states of america. flip it over, free enterprise capitalism. newly arriving immigrants, to be

naturalized citizens, study that and know that. but i suspect there are a lot of people on this side of the aisle that if they know that, they don't believe it. they don't understand how supply and demand is answered by the marketplace, how people need to be rewarded for the work they do. i take you back, mr. speaker, to 1976 when jim smi -- jimmy carter, one of the least successful presidents in our history, said something that i'm happy to quote he said this, in iowa, as we traveled all over iowa and made the first in the nation caucus an effective venue for presidential candidates. he said, i believe people who work should live better than those who don't. that's probably going to be labeled offensive in today's congress. but it was jimmy carter's statement back then and i believe it. and we have people in this party, in my party, that looked at that theory that popped up in the early morning hours of november 7 and concluded, we're never going to win another

national election if we don't first pass comprehensive immigration reform. and that's based on barack obama getting 71% of the hispanic vote. because that number has, it's gone up and down but it's crept up for democrats over time. what they have forgotten is, tens of millions of dollars and very much organizational effort has been put into it by democrats to call republicans racist and my colleagues on my side of the aisle seem to disregard that all of that money spent, all those dishonesties perpetrated, they think that if it exists at all, it didn't have any effect, it was just those two words that mitt romney said, self-deport. we need to look at the actual facts. the actual facts are, bob dole had the lowest percentage of hispanic vote when he ran for president in 1996. and it's also true that ronald reagan signing the amnesty act in 1996 didn't get george h.w. bush, bush 41, a higher

percentage of the hispanic vote but a lower percentage. if they're going to core late this thing, here's how you correlate it, mr. speaker, it's this. there were about 800,000 people that were originally to qualify for amnesty in 1986 that ronald reagan sign. that number crept up to about a million. that's kind of the subtle his tore iical number. about a million that were here that fit the qualifications to receive amnesty from the 1986 act that reagan was honest enough to call the amnesty act. once he signed that bill, then there was document fraud and people that came across the border, the magnet of amnesty drew more people in and that number now, the lowest number that i see of those who received amnesty in 1986, or from the 1986 amnesty act, is about 2.7 million people. a lot of times you see three million is the quote, it'll go up to 3 1/2. let's settle on three million people. if three million received amnesty under ronald reagan's

amnesty act and on average each of them and this is data that can be chased down, bigger numbers that i'm about to quote are available on certain studies but on average, a low number for family members brought in because of those that received amnesty, is about a factor of five or a little bit more. let's hold it on the low end, three million received amnesty, they averaged bringing in five people, by the family reunification plans that are there. now that's 15 million people. . some have died, some have gone back to their own country. but there is a large block of voters there that have shifted over to vote for who? barack obama. barack obama. i'll make this statement. if the theory of those who believe that they can reverse the trend of hispanic vote, if their theory is correct, then i would suggest to them that

without -- if they can provide amnesty and somebody's going to benefit from them -- from that, if their theory is correct, they have to admit that ronald reagan's signature on the 1986 amnesty act brought about barack obama's election. if you take those numbers of people out of the polls and you calculate that percentage of 71%, so let's just say we take 15 million people out of the rolls and say they wouldn't have been here without the 1986 amnesty act, or they wouldn't be voting, 71% of them voted for barack obama, then it's clear to anybody that can do any kind of statistical analysis that barack obama wouldn't be president of the united states without ronald reagan's 1986 amnesty act. if that's the case, then how do the people on my side of the aisle think they are going to fix that problem if it was created by amnesty, you create a bigger problem by amnesty by a factor of, let's say four. i'm just rounding three million times up to about 12 million, or

2.7 times four gets you in that 11.5 million range. that's what we are dealing with here, mr. speaker. they have suspended their logic. they have suspended their reason. they suspended their ability to look at daa surveys polled. they suspended their respect for the intelligence of the american people. who honestly want to see the rule of law. all of us have compassion for all humanity. i believe in the dignity of every human person. it's commanded by my faith. but also when those who use religion to advocate for amnesty, i was a stranger you let me in, matthew 25:35, when you look at the interpret tation you have to go back to the -- interpretation you have to go back to the greek. stranger in english in greek is vanos. in greek it means invited friend, invited guest. it doesn't mean intruder. there is no religious

commandment that says when someone comes into your house that you have to welcome them in. you are not commanded by god to do so. that's why we have a man's home is his castle. that's why we have nation states with borders. it says in acts 17, god created all nations on earth and he decided when and where each nation would be. that's his commandment. i suggest to those people that say to us, where i was a stranger you let me in, they should understand also what jesus said when they tried to trick him on that question about whether to pay taxes or not. and they showed him the coin. he said, render under -- render unto caesar things that are caesars, render unto god the things that are god. civil mercy is not something that can be delivered by religion. and mercy is not something to be delivered by government. we have civil law. civil laws are set up by the judgment of the people. that's why we have plenties that are written into these laws.

and it needs to be applied evenly and, yes, people can have their dignity and still respect our laws. but somehow some of the religious movement in the country believes that mercy should be delivered by civil law. that we can grant amnesty in the name of mersry to give a legal status to people here that are unlawfully in the united states. go back then and peruse through your bible or old test. and so me where the word mercy is used. wherever it is advocated in the bible, next to it you'll see the word repentence. mercy is never delivered biblically without repentance as a prerequisite. a requirement. i don't see repentance out here in the people advocating for u.s. citizenship. but i can tell you they and their desendants will remember who offered it as they did in 1986. and when the president of the united states came to the republican conference and he said to us, you must pass

comprehensive immigration reform, republicans, or you will never win another national election, i'm trying to help you. that's the president -- he's not trying to help republicans. we have some people that will take the bait on that and the hook has already been set and they are trying to reel the amnesty bill in over from the senate and line it in from the house of representatives. it will split this party in half. it will pit republicans against republicans. the democrats know that. that is a clear tactic in politics to divide the other party on an issue if you can. republican are falling for that. we should not take up anything until the president keeps his oath of office and enforces the laws that we have. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the

speaker. house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the national foundation on the arts and humanities act of 1965, i am pleased to reappoint the honorable betty mccollum of minnesota to the national council on the arts. thank you for your attention to this appointment. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house

>> good morning everyone. jobs continue to be our number one priority here in the congress. the president's policies are undermining economic growth, four years of slowed job growth is frankly unacceptable. i think we can do a whole lot better. this week the house is taking action on two parts of our jobs plan, expanding american energy and improving the keystone

pipeline and strengthening our student loan system for students and their families. we're working to build a stronger economy as we work to hold this administration account nl. today is a new day which means that we're sure to get a new story from the white house on the i.r.s. scandal. first they told us that the white house learned the news that the i.r.s. was targeting conservive groups. but then we hear the president's lawyer knew that report was coming. but they said that she didn't know the details. of course we came to find out that wasn't true either. then we learned it wasn't just the president's lawyer, it was a number of his closest advisors as well. and of course, despite first claiming to be blind sided by all of it, we now know his deputy chief of staff was even involved in the planning of the

announcement. drip, drip, drip. every day there is something new. we don't know how deep this extends within the administration and that's why our committees are going to continue to investigate this. what is most troubling in this white house is that the lights are on but doesn't seem to be anybody at home. the i.r.s. systematically violated their rights of americans for almost two years. the treasury department knew about this last year. the white house was made aware of it last month. yet no one thought that they should tell the president. fairly inconceive to believe me. we are going to continue to seek answers until we get to the truth. the administration hasn't been up front with the american people about ben stewart-kruger. they are suggesting the report -- benghazi.

we are seing from this administration is an argons of power. when americans can't count on some truth and honesty from their government, we've got a big problem. >> sent a letter to the i.r.s. demanding all communications between the i.r.s. and white house on this scandal, they didn't comply by the deadline. should the house subpoena these documents to find out the communication between the i.r.s. and white house? >> we'll let the weighs and means committee. they are doing a good job on this investigation. dave say very capable guy. i'll let them make that decision. >> you were asked earlier this week about the question of offsets and there was something earlier until the year about he sand day. sandy aid. your members on your side

demanding offsets? >> i think members on both sides of the aisle understand that we have programs in place to help people in the event of a disaster. and i think members on both sides of the aisle want these programs to bestered in a responsible and fair way. in addition to that washington has a spending problem. for 55 of the last 0eu6r years we've spent more money than we've brought in. that's why we have a nearly $17 trillion national debt. we have members who believe spending is spending even though it may be a very good purpose. so between these two groups of members and frankly i would sates a a bipartisan group on each side, congress has to act.

that debate will continue. it's a healthy debate and ought to continue. >> on the student loan issue, the senate has a different approach, the president has a different approach and they are going to make the house approach look like a way to raise student loan rates. how can you win this fight before july 1 or ultimately are you being backed again into a political corner? >> listen, i think what the house is doing today is a responsible way to deal honestly with the issue of student loans. can somebody politicized this on the other side of the aisle? certainly they can. but mistaked were made several years ago when the democratics had complete control of the house and white house. and they put us in this box. so a year ago basically we just extended the program for a year.

but at some point it has to be fixed and we've outlined what we think is a responsible fix for the program to prevent student loans from doubling. i think it's responsible. the senate when they act, we can go to conference and resolve the differences. >> last time you said you wanted somebody to go to jail over this i.r.s. i'm not a lawyer. >> i'm not either so we're in the same boat. >> if you keep blinging up people like lois who say i'm not going to answer any questions to incriminate self, don't you risk defeating the purpose. what about immunity so you can get people to answer the questions you need if you want to send them to jail? >> there are a number of ways i can answer this question. but point out, the weighs and means committee is conducting an investigation and hearings

as well as the government reform and oversight committee. i have full confidence in their ability to get to the truth. in addition to that, the justice department, the f.b.i. is conducting a criminal investigation. and the inspector general at the i.r.s. who did the audit, remember an audit is just a sampling of information is in the process of doing a complete investigation. so there will be ample opportunities for to us get to the truth. and to figure out who violated the law. >> every week we hear about a new incident of sexual assault in the military. what is the role of congress in looking to thend problem? >> i want to applaud the chairman of the armed services committee who will address this in the defense authorization bill. i also want to applaud the work

of congressman mike turner who has been on the department of defense for over two years to get to the bottom of this. it's outrageous and frankly it's a national disgrace. >> immigration you've encouraged looks like it's on the brink of collapsing. >> i've heard that before too. >> what's your read on it? >> these are difficult issues. there are a lot of difficult issues when you start talking about immigration reform. we got problems with legal immigration and illegal immigration. they have been through an awful lot. there are people on both sides of the aisle who have done their best to try to undermine their ability to get to an agreement. >> who? >> you can go find out for yourself because i think you'll figure it out. >> the overtime clock on the debt sealing is clicking.

what is your strategy to approach this and what is it going to take to go to conference some of the members in the senate are calling for? >> we had a conversation last week and a couple of private conversations this week on how we might move ahead but we've not made any decisions at this point. >> the attorney general announced yesterday four americans have been killed by drone strikes overseas. president obama has announced that program will go under d.o.d. or c.i.a. are you supportive of the measures he's taken with this program in >> i think our committees will be look at this clearly after we were notified yesterday the four americans were killed in these drone strikes, our committees will look to determine the appropriateness of that action. with regard i'll wait and see what the president has to say

about his revised drone policy when he says it. >> are you comfortable wit? are you comfortable with americans being killed overseas by drones? >> i want to see the facts. >> on immigration you know the senate is working on a bill that would -- >> i like how you jumped out there in front of that young lady. >> i thought you were pointing to me. >> it would grant a pathway to citizenship. would you support such a bill? >> the house is going to work its will on immigration. we're not going to be stampeded by the white house or the president. the senate is working its will, a lot of good work that has gone on over there. but the house will work its will. don't ask me how because if i knew i'd certainly tell you. but the house has got to work

its will and i'm confident that we'll have a solid work product that we can go to conference with the senate. >> on immigration, why is it that you've been interested in supporting the [inaudible] what would be worthwhile about having a more comprehensive bill? >> i've been supportive of efforts beyond the gang of eight or group of eight in the house. i think they've done good work. whether they actually finish and agree on everything or not, they've done a lot of really good work. but i've also been very encouraged by the work of our chairman, judicial committee, a lot of good hearings and good ideas. and a ved a bill out voice vote. there are a lot of efforts i've

encouraged because if we're going to solve this problem we have to educate our members about the hundreds of issues volvet if we're truly going to have education reform. have a nice memorial day weekend. >> house speaker boehner earlier today. president obama is talking about counter terrorism policy at the national defense university here in washington. we are showing it live right now on our companion network on c-span 3. we will have it later for you tonight at 8:00 eastern. coming up at 3:30 today republican senator of new hampshire and north carolina will hold a briefing reacting to the president's remarks this afternoon. that will be 3:30 eastern on c-span. then we'll show you the president's speech on drone

here in washington. here is nancy pelosi. speech her weekly earlier. this is about 20 minutes. >> these votes come around the time we're supposed to be meeting. 'll have to use our time economically here because the room has to move on. it is so sad to even think about what happened in oklahoma. our hearts remain very much with the people of moore oklahoma and all that were caught in the path of this week's deadly and devastating tornado. for those of us who don't live in tornado country, it's hard to understand the impact. we live in earthquake country and any one of these interventions into the lives of

people, loss of life, loss of sense of community in certain respects. but it seems to be a very strong community and the character of it -- that strect of character is carrying it through. no words can comfort those who lost a fm lay memberover loved one, the small children lost is heartbreaking. i spoke on the floor yesterday about having visited an earthquake site in italy years ago where the seventh grade class was in church rehearsing for holy communion and the roof came down on that church. every seventh grader in that village was gone. >> at least 7 in the school and three otherwise, such a sad thing. of course we'll work with our colleagues from oklahoma to make sure they get the assistance they need. president obama has already deployed the head of fema and

will travel to the region himself this weekend as you know. as we witness the aftermath of the tornado we commend the teachers who are there for their teachers who protect their students from harm and the first responders who ran to the wreckage to begin the work of recovery and they had some level of success thank god. for all the people of oklahoma, i hope it's a comfort to them that so many people share their grief, mourn their losses and stand by them to help them recover and to rebuild. on monday americans will gather to mark memorial day, to remember the men and women in uniform that we have lost in battle and to honor the service and sacrifice of our service members in every generation. and really for the history of our country. yesterday democratic members of the veteran affairs committee

rolled out a package to ensure timely access to benefits to veterans and their families. i was very proud of the work of the congressmen on the committee who introduced legislation which i hope will be moving forward in a bipartisan way. the backlog of claims to our veterans is a challenge to the conscious of our country. how can this be? >> our legislation will promote invasion and speed up the claims process and empower the va to reduce the backlog and pay when a claim is long overdue, pay up front what it is and then work it out later. it's money that we're going to have to pay any way, we might as well as allow our vets to pay the rent and other responsibilities. steps have been take on the end the backlog. secretary hagel i think

testified directly that he has directed the pentagon to find mental health te records with the va. and that's one of the problems is the operateability of one technology with another. it must be done. we know that with memorial day drawing near. from light right to left, we will all reaffirm our basic promise to the military to our men and women in uniform, our veterans and that promise is in the military they say on the battlefield we leave no soldier behind and when they come home, we leave no veteran behind. as we prepare to start another recess, the clock is continuing to tick. the republican leadership prevers to do nothing on jobs or the budget. the legislative branch, the

first article of the constitution, the responsibility to legitimate and we just are not getting the job done. 141 days since the start of this congress, no jobs bill. 61 days since the senate passed a budget, no conference. what -- republicans ask regular order. that is music to our ears. >> what does that mean? open transparent discussion at the table between the house bill and senate bill as to what differences we can reconcile. they asked for regular order. they didn't take yes for an answer again over 61 days ago. as we've seen, we're not the only ones house and senate democrats and the president calling for going to the table in a transparent and open way n. recent days senator mccain and collins have demanded republicans answer their own

call for regular order by going to conference and bringing both buments to the table. instead of working to enact a budget or to create jobs today, the house republicans will vote on the make college more expenive act. this is stunning. i hope you pay attention to the debate with the charts, it clearly demonstrates how damaging this is to college affordability, to those who want to go to college and families that want to help them do. so we've talked about trying to keep it 3.4%. it will double and we want to stop that. the republican remedy is to go beyond 6.8. a market rate so to speak without a reasonable cap. and so it's just wrong. they try to masquerade it as looking like the president's

proposal which it is not. please pay attention to the debate today because this is a kitchen table issue for the american people. there is no time to waste. we must secure a budget that creates jobs, reduces the deficit and gets rid of sequestration and takes us into the future. one of the areas we are focusing on in a bipartisan way and i am hopeful we can achieve success in a matter of weeks or months or before, the august recess is immigration, comprehensive immigration reform. we have to restore confidence in who we are as a people. we are a nation of immigrants. every immigrant that comes to our country with their hopes, their dreams and determination and optimism for the future makes america more american. it's an enrichment and as soon as we can pass a bill we can more fully avail ourselves, our

country, all of us including them to the future. in order to do this and i want to be clear about that, because i hear some misrepresentations reported in the press, if you check with me i'll tell you, but let me tell you all right here, we must have comp ep henive immigration reform. we must value immigrants in our country. we must protect our borders, we must protect our workers and we must protect the taxpayer. and we have said since day one, we said it in the affordable care act and we'll say it again that undocumented people will not have access to subsidies in the affordable care act. any representation to the contrary is simply not true. it's stated clearly in the affordable care act.

it is our position in the immigration bill. no access to subsidies in the affordable care act. secondly no access to medicaid. no cost to the taxpayer. that has always been the democratic position. so any thought that we want to do something different than that is not true. it is a bottom line, no need to discuss it, no subsidies in the affordable care act, no medicaid. that's it. we're optimistic about the prospects. there are some differences of inion as to what is an insurmountable obs tack cal. an ne is that insurmountable obstacle. so many people will be on a path to legalization and

citizenship. i grate the senate for passing their bill. it's not everything we want but it is taking us forward. hopefully we can make improvements as we go along. it is my view it would be help to feel have a bipartisan supported house bill to go to the table to reconcile our differences and before the summer is out to have that dream come true for so many people. yesterday we had a reception honoring father ted he isburg of notre dame. honoring his 70 years aws priest. and now in another few days will celebrate his 96 birthday. it was bipartisan, it was happy and lovely. it followed a meeting he had with the president at the white house for the president to pay his respects as well. and i bring it up because

beginning of his remarks he said america is a beautiful dream. imagine and then his remarks flowed from that. it is a beautiful dream for all of us here, for our founders and our men and women in niform who protect the freedoms that make america beautiful. it's a dream for neem our country our children. we have serious work to do here to improve the lives of the american people. that's what we're urging our colleagues to do. step one would be to go to the table for the budget bill. we only have a short time for questions now. who was at the veterans meeting yesterday? it was two nights ago. the record stands corrected. >> since the i.r.s. happened on

president obama's watch, how much of a hit do you think at all the democrats will take a hit on the i.r.s. in the 2014 mid terms? >> it happened on his watch? it happened under the appointment of the head of the i.r.s. who was appointed by president bush. his length of stay extended into president obama's stay. that points to the fact that why is this a political sized issue? because we all are concerned about how the i.r.s. does what it is supposed to do, supports the law but does not do it in a selective way. i said before what they did was wrong. the inspector general said it is not illegal. the committee wants to challenge the inspector general on his findings so that will unfold. but again the i.r.s. is an

independent agency. so the inference to be drawn happened on his watch is that it happened on his watch the way some other cabinet agency of government would. this is an independent agent si headed up by a bush appoint tee. what they did was wrong. we have to make sure it doesn't happen again. selective review. we don't like it on our side or their side. it has no place. >> doesn't the buck stop with him? should he have known about these things but he said he didn't know about any of this? >> the president doesn't know about everything that is going non-every agency in government. should mr. boehner have known because this is the neighborhood where the i.r.s. saufs. i don't think you can hold him accountable. but obviously the public will make its decision about it but

that's it. it's a bush appointee under his leadership this happened. it was wrong. let's make sure it doesn't happen again. in yesterday's hearing both democrat and republicans seemed disappointed lois would not testify. she fled fifth. what was your reaction and do you think the committee should bring her back to answer more questions? >> i've been in congress a long time so i've had people take the fifth in front of the committee and it's interesting. i don't know if it's in the public sbfment it's not like somebody has cull pability. this inspector general says nothing illegal was done. i wish she would have provided the american people answers. i don't know what her basis is for taking the fifth. it's her legal right to do. but i think we all want to find

out how we can have better management, better clarity about how some of these new mechanisms that are again proliferated since the supreme court decision can be dealt with if that's the only issue. i hope that's the only issue. this does in a larger sense give us an opportunity to say many of these groups, and not to paint them all with this brush, because they have their own motivation. many of the big ones are motivated and they've told us this directly. that if they had to disclose, they wouldn't be putting money 501-c-4's. the companies would not put money there. their employees or customers to know what is happening with their money. i'm talking about the big money now. it might be a time for us to

once again revisit the disclose act and say while reviewing the taxes has to be the same for everybody. the fact is the problem here is hey are using this non-disclosure and these groups with non-disclosure as a place to go hide. and how far do they go with promoting the social welfare as their primary purpose and engaging in politics otherwise. that's something that the i.r.s. must look into. we can reduce their case load bypassing the disclose act. , i was igration wondering what happens on cases [inaudible]

>> let me say fir of all we haven't seen it, it's a work in progress in respect to the gang of eight. i respect the work they are doing. i think each of them has gone to the table in good faith to find common values about immigration. that we have to protect our borders and workers and the taxpayer. that's why for the first point i'm saying there is no objection obstacle to our support of a bill if it says no taxpayer funding. that would be a subsidy in the affordable care act and it would also be medicaid. since 1986 signed by president reagan there has been a provision in the law that people with medical emergencies

would not be turned away if they went to the emergency ward. and the court have weighed in on that. so that is untouched by any of this but that was a bill signed in 1986 by president ronald reagan. so this goes back a long way in a bipartisan way. in terms of having healthcare, we're doing an immigration bill. we're doing an immigration bill. we couldn't pass that in the healthcare bill. we can't pass it in an immigration bill. but we should find a path and that's what we're working on so that we have as we have invigorated america, we have a healthy america as well. >> just time for one more. >> if you don't about to republicans want which is to make sure that taxpayers don't foot the bill for subsidies on the exchange, what is holding up the agreement on this issue? >> there are other issues.

talk about the immigration bill. they have a trigger in there that says if e verify is not fully accomplished in five years, it would be six if you start now just to begin the process and five years on top of that. if e verify is not effectively accomplished in five years then all of these people revert to the status they have now. i think that's pretty drastic. we have to weigh the equities as to what is the reality of e verify being fully complete and what it sets out to do. it's an important measure. we support e verify and employers are supposed to have it and use it. but what does the immigrant have to do to -- it's not the immigrant's responsibility to make sure e verify work. we have to hope it works or the

whole argument is off. millions of probationary immigrants revert to the status that is not a path of legalization. that is one barrier. s it an obstacle too much to overcome? if not let's see if that's a way to go. and to remove all doubt because there are some who don't want a bill and they are saying the democrats want affordable care act. that's not the case. unfortunately we have a very important guest coming into this room and last week we didn't get out in time for you to powder your knowses or whatever so i'm going to excuse myself and see you next time. >> minority leader pelosi. coming up at 3:30 eastern

republican senators lindsay graham will hold a briefing reacting to president obama's remarks on drone policy this afternoon. the senators briefing will get under way starting at 3:30 here on c-span. then after that we'll show you the president's drone policy rom today. host: joining us on the "washington journal" a lot of top picks we want to cover with you and we started on the president's drone policy. he's doing a speech today and as a member of the armed services committee, what is your thinking on u.s. drone policy?

guest: i like many have been concerned about how we use our drones. i've seen them put to good purpose when they are in an unmanned setting and they are able to circle around an area of conflict and help protect soldiers on the ground but we've seen them used in a way to inflict harm if not loss of life. i think the president's speech today -- i haven't fully vetted it. moving it out of the world of the cia and into the world of the armed services and active duty military will create trance parn si so we can ask hard questions. host: you've returned from afghanistan from your firth trip over there. what is your biggest concern about the u.s. with drawl policy? are you supportive of that? guest: yes. i've made five trips. first after i was elected in

2008 and my most recent was over mother's day. and the last trips i've made were with a team of women members of congress we go over mother's day for twofold purpose, one is to thank our service members over there doing a remarkable job. on mother's day difficult to be away from home if you have children. so we go to thank them and learn more about their experiences and how they are contributing to our effort there. but we also go with a focus on afghan women. one of the applauses of our engagement there have been the advancements for young women swems older women. e went to a university ob on this past trip near the y rainian border. we were the first group to go there. we went to a university where

over 40% of the students are young women who are seeking to be educated and want to contribute to the life of their country. we met with women leaders, woman who will v led a multitude of efforts whether it's inside government or outside of government providing services to women. we heard about tremendous gains around women's health. as we talk to these women across the board, young women participating in the university, women who are in more leadership positions, tremendous concern as we draw down and we seek to engage and push the karzai government to engage in a reconciliation process with the taliban that those gains will be traded away. we know the taliban are not ones to compromise on women's issues so tremendous concern about it.

wanting very much for us to continue to put those gains for women out in the forefront. in our diplomatic efforts to make sure we are mindful and seek to protect in every way possible those gains. these women at this point do not want more. they want the opportunity to fight for what they have and to fight for continued participation in the life of their government. there is an election coming up in 2014 and we heard around that that they want to be able to engage freely and go to vote and support those who will support their gains. on a multitude of fronts, wanting us as we engage diplomatically on women's rights. as we continue with aids efforts for women and girls host: do you think they are sustainable with the u.s. military not there? guest: i think how we engage

diplomatically remains important. i think the other thing we did was we heard from general done ford who remains cautionly oment mystic. we have to be mind thaffle the surge was put in place so that we created a time in space to train up afghans to defend their own country and create a police force that could create order in the communities. and general dunn ford remains optimistic they will be able to do that. 80% of the effort is in the hand of afghan security forces. this summer is going to be a real test and the genre mained cautionly optimistic. our goal was to make sure afghan women were part of this process. that the legitimacy of these

forces in afghanistan depends upon women's participation. meeting with the minister of defense there was a commitment on his part to recruit women into the afghan national security forces. we heard from afghan women how important it is women be on the ground in their communities hand in hand protecting the gains because women's absence from those police forces undermines their correct and legitimacy. host: we have about 30 minutes with our guest. we're going to put the numbers on the screen if you'd like to participate. you can see the numbers there. a couple more issues before we go to calls. sticking with the armed services committee. what is the be safe act? guest: that is a response to sexual assault in the military. this is an issue i first became

aware of in the fall of 2007. we had a hearing in the armed services committee. i had been on the committee perhaps a month at best having just arrived in congress. and the various services came forward to talk about their programs that they had put in place to fight sexual assault in the military. i was somewhat stunned by the hearing to hear that this was as pervasive a problem as was suggested. we knew about the egregious incidents tail hook but i guess i wasn't aware that it was so much across the board. a little later in january or february of 2,000 ailingt there luncheon ed veteran on capitol hill and i went to it to thank those and there were several women in the room. and i went to speak to them about their particular wounds. and after that i said we had a hearing on sexual assault and i

said is it as pervasive an issue as this hearing suggest. and one was a nurse. she had herself never been assaulted. she was in her mid to late 40's but she said i am more afraid of my own soldiers than the enemy. and to defend herself she carried a knife in her waist to defend herself if needed. that was a wakeup call for me. it was a story that made real the hearing, the necessity for the hearing. from that point on my office and i have taken a real interest and we've worked with organizations that have engaged around that and introduced legislation called the strong thact if began to address the shortcomingings in the way in which the military dealt with these crimes, in particular creating access to legal counsel for victims which the be seaf act makes clearier and

puts the services to do just that. we learned that if somebody had been assaulted, they often had to don't serve their w their asail nt often in the same unit and felt tremendously threatened by that. s there was a provision in the strong act for a request of transfer out of the unit and if that request was denied to have a review of that decision within 72 hours and as a result many, many, virtually the vast majority of those who have been assaulted are now able to transfer out of their unit. but the be safe act goes further. we saw the outrageous case in which a general overturned a jury decision of a finding of guilty of sexual assault and a commander was empowered to overturn that decision. he d. i think it outraged anybody who saw that especially those of us who have been closely watching the situation.

so the be safe act would curtail the commander's authority to overturn a jury decision in any instance of any serious offense, not just xual assault but any serious offense, would restrict their authority to change sentencing and it require that they give a written explanation but at the very least anybody convicted of a sexual assault would have to be dishon bli discharged from the military, that they could no longer serve. the military is a profession. it is absolutely a profession and it needs to be held to professional standards of conduct across the board. host: we want to introduce one more topic. from your other committee here is your colleague a republican of nebraska talking about the excel pipeline.

>> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and underlying legislation. let's be honest. this permit is five years old. the average time of authorizing the permit in these type of projects is 18 to 24 months. enough paralysis by analysis. some may say during the hearing today or the discussion that we're being impatient and we're rutching this through. 1700 days. this delay has taken longer than it took the greatest generation to win world war ii on both fronts, it's longer than it took louis and clark to do their exploration to cspan.org and back. the keystone excel is a private infrastructure project with no government funds to create

non-government jobs. y the way $7 billion infrastructure project, 20,000 jobs along this route over a two year period. host: where do you stand on the xcel pipeline? guest: i think there are many questions that remain to be answered. it is a particularly dirty heavy form of oil. if there is a spill difficult to clean up. highly co-rosive in the pipeline its so creates a greater likelihood for a spill. we know that climate change is an issue that we have to struggle w. it's a generation al issue and studies suggestion that the creation of tar sans will cribt greatly to additional climate change

issues. i think it's an important issue we have to address. the impact on our natural resources. this is going to transition across very important sources of water, whether it's a major ackqui forbut the private wells this will trance it aa cross and the economic impact of a spill. we saw it off the coast of louisiana. there are tremendous jobs created around the production of oil and all of that, but there are also economic interest we have to remain mindful of. this will transit across ranchers and farmers. there are still issues to be answered. this would have deemed all of that dealt with and not just in this context but in other regulatory instances, it's not a way for us to govern. host: here is the hill votes to override obama on keystone.

house passed a bill on dnesday in favor of h.r. 3 the northern route approval act. our first caller is on the republicans line. caller: this may sound out of the box but she said he made several troips afghanistan and talked to women. have they shown any desire to be armed? -- it like everything sound like these women have been down trodded been centuries, maybe we should give them guns and teach them how to use them so when we be w draw they can defend themselves. guest: the only women who i've seen who desire to be armed are the ones who are training to be

just that. we went to the national defense academy. it's an academy that is modeled after west point and met with women cadets there. they were a small number. it's requiring a tremendous cultural shift to involve women in military activities but they were being trained to defend themselves and their country as part of the overall effort to transition to the afghan national security forces. in another visit i met with young women who are trained to be helicopter pilots so they can defend their country. and obviously women who are being trained to be police officers. but i did not hear from any of these women a desire to be armed in order to defend themselves. what they want to use are the instruments of government to protect the rights they have gained. host: this tweet is from jim. i have a hard time believing

our military is full of rapist and sexual predators. why now when that wasn't the fact before? guest: i think we have to be clear. there are those who are definitely have committed sexual assaults and it's often an individual who commits more than one. but there are also many honorable people serving in our military who are deeply offended by the prev lance of this crime. i think we have to distinguish between those who hon bli service and there are so many and we are grateful for that. but we know this recent report showed almost a 35% increase in the instances of sexual assault in the military. and we have to take it seriously because it's a human issue. this is -- this impacts women serving obviously but it also impacts men. there are actually more men subject to sexual assault than

women. since there are more men generally serving the percentages are not as high. this is co-rossive to the military and the cohesion of the unit that is the underlying principle of military service. it impacts the redness of our soldiers to meet the threats they are cast to do. it's an issue we have to take seriously. fortunate the military itself is starting to do that. we saw the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff meeting with president obama who now has taken this on as well. i have met with the chiefs of staff of the different branches of the services, they recognize what a challenge it is and they are committed to moving forward. the reality is it requires a culture change and it is our job in congress to challenge the services to do that and to create legislation that does just that. host: nikki is in her fourth

term. a graduate of smith college and boston university law school. serves on armed services and natural resources. i have a note here that your father survived the attack on pearl harbor. >> he did. then he went he was an engineer. -yearhe went on to a 20 career in the air force after they divided off. he went off into the air force. i grew up in air force bases across the world, and have tremendous respect for the services. i am a product of department of defense schools. that is why it is important we get this right. >> is that what sparked your interest on armed services? love do not have a

military, but we have a number of companies small and large that do work with the defense department. i am proud of the innovation they contribute to defending our country. my district and the state itself tradition of service. i meet people who are either have family members who are serving. a great origination of service. my experience having grown up in the service as well. it is a great community. it is one of the least partisan in congress. we understand how important it is we put in place resources to protect our country and protect those who are serving on our behalf. >> if the last name sounds is the widow of

paul tsongas. >> i would like to thank c-span for not hanging up on me today. i want to take us back to drone strikes, and an light people on the issue and state the only argument coming out of this is how these four americans killed were customized -- were classified as citizens. if the founders had their way, they would be captured as traitors and treated them as such. it is a fine line we have to find, and i am not seeing it being drawn by anyone. thank you and have a great day. >> thank you. what is important is we have a

discussion before the fact and not after the fact. i think the president's decision to transition the drone effort to military side of the equation, removing it from cia, creates a transparency that we need to have the discussion. .ost: vivian sent in this tweet you talk like it is women who are only sexually assaulted in the military. that is true. the absolute numbers show that more men are assaulted than women, but because women are 14% of the military. by 2025, it will be 25%. it is a higher percentage. the absolute numbers show more men are- more assaulted. this is an across-the-board effort. all these changes will be very important.

the reality is and one of the things we have to do to change the culture is have those who have been a solid come forth. i understand in the course my dealing with this issue there are many aspects to it. the fact that the crime itself takes place is a deep affront to those who are seeking to serve our country. it is a betrayal of the trust they have in the military that they seek to serve and in the country they hope to defend. the second issue is the way the command structure has held with this issue. too often the commanders are overseeing both the person who has been hurt, the survivor, as well as the assailant. there is an inherent conflict, but too often managers do not take these allegations seriously. they tend to brush them under the rug. they do not move forward, they do not say we are going to move forward and bring charges. that is another betrayal of the trust that is so key to

military service. then for those who do come forward, there is to often professional retaliation. those who come forward are more often drummed out of the service than those who have done the hard. then you have the way in which the uniform code of the terry justice deals with this. the really -- the recent case where a commander was able to overturn a jury finding of guilty is outrageous. pieces, to focus on all and the legislation i am introducing with congressman turner, senator mccaskill, senator collins, is the first effort to changing the commanding powers it in course of seeking justice. host: mike turner is a republican from ohio. do you see this being fast- tracked in a leadership? guest: it will be included in

the version of the defense authorization bill. the one piece of legislation .ncorporates policy decisions this legislation will be incorporated in the house armed services bill, that would come to the military subcommittee, and yesterday we had the markup, and it was in there in total. senator collins and senator mccaskill are introducing it on the senate side. that will be an effort to include it in their bill, and then we will go to conference and hash it out. the fact that it is in our house side reflects the strong bipartisan support for this effort and the recognition that we have got to change the way in which the military is able to deal with these crimes. host: any idea when it will hit the floor? guest: we will market up the second week of june, and then it is a pretty quick movement to the floor. we will pass it out of the

house before the end of the summer at the very least. host: sharon in minneapolis. caller: good morning, c-span, and thank you for allowing me to speak, and thank you, representative, for being on. i want to talk about keystone. i am 65 years old, and i want a job. i want a job. i feel i am able to work. so i want to know if it is a kid for tapping going on, so if we do not agree to the keystone, is that why republicans are not talking about other jobs in america? i do not want to move from minnesota. what else can the democrats or republicans do about jobs here in america? -husband was in vietnam. he talked about women, women

being raped by military soldiers. i remember in the early 1970s, there was all kinds of i racial children left behind that was not able to live, they were killing those children. rapes and assaults have been going on for a long time. since it is our american men, we aremen, whe now talking about it. for they did not care about the vietnamese women. host: thank you for calling in. -- rapeape is and i'm is an unacceptable crime, and we are noticed on the crimes taking place within the armed services, which is a soldier on searcher -- soldier on soldier crime in which you have those humming into the services seeking to

, nor and little expecting should anyone expect, that they should be so egregiously harmed. especially not when you are in a professional and farmers and you have a culture that has allowed altogether too many of these crimes to take place within the context in the profession of military service. that, but you are right, these crimes are outrageous and as a country we need to prepare and change the culture of the military that allows for these crimes in whatever form, whether our own or outside, against somebody in whose country we happen to be in. terrific issue, we have got to change the culture of the military. in terms of job creation, you are absolutely right. there is much work that we should be doing that we have not

been doing. have come a long way since the freefall in our economy that we all confronted. successesmendous going forward. we see how the stock market has recovered. we see how the value of our homes has recovered. there is still effort that needs to be made around job creation. the keystone pipeline is not a panacea. there are important questions that have to be asked because while there may be jobs created in creating a pipeline, it has the potential to impact other jobs should there be a spell. if you are a rancher and have a tremendous spill on your and, that impacts her livelihood. if you are a livelihood, it impacts your livelihood. if you are dependent on tourism and had a spill, it has an impact on your livelihood. the impact of global warming has an impact on our economic well being as well. there are a lot of

considerations that we have got next callet. host: stephen in connecticut. guest: this sex scandal is so reminiscent of the catholic church scandal, it is very disturbing. it is like being shuffled around from parish to parish. ncos and sergeants are being shuffled around. i think it is time we take that power out of the leadership, and i have total faith in margin dempsey and rate odm no getting this job done and prosecuting these guys in the most vigorous terms. guest: it raises the question of the military to police and change itself. it is a very important consideration. there has been legislation

filed that would take it out of the chain of command. i don't rule it in or out. we have to get it right. the bsafe acts which i have introduced with congressman turner, introduced by senators mccaskill and collins, is the first effort to change the powers of the commanding authority, the commanders authority. it is an important step forward to changing a culture and removing the commanders and limiting the commanders 'authority when these crimes occurs. the legislation addresses not just sexual us out, at any serious offense, so the commander would no longer have the capacity to overturn a jury decision. the other issue is how we prevent predators from coming have ae services so we better filter of identifying those who commit great harm, because there is a real lot of research done that shows that often people who sexually

assault others, they do it many times over. have to have a better filter of keeping those people out of the services, and then we have got to put in place to men's training efforts that make those coming into service the kind of respect that is due one another, because sexual harassment is an issue and that culture that encourages the heater that is not appropriate, especially not in a profession when you are tasked to defend our country. host: have you seen instances where commanders are being reassigned without punishment? guest: not seeing that today date, but what we are going to see, we are going to learn is as this becomes ever more visible -- we are only good as the stories we hear, and it is the

stories we have heard from survivors of sexual assault that have driven all that i have done and i think have driven all that many have done in congress. -- you willcan hear at additional stories as to the ways in which the prevalence of this crime is allowed for in the military services, and we will address it as we do. host: i want to get your thoughts on two issues you're not directly involved in an necessarily, but the irs investigation, the big guns the -- that benghazi investigation, doj investigation about phone records. are you ok with the way the house republicans are purging those issues? host: democrats always have to support things when you are not

in control. the issues of the irs, a lot of important questions have been raised, and we need to answer them. it is appropriate the hearings going forward raise those questions and we get the important answers. thele have to trust neutrality of the rrs. russians have been raised that need to be answered. i am the ranking member of the oversight investigation committee in the house armed services committee, the most senior democrat, and we have a hearing on and ghazi to address the department of defense response, the military response, once the attacks began in benghazi. we did not revisit anything new that the accountability review board had taken a look at that otherwise had vetted. he got very thorough explanations of the response.

once the attack took place, there were two avenues of response. on was the people we could send in to help support those that were on the ground and the air assets, airplanes, unmanned aerial vehicles that could be sent to benghazi to assist in the efforts. it was top-secret, much of it. i think secretary gates got it right when he said had i been in that decision i would have made the same decisions that our president, working with the secretary and military leaders, made, and i came away feeling the same way. given the short time. in which this took place, and the availability of airplanes or other air assets, as well as people, that we did everything we could appropriately so in the context of that timeline. >> see this discussion in its entirety at www.c-span.org.

now live to capitol hill for a press conference. good afternoon i am joined by saxbyolleagues, senator chambliss, the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, senator lindsey graham, armed services and defense appropriations, and se senator kelly ayotte. all four of us have been deeply involved in the issues that the president of the united states articulated his ideas and proposals on. there are some areas where we are in agreement with the president, some areas we are in disagreement. first of all, i have always advocated the closure of the

prison at guantánamo bay for a friday every jens which i will -- for a friday of reasons which i will not go into right now. we wanted a plan. in 2009, senator graham and i and the white house counsel tried to articulate and come up with an agreement. we never got an agreement. the administration never came up with a coherent plan to close on time obey. that is why it is still open today. and light of the president's speech today, we will pledge our willingness to work with the president to see that one, mowbray is closed. as my colleagues will also state, there are a lot of moving parts to closing one time obey, not the least of which is where you put these people, it's once have to be

kept on an indefinite aces, those that are eligible for military courts, and those eligible for civilian courts. those are tied together. --the issue of wonton among we hope there is a plan on that issue. on the issue of authorization for military force, we are in a long drawn out conflict with al qaeda to somehow argue that al qaeda is on the run comes from a degree of unreality that to me is incredible. al qaeda is on the run is expanding all over the middle east, from mali to yemen, and all places in between. to somehow think that we can bring the authorization of the use of military force to a complete closure is

contradicting reality with the facts on the ground. al qaeda will be with us for a long time. i specifically want to point president's remarks, we must strengthen the opposition in syria while isolating extremist elements, because the end of the tyrant not a way to the attorney of terrorism. we must strengthen the opposition in syria. i agree, mr. president, and we have watched the last little , 100two years 80,000 thousand people massacred, the presence of extremist elements on the increase come a destabilization of lebanon and the things that the non-interventionists said would happen if we interviewed have happened because we did not intervene. am dumbfounded that the

president would say we must strengthen the opposition in syria when again we are banking on the goodwill of the russians and some kind of peace conference that may or may not take place next month. there is a number of other comments about the president lost speech that i would be glad to go into, but maybe it is better addressed in the question and answer period. .he middle east is in turmoil the middle east crisis out for american leadership. american leadership is absent in the middle east, and that is the price we have paid in iraq, the price we have paid in libya, the price we are paying in syria and other countries today. i asked the president to lead, be involved, be engaged, and that does not mean troops on the ground, but it means an exercise of leadership tom a including providing a safe zone for the people who are struggling against bosh are al-

--ad, and taking out a solid assad's assets. senator jim bliss? , senator mccain. john and i have a difference of opinion about quantum obey. bay.antanamo if we were to capture some of the benghazi terrorists who we running free, what are we going to do with them? we have no place to take them. are we going to bring them into one article three court? what is going to happen to them? that is one sequel question. the other one is we have on hundred 66 of the nastiest killers in the world located atguantanamo.

the president said we are moving toward closure and that means the release of 86 of those individuals that have been authorized or transfer, but they were not transferred because a number of them are going to yemen. 56 of them are yemenis. following the 2009 christmas day bomber incident, all to yemen were stopped. guess what -- between december 2009 and today, has yemen shown any indication that they are more capable of looking after those individuals? absolutely not. if we were to transfer them to yemen, it would be like turning them loose. i do not think that is the right thing to do. he have a state of the art facility at guantanamo. we should try them in the courtrooms there. then make a decision with what

to do with them after that. the other issue i want to touch briefly on that the president talked about is the transparency that he now wants to see in the drone program. he was limited in what he said on the program thomas a i can only be limited in what i say about it, that suffice it to say we in the case of awlaki, have complete transparency that was given to the public and congress. hungers knew what was going on with respect to a the targeting awlaki. that is the tribe of transparency that is appropriate, but to open the books on the drone program does not make america a safer place in which to live. with that, i will send it to senator graham. policy, i would argue that administration loss

detention policy has been a failure. how many people have we captured and interrogated under the law all war? every time we capture a terrorist, if we do not kill them, we bring them into the civilian court system and read them their rights. that has got to stop. about guantanamo. it is not about the location of the jail. i do not mind if we try to move it into the united states. i want a legal system consistent with being at war. you need a plan. you need a plan that would reassure the public that we are not talking about dealing with people who robbed a liquor store them up but terrorists, and we will have a legal system that will allow some to be tried in military court, somebody tried in federal civilian court where appropriate, some to be released when appropriate, and some to be held under the law of war because if we let them back

out into the system they will kill us. 28% recidivism rate. it only makes sense if you are at war. under terminal law you cannot hold anyone in definitely under criminal law, nor should be allowed to, but if you are at war and you capture a prisoner, you can hold them as long as they are a threat. this would be a war without and. we have to find some long-term review policies that deal with the captures so they get more due process, but i will not sit on the sidelines and embrace the option you'd either try or let them go because that represents a dangerous choice. about the overarching theme that you cannot kill your way into safety and when the war through killing, count me against that concept. stir president, what you say and do are disconnected. you'd talk about supporting democracies in countries in transition trying to reject radical islam.

but your actions speak louder than your words. -- iraq was a country went through that hell, and it is falling apart because the president decided not to leave any soldiers behind. mr. president, i agree with the concept we have to stand by those in the region and give them capacity where they have the will, because we cannot kill our way to safety, but when you're given choices, you made a poor chores in air rack and you have under can't commanders in afghanistan. there are parts of his speech that i could have given. you cannot kill your way to victory. you have to help those willing to live in peace with you, but our record in syria, iraqi, afghanistan is very disturbing. i would and with this thought about drones. i have stood by this president

because of the technology ache cents. there are of this world that are not governed and we do not have troops, and a drone is the best way to protect allies against terrorists. i would like you to be more transparent, and if you want to send it over to do dod, prove that we are going to make the time knology use that will make us safe. the theme of the speech was that this war is winding down. i have relentlessly pursued the al qaeda leadership. there is no justification beyond all six for congress to close a facility that never should have been open. we justification is that destroyed the leadership and were relentless in our pursuit of terrorism -- that is not true. the enemy is morphing him a spreading, there are more theaters of conflict today than in several years, and our policy toward syria and iraqi,

indecision about leaving troops in afghanistan, is creating instability. our pal eyes are more afraid than we have ever seen. i support the concepts that the president talked about in many ways, but if he does not change his policy, the middle east is going to blow up and we are going to hit again here at home to matter how hard we try. forward policies that will make it like that embassies will be attacked and terrorism is on the rise in our backyard. he told resident bush to his face in 2006 mr. president, your policies are not working in a rack. youresident obama, policies are not working. you need to adjust them. i would add certainly my view on guantánamo, similar to senator bliss'amp les

it was changed in conference to a year, so it has been a consistent policy of this hottie, and in part i share with about the useiss of quantum memo -- guantanamo, that is key and that remains an important key issue for us. also there is no plan from the president on an alternative. that is where things stand in congress, and they are likely to stand there with the absence of a plan that makes sense and protects americans. i want to point out the president said in his speech and a lot of time on yemen, saying he was going to lift the

transfer, and as the senator said, what has changed >> jamad? we have had a return of recidivism, so if we think these individuals we are going to willer from guantanamo be held in safety in prison in yemen, this incident in 2011, where members of al qaeda basically had a prison break in yemen, demonstrates issues we have there, and to quote the speech, he clearly said that al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is the most active in plotting against our homeland. that is where we have already had significant activity, and you think about it, where do we get -- he was apprehended off the coast of yemen. yemen has a tenuous reach in the territory, and what do we

tell americans that travel to yemen? two up.ould put slide the question is this, nothing has changed, and the issue in terms of transferring those out guantanamo is will they reengage to continue attacks ,gainst our country, and yemen what we tell our citizens in terms of the threat to al qaeda remains very significant and has not diminished since the administration made the decision not to transfer prisoners to yemen. this issue of transferring to , givens very troubling the history we have with yemen, terrorist activity there, and i would add the president said in his speech that he wants congress to overturn restrictions we have on transferring people from guantanamo to other countries.

we put together a waiver process in the defense authorization process. the administration can transfer people from guantanamo, but if you look at what that process constitutes, they have to certify that they can mitigate the risk that all, like the terrorists that are being guantanamo, are not going to be reengaged, and if detained, the place they are going to be detained is secure, where they cannot escape from, and it has to be in the national security interests of the country. i would submit we have given him a standard and if they cannot certify with respect to guantanamodual at that they have mitigated the risk so they are not attacking us again and they had made sure it is in the national security interest of the united states, they can make decisions to transfer under the process we've created for them.

it seems those are fair considerations. we do not need to repeal a process. if they want to exercise it, justify to congress why these individuals are not present a risk if we transfer them. i was troubled to hear him say he aumf. werepeat the remain at war with terrorists. we only need at incidents from yemen to erect, from somalia to north africa, and in benghazi to know that now is not the time where we can consider repealing the authorization for the use of military force. >> senators who are open-minded thelosing the base,, also administration has told reporters that [indiscernible] on your second question, i would expect they might revise his comments about the situation.

in yemen today maybe it has not .iltered down to the writers they are not at the top of the food chain. the problem in 2009 when the white house counsel sat down with me and senator graham, they so the will have a plan american people can be as short these people will either he tried, stay in detention because they are too difficult to release, and sent to another country, or they will be tried in whether it be military or civilian court, they never followed with a proposal because they could not send some of these people, yemenis, back to where they wanted them to go, to their home country, and also they have no plan as to where to move the detainees they were going to keep. ofator graham in defiance

all logic in my view has offered that the charleston naval shipyard be a place for a trial. senator durbin has a sure i was at the illinois max prison would be a place they could send them. i am willing to sit down and ,iscuss how we could do this because i happen to believe that guantánamo bay is a terrible image of the united states of america throughout the arab world. we can disagree on that, but all of us are in agreement until we have a plan from the then the status quo has to remain. >> in 2009 a came up with a plan to talkt two occasions to him about it. i spent time with rahm emanuel to find a way to move the prisoners back to illinois. no one suggested they come to charleston. i will correct that.

i would be willing, at the charleston naval brig, if they want to have a military commission trial to look at that location as a place you can do trials. the jail in joliet, illinois, was going to be the site. here's the problem -- to move the prisoners, you have to move the concept we are at war. i believe in due process, and humane treatment of detainees under the law of war as well as in our civilian system. i challenged the president to embrace that law of war detention would be one of the options available for our country. there is a class of detainees that senator chambliss knows better than anyone else that the intelligence is strong, evidence is of an intel nature, that this person is eminently involved in activities against our country and meet the definition of our qaeda affiliated person who is

actively engaged in terrorist activities. you are not going to take that evidence into a courtroom am a military or civilian, but you will have to prove to a federal judge if the person is in fact an enemy combatants. the hague is receiving -- every war,eding -- but under you do not have to take them to trial. that is when it broke down. if you want to try to find a new location to move these detainees inside the united states, you need to have a plan that will assure the people that there will be a system to keep these people off the battlefield, and if you're going to put them in court, that we have a way to distinguish between military court and civilian court, and if you are going to release them, we have a plan to make sure they will not go back to the fight. % is will, but 20 ridiculous. the difference between a concept and a plan is as follows. anybody who would send people

back to yemen today is doing the people in yemen a disservice as well as the united states. the president of yemen has been a better partner. things are getting somewhat better in yemen. i cannot believe given what i know about yemen and senator mccain is going next week that the conditions on the ground in yemen and three of the people protect our embassy in benghazi came from yemen are such that it would be a good idea to release people we have held for years as terrorists back in the yemen. that is a difference between a concept and a plan. >> thank you very much. civilitylked about [indiscernible] what would you like to see them do? >> arm the rebels, put in a , go back andad

help the libyans do what we did not do after qaddafi fell, to help them with their border security, etc. try to assist this new refugee problem the lebanese have. 10% of the population is already refugees. ,he strain on the government outbreak of fighting going on in lebanon, it comes down -- what would happen in the united states question mark lead. the president does not lead. i get this from every single leader in united states no matter where i go, and we sit by and watch these people massacred, and now we are relying on the goodwill of the russians among which we have been relying now for over two years. i do not like to predict, but given the fact that the russians now have given more sophisticated weapons to a side,

that the overflights of weapons still goes on, the russians into new to supply them does not give me confidence about a conference, although i note you need a is a nice place to meet, this time of year. >> i would like the president to announce a residual force in afghanistan, somewhere between 10000 and 13,000 avoid what happened in iraq. people in a and a stan are trying to hedge their bets. aboutople are uncertain what we are going to do. if the president announces a forced it will lead to a good outcome in afghanistan. he can win if we make the right choices, as we could in syria. the king of jordan could be overthrown in the next six months because his economy is under siege. the weapons moving around today in syria ok and hands of hezbollah.

as to iran, have talked and they have been enriching. call the chinese and russians and let them know that the iranians change their behavior, there will be a conflict and the best way to avoid it is for russia and china to get involved and help. >> [indiscernible] does congress have? >> we passed a resolution to provide arms to rebels. that is a signal in the right direction. i would argue six months ago you could not get that through. we had a resolution concerning iran. congress is finally waking up and acting in essence of presidential leadership, and you will see an additional resolution from senator graham in the next month or so, concerning iran.

the arabians are watching, the president who said if they use they would cross a red line, do you think the iranians are serious about red lines? i do not think so. >> we have an ability which i brought out in the past to bring amendments that can address detainee and interrogation this is the if i course the administration plans to take, i would like to know why they cannot justify under the waiver process we've created for them the transfer of these individuals. that tells me they cannot tell me it is in the national security interest of the united states. >> thank you very much. >> capitol hill lawmakers responded to the president today who issued new guidelines for when petrone strikes could

be used. -- for when drone strikes could be used. mr. obama spoke from the national defense university for an hour. he was interrupted three times by a person who shouted about drones and issues in cuba. good afternoon, everybody. these be seated. tois a great honor to return the national defense university here at fort mcnair. americans have served in uniform since 1791, standing guard in the earliest a's of the republic and contemplating the future of warfare in the 21st century. for over two centuries, the united states has been bound together by founding documents that define who we are as americans and served as our compass through every type of change.

matters of war and peace are note different. americans are deeply ambivalent about war. having fought for our independence, we know a price must be paid for freedom. from the civil war to our struggle against fascism, on through the long twilight struggle of the cold war, battlefields have changed and technology has evolved, but our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war. every war has come to an end. with the collapse of the berlin wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. for a moment it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. on september 11, 2001, he were shaken out of complacency. thousands were taken from us, as

clouds of fire and metal and ashton ascended up on a son- filled morning. this was a different kind of war. no armies came to our shores. after military was not the principal target. instead, a group of terrorists aim to kill as many civilians as they could. .ur nation went to war we have now been at war for well over a decade. i will not review the full history. what is clear we drove out qaeda out of afghanistan, but shifted the focus and began a new war in iraq. this carried significant consequences for our fight against al qaeda, our standing in this world, and our standing in the vital regions. we strengthen our defenses, tightening transportation

security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. most of these changes were sound. some cause inconvenience, but some like expanding surveillance raised russians about the balance was struck between our interests in security and values of privacy. wesome cases, i believe compromise our basic values by using torture and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. after i took office we stepped up the war against al qaeda, but we also sought to change its course. we relentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership. we ended the war in iraq and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan and increased training of afghan forces. torture, affirmed our

commitments to civilian courts, worked to align policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with congress. osama bin laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. there have been no large-scale attacks on the united states, and our homeland is more secure. fewer of our choose are in harms way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. our lives are strong and so is our standing in the world. in some, we are safely because of our efforts. make no mistake our nation is still threatened by terrorists. , we benghazi tube austen have been tragically reminded of that truth. we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolve

from the one that came to our shores on nine/11. with a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions. 'sout the nature of to date threats and how we should confront them. these questions matter to every .merican over the last decade after nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war. helping to explode our deficits and constraining our building to nation build at home. our service members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. thely 7000 americans paid alternate sacrifice. anymore have left a part of themselves on the battlefield or brought the shadows of battle back home. from our use of drones to the

detention of terror suspects, the decisions that we are the typew will define of nation and world we leave to our children. so america is at a crossroads. we must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of james madison's warning that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." neither i, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. we will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society.

what we can do, what we must do is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. to define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. and that begins with understanding the threat we face. today, the core of al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan is on a path to defeat. their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. they did not direct the attacks in benghazi or boston. they have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. instead, what we've seen is the emergence of various al qaeda affiliates. from yemen to iraq, from somalia to north africa, the threat

today is more diffuse, with al qaeda's affiliate in the arabian peninsula, aqap, the most active in plotting against our homeland. while none of aqap's efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. unrest in the arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like libya and syria. here, too, there are differences from 9/11.

in some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. while we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. that means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in benghazi, or at the bp oil facility in algeria, in which local operatives, in loose affiliation with regional networks, launch periodic attacks against western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations. finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the united states. whether it's a shooter at a sikh temple in wisconsin; a plane

flying into a building in texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the federal building in oklahoma city ? america has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. deranged or alienated individuals ? often u.s. citizens or legal residents ? can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at fort hood, and the bombing of the boston marathon. lethal yet less capable al qaeda affiliates. threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. homegrown extremists. this is the future of terrorism. we must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. but as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. in the 1980s, we lost americans to terrorism at our embassy in

beirut, at our marine barracks in lebanon, on a cruise ship at sea, at a disco in berlin; and on pan am flight 103 over lockerbie. in the 1990s, we lost americans to terrorism at the world trade center; at our military facilities in saudi arabia; and at our embassy in kenya. these attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. but if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11. moreover, we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a

common ideology, a belief by some extremists that islam is in conflict with the united states and the west, and that violence against western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the united states is not at war with islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts. nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. we need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. so let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter- terrorism strategy.

first, we must finish the work of defeating al qaeda and its associated forces. in afghanistan, we will complete our transition to afghan responsibility for security. our troops will come home. our combat mission will come to an end. and we will work with the afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter- terrorism force which ensures that al qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. beyond afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten america.

in many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. thousands of pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. in yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from aqap. in somalia, we helped a coalition of african nations push al shabaab out of its strongholds. in mali, we are providing military aid to a french-led intervention to push back al qaeda in the maghreb, and help the people of mali reclaim their future. much of our best counter- terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. that's how a somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of yemen is now in prison in new york. that's how we worked with european allies to disrupt plots

from denmark to germany to the united kingdom. that's how intelligence collected with saudi arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the atlantic. but despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. al qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on earth. they take refuge in remote tribal regions. they hide in caves and walled compounds. they train in empty deserts and rugged mountains. in some of these places ? such as parts of somalia and yemen ? the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory.

in other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. it is also not possible for america to simply deploy a team of special forces to capture every terrorist. and even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians, where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting u.s. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. to put it another way, our operation in pakistan against osama bin laden cannot be the norm. the risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of

capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our special forces, but also depended on some luck. and even then, the cost to our relationship with pakistan and the backlash among the public over encroachment on their territory was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

it is in this context that the united states has taken lethal, targeted action against al qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. armed true in previous conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under u.s. and international law; about accountability and morality. let me address these questions. areegin with, our actions effective. don't take my word for it. in the intelligence gathered at bin laden's compound, we found that he wrote, "we could lose

the reserves to the enemy's air strikes. we cannot fight air strikes with explosives." other communications from al qaeda operatives confirm this as well. dozens of highly skilled al qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, u.s. transit systems, european cities and our troops in afghanistan. simply put, these strikes have saved lives. moreover, america's actions are legal. we were attacked on 9/11. within a week, congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. under domestic law, and international law, the united states is at war with al qaeda, the taliban, and their associated forces.

anare at war with organization that right now would kill as many americans as they could if we did not stop them first. so this is a just war a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense. and yet as our fight enters a new phase, america's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. to say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. for the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power or risk abusing it. that's why, over the last four

years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in presidential policy guidance that i signed yesterday. in the afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. that means we will continue to take strikes against high value al qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. however, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

beyond the afghan theater, we only target al qaeda and its associated forces. even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. america does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. america cannot take strikes wherever we choose our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. america does not take strikes to punish individuals we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the american people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. and before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured the highest standard we can set.

this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes at home and abroad understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. there is a wide gap between u.s. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. nevertheless, it is a hard fact that u.s. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. for me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in afghanistan and

iraq. but as commander-in-chief, i must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. ofdo nothing in the face terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places like sana'a and kabul and mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

so doing nothing is not an option. where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. as i've said, even small special operations carry enormous risks. conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. and invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict.

so it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the muslim world. the result would be more u.s. deaths, more blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars. so yes, the conflict with al qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. but by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. beeed, our efforts must also measured against the history of putting american troops in distant lands among hostile

populations. in vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. in iraq and afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. so neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services and indeed, have no functioning law. this is not to say that the risks are not real. any u.s.

military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. our laws constrain the power of the president, even during wartime, and i have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the united states. dronesy precision of strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. it can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism. for this reason, i've insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. after i took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of iraq and afghanistan to the appropriate committees of congress.

let me repeat that not only did congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that america takes. instanceudes the one when we targeted an american citizen: anwar awlaki, the chief of external operations for aqap. this week, i authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. for the record, i do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any u.s. citizen with a drone, or a shotgun without due process.

nor should any president deploy armed drones over u.s. soil. but when a u.s. citizen goes abroad to wage war against america and is actively plotting to kill u.s. citizens; and when neither the united states, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot moreitizenship should no serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team that's who anwar awlaki was he was continuously trying to kill people. he helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two u.s. bound cargo planes. he was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. when farouk abdulmutallab the

christmas day bomber went to yemen in 2009, awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. his last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over american soil. i would have detained and prosecuted awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. but we couldn't. and as president, i would have been derelict in my duty had i not authorized the strike that took out awlaki. of course, the targeting of any americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes which is why my administration submitted information about awlaki to the department of justice months before awlaki was killed, and briefed the congress before this strike as well.

but the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are american citizens. this threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups even against a sworn enemy of the united states is the hardest thing i do as president. but these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the american people. going forward, i have asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to congress. each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties

in practice. for example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. another idea that's been suggested the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national- security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. despite these challenges, i look forward to actively engaging congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight. i believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter- terrorism strategy.

because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. we cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well- spring of extremism, a perpetual war through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self- defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. so the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from north africa to south asia. as we've learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. we must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems

like poverty and sectarian hatred. areover, no two countries alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. but our security and values demand that we make the effort. this means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like egypt, tunisia and libya because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. we must strengthen the opposition in syria, while isolating extremist elements because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. we are working to promote peace between israelis and palestinians because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. countriest help

modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship because american leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples' hopes, and not simply their fears. success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. i know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. but foreign assistance cannot viewed as charity.

it is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. iseover, foreign assistance a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. for what we spent in a month in iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in libya, maintaining peace agreements between israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in yemen, building schools in pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists. america cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places.

over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our embassies, and i am implementing every recommendation of the accountability review board which found unacceptable failures in benghazi. i have called on congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges. but even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. this is the price of being the world's most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the arab world. offsin balancing the trade- between security and active diplomacy, i firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

and that's why we should be grateful to those diplomats who are willing to serve there. targeted action against terrorists. effective partnerships. diplomatic engagement and assistance. through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to americans overseas. as we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders. as i said earlier, this threat is not new. but technology and the internet increase its frequency and lethality.

today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. to address this threat, two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. the best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the muslim american community which has consistently rejected terrorism to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. and these partnerships can only work when we recognize that muslims are a fundamental part of the american family. indeed, the success of american muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with islam.

indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call america home. that's why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. that means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. that means that even after boston we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. carefulns putting constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine.

and that means finally having a strong privacy and civil liberties board to review those issues where our counter- terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension. the justice department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. as commander-in chief, i believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. to do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. but a free press is also essential for our democracy. i am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the journalism that

holds government accountable.

but this war like all wars must end.