science monitor correspondent. piece on the r front page of the christian science monitor weekly. school. 50 years after a supreme court ban. it makes a comeback. lee lawrence.uch, guest: thank you very much. you can finds that on the websi website. floor.ow go to the house that is all for "washington journal." joining us.r the house is meeting for morning take up life0 they business. we expect first votes around :30 to 2:00 and last votes hitting about 6:00 to 7:00 this evening. have a good day.

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

the speaker: the house will be in order. pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, i continue to be disappointed in the house leadership that we are not looking into this issue of the

c.i.a. giving tens of millions of dollars to karzai, the corrupt leader of afghanistan. we don't hold any hearings about it. we're spending money there. our kids are still dying. we had four killed yesterday in afghanistan. i would like to take this opportunity to thank senator corker from tennessee for taking the lead on monday in writing a letter to the secretary of state john kerry and demanding an explanation of the secret payments by the c.i.a. i fully agree with the senator's decision to place a hold on u.s. funding for afghanistan. mr. speaker, we're having -- still having kids killed in afghanistan, severely wounded, and yet there is no full debate on the floor of the house. that to me is a tragedy, that we should be debating the issue of afghanistan. mr. speaker, to make things

worse, yesterday in "the new york times," karzai's office made the following statement, and i quote, in view of the contradictions between acts and statements made by the united states of america in regard to the peace process, the afghan government suspended negotiations currently under way in kabul between afghan and united states delegation on the bilateral security agreement. mr. speaker, it would be my wish that we would just totally scrap the bilateral strategic agreement. that means america would be there for 10 more years after 2014 with a military presence and also spending money we don't have. this is just another failed policy that we in the congress continue to support. karzai will not be the remainder -- will not last as the speaker -- excuse me -- as the leader of afghanistan. what will happen is the taliban will eventually take over.

they are the posh tunes that make up taliban. they are the largest tribe in afghanistan and they will eventually lead afghanistan. i do not understand why the taliban that we're fighting today who will probably be the leaders in the next two or three years of afghanistan, why we're going to support them with finances and with young men and women? there's something wrong here and i hope that the house of representatives, the leadership in both parties will come together and say we're going to debate the policy in afghanistan. mr. speaker, this cartoon that i have -- and i've been handing this out in a flier to members in my district -- it's got mr. arzai standing in front of a ciatm machine. he's taking a little card. i gets it's paid for by uncle sam. he's taking money out and you can see bags of cash at his feet. the sad thing about it, karzai says, i'm just making a quick

withdrawal, but the sad thing about it is a soldier standing behind him that says, "i would like to make a quick withdrawal from afghanistan." i hope the american people will put pressure on the house and senate to stop spending money we don't have in afghanistan. if for no other reason to save the lives of our young men and women who are dying over there each and every week, and i will continue to say why can a nation that's financially broke continue to pay a corrupt leader to stay in power when he criticizes thus in the paper almost every other -- criticizes us in the paper almost every other week? we need to have a debate on this war in afghanistan. with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back by closing. i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in iraq and afghanistan. i ask that we do what is right

in the eyes of god. i ask god to please bless the president by doing what is right in the eyes of god. i close by saying, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: well, last week i went shopping. i wouldn't exactly call it a spree. what i did is i went to one of the lowest cost grocery stores in the eugene-springfield area where i live to try and purchase a week's worth of food for $31.50. that's the snap benefit, average snap benefit for a single individual. there are those on the other side of the aisle in the farm bill that will come up later today to say this is the first

place to cut, the kids, the seniors, to the unemployed, to the disabled, that's where they want to cut first. i wonder how many of them had to try to budget for them self or say for their spouse and child at $31.50 per person for a week. doesn't go too far. i ended up a little bit over because we miscalculated on weighing some apples. i had three apples. i had to put one back and would had to cut back a little bit more on the pasta to make the $31.50 budget limit. now, there are these incredible stereotypes out there about the snap program, the food assistance program, formerly called food stamps, that these are all people on welfare. actually 92% of the people getting snap benefits are not on welfare. half of them are children. 22% are on social security or social security disability. so they're either seniors or

disabled. and the rest are unemployed or underemployed. and at $31.50 a week, a benefit that the other side of the aisle wants to cut, many of these people now can't make it through the month. this is a pretty paltry stuff if you look at it. and you think about doing this week in week out. most people in oregon, you know, and oregon is a lower cost state than many for food, run out sometime in the third week of their benefits and they have to go and get emergency food assistance. our food banks provided one million boxes of emergency food assistance last year. yet, those on that side of the aisle would begrudge these people, these children, these seniors, these disabled an adequate budget, you know, for a very, very minimal diet. you know, it's extraordinary to

me. my state, and most people don't think of us this way, we are the fourth highest per capita in terms of food stamp utilization. fourth highest per capita because outside our major urban areas the economy has not recovered from the collapse that wall street caused in housing and other areas. we had recreational vehicles industries gone. we had some high tech that's moved on. we had a lot of construction, home building, lumber, wood products pretty much decimated. the rural areas i have in my rural counties, unemployment over 20%. people are struggling to make ends meet, and we're going to cut their benefits. they want to work. some of them are working, and we even have a higher minimum wage than some states, but it still won't get you through the end of the month for your family. now, this is just outrageous. there are ways to cut this bill. we're going to stop paying finally at last, we are going

to stop people not to grow things. we are going to have a new program of crop insurance and some estimates are this program which goes to anybody with an unlimited income, if you're a corporate farm and has $2 million, government will pay 80% for your crop insurance, 80% subsidies. why is that? we could cut this and -- if you earn a quarter of a million dollars a year, go buy your own crop insurance. i think it could be lower than that in my state and in most states. that would save as much money as they're going to save by eliminating food assistance to hungry kids, seniors, unemployed and underemployed and disabled americans. these are the cruelest cuts possible. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment later today which will restore these benefits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, there is a war going on in syria. some call it a civil war. it may be a civil war, may have started out as a civil war, but it is escalating. the government of syria, ruled by the dictator assad, is a bad guy, no question about it. several rebel groups, we're still not sure who all these people are, are trying to remove him from power. world powers seem to be taking sides in this battle. you have the syrian government supported by iran and russia. also have this little terrorist group called hezbollah supporting the regime, but on the other side you got the rebels, numerous groups, including al qaeda, a terrorist group. you have saudi arabia, qatar, you have the muslim brotherhood from egypt supporting the

rebels. turkey is concerned. even great britain has weighed in on this, a former colonial power in the region. so more and more groups, nations are lining up in this war in syrian that's been going on for two years. 100,000 people have been killed by both sides. refugees are leaving the country and going to other countries. i recently was in turkey on the border with turkey and syria and i saw a refugee camp that had 150,000 syrians that had escaped the war in syria. and finally now the united states, after two years, we've decided we're going to take sides. the president has said we're going to give arms to the syrian rebels and that they're going to be vetted so we make sure we're not giving those to other terrorist groups. i don't know if we're going to do a universal background check on the rebels or what, but small arms for the rebels. and here's what the president said.

we're not taking sides in this religious war between shiia and sunni. really what we're trying to do is take sides against extremists of all sorts. what seems to me what we're really doing is taking both sides and we're arming extremists at least on one side, and i ask the question -- what is the national security interest of the united states to be involved in somebody else's war? there isn't one. we don't have a national security interest to be involved in this war. you know, the united states seems to have a habit of getting involved in other people's business, and once again, we have made the problem being a our problem by involved and supporting the rebel groups. what is the goal of the united states' involvement? this war is not going to be easily won by the rebels. are we going to then add more

military power to the rebels? but what's the end gain? what is the goal here? to put another rebel group in power in another country? you know, we've kind have forgotten what we did in libya. there's omar gaddafi, the bad guy of libya, no question about it, horrible person. so what does the united states do? we support the rebels who overthrow the libyan president, libyan dictator, and we send small arms. you know, mr. speaker, those small arms are still in north africa and they've spread all over north africa. what don't know what happened to those weapons that the united states gave to those rebels. own time will tell. yet this is not our war but we seem to be very interested in supporting this as the president correctly said a religious war. you got the shiites and you've got the sunnis, they have been at each other since the year 630

. and they haven't resolved their conflicts. yet here a century and a half later another conflict is involved, a religious war between two groups in the middle east. it is escalating. the united states national interest is not at stake. what the united states should do and work for is a political resolution to this problem. not a military solution to this problem. and do what we can to resolve it politically and help, really, both sides resolve it. this is not our war, mr. speaker. we have no national security interest. there's no american goal. we don't know the goal. we don't know the end result. and we don't even know who we are arming as those rebels who made up of criminals, patriots, al qaeda. we ought to not be involved in this war that has no national security interest for the united states. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to express support for the pitts-davis-goodlatte-blumenauer amendment to the agriculture deal. our amendment to h.r. 1947, the federal agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013, will not repeal the sugar program. it only seeks to reform it. we have farm programs for wheat, corn, cotton, and many other crops. these programs give direct assistance to farmers and allow market prices to be set by supply and demand. farmers receive help but not at the expense of workers and consumers. the shoe far program is different. -- sugar program is different. it helps sugar producers by

hurting other people, and that's just not right. there are other ways sugar farmers who may need help to receive assistance without embracing an outdated system of straight government controls that cost consumers $3.5 billion per year in higher prices, and over 112,000 lost jobs in the sugar using industries in the last decade. during fiscal year 2011, the wholesale price for u.s. refined weight ugar averaged -- sugar averaged 4.75 per pound. this is higher than the period covered tway the two farm bill provisions for f.y. 2003 and f.y. 2007. which was $27.6 cents per pound. last month the average price for u.s. refined weight sugar was

$26.3 cents a pound. whereas the average world refined sugar price was $21.9 cents per pound. historically our sugar program keeps our markets higher regardless of demand and our supply. compared to world prices for sugar. the u.s. manufacturers who are use sugar as an ingredient to produce processed food and drinks are having to always pay more domestically than manufacturers overseas. this is the exact reason why candy companies are moving to countries like canada, mexico, and other offshore places. we need a industry that is subject to capital market forces without government intrusion that places quotas on the amount of sugar that can be grown in the united states and restricts access to foreign grown sugar.

the current sugar program in fits 4,714 sugar farmers the united states. while threatening the jobs of 600,000 workers in sugar using industries and thus imposing a hidden tax on every american consumer. the pitts-davis-goodlatte-blumenauer amendment would lower the price of the loan rate in accordance to historic levels and reduce taxpayers' liability to keeping prices high, save taxpayers money, allow more sugar imports, and provide for u.s. department of agriculture more flexibility to modify domestic markets and allotments. making changes to the sugar program would help level the playing field and provide sugar-based manufacturers much needed resources to keep people employed and modernize their production facilities. let's not help the few at the

expense of the many. vote yes for the piths-davis-goodlatte-blumenauer amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclin tongue: -- mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the farm bill is now before us. a measure originating in the house of representatives whose majority was elected on a clear mandate to stop wasting money. yet all this bill does is continue to waste money. yes, it tightens up a little on automatic eligibility for food stamps, an that's a good thing. yet this modest reform is a poor substitute for the complete overhaul that is desperately needed. the food stamp program now called snap was originally intended to provide basic commodities to the truly needy.

yet i cannot count the number of constituents who have complained to me over the last several years about standing in a grocery line and watching the person in front of them use snap cards to buy luxuries that these hardworking taxpayers could not themselves afford. but it is the corporate welfare provisions that this bill continues, and in some cases, expands that i find the most offensive. yes, the bill shifts us away from directs payments to farmers, but it instead grossly expands taxpayer subsidized crop insurance programs eating up about 3/4 of the savings the supporters purport to achieve. the practical effect is to guarantee profits to farmers while shifting their losses to taxpayers. we are told if the bill fails these wasteful programs will continue with no reform. well, actually many of the most wasteful programs would expire like the $150 million to

advertise farmers markets. but the fine point of it is this, if this bill is defeated, the house can take up real reform at any time. if it is passed, we kick that can another five years down the road. to those who say this is a small step in the right direction, i would agree. it is a very small step. it makes tiny and modest changes to an utterly atrocious program. according to the c.b.o., it would save all of 3.4% from the baseline over the next five years, hardly a crowning achievement for fiscal reform. but there is no blinking at the fact that these programs are fundamentally unfair and grossly wasteful and this bill locks them into law for another five years. if the supporters of this bill were actually serious about incremental reform, this would be a one-year authorization with additional reforms planned next year. it most decidedly is not.

let me explain clearly what this ll means to an average hardworking, tax paying family in my district. that family must struggle and scrimp to keep their shop open. they bear the entire financial risk of failure, and their profits, if there are any, are heavily taxed. a portion of that family's taxes goes to the agriculture industry for the express purpose of inflating the prices that that family must pay at the grocery store. as a result, when the family goes grocery shopping, it must scrimp again in order to bear these artificially higher prices that have been forced up by their own high taxes. as that family stands in the checkout line with their ground chuck for the barbecue tonight, they watch snap cards used by others to pay for premium steaks that family can't afford tore itself but paid for by that family's own high taxes. if the economy sow sours, that

family -- sours, that family bears its own losses while it also covers the losses of the same agriculture interest responsible for what they are paying at the grocery store. the bill before us continue this is travesty for another five years, with soothing assurance from its propertiers to cheer up, things could be worse. actually, things couldn't be much worse, and they could be a whole lot better. this bill, for example, could be defeated and replaced with genuine reform. the government could be withdrawn from its corrupt interventions in agricultural markets. the food stamp program could be restored to its original purpose to provide basic commodities to the truly needy. individual consumers could be free to determine the price of their groceries by the decisions that they make every day over what to spend at the grocery store and not on the basis of what deals were cut in congress. the roman writer summed up this

bill rather neatly 20 centuries ago. he said, a mountain was in labor, sending forth dreadful groans and there was in the region the highest expectation. after all that, it brought forth a mouse. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, for five minutes. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss the damage from congress' inability to do its job and pass a budget. and the unreasonable lengths that folks have to go to to cover -- go to to cover for the reckless policy of sequestration. the very first time i spoke in this chamber, congress should be doing all it can to replace the across-the-board cuts caused by sequestration with a balanced, bipartisan long-term budget. cutting across-the-board is not a strategy. in fact, it's anti-strategic.

unfortunately, this congress has been stuck in park when it comes to working toward a long-term budget. in fact, congress has only passed 13 bills in six months, none dealing with jobs and none working to replace these non strategic cuts. congress needs to understand the impacts of its dysfunction. in my district we see those consequences every day. aim' member of the house armed services committee and i'm proud to represent several military installations including a naval base, puget sound naval shipyard , and many men and women who work at a joint base. the navy is the largest employer in my district. i'm frequently copied on emails from civilian navy workers who are resigning because of the disarray caused by congress. the threat of furloughs and the

loss of cost of living adjustments. workers often choose those jobs despite lower salaries because they love their country. and they want to protect it. also government offers tablet -- stability that the private industry often can't. these workers no longer feel valued. and thanks to congress, working at the shipyard doesn't even offer stability anymore. it's affecting the morale of our workers and the ability of our shipyard to execute its mission. here's a direct quote from a manager who contacted me, he wrote, we will have problems retaining professionals if this fiscal environment continues. we will have trouble accomplishing our current workload let alone providing any level of increased engineering support. mr. speaker, this will only cost us more in the long run. this dysfunction in congress is directly responsible for good workers walking away. and it's threatening the mission of the united states navy.

it also affects the local contractors and small businesses in my district that support these missions. they are already facing sweeping layoffs and tremendous uncertainty. here's another example. puge yet sound -- puget naval shipyard still is limited in its ability to fill jobs made vacant by attrition. the hiring freeze went into effect right as they were planning on adding 600 workers. the shipyard has the work, our region needs the jobs. they have only recently announced they can slowly hire to cover for some attrition. because of these constraints, puget sound naval shipyard has resorted to asking anyone, upper level staff, anybody who has carried a tool bag or used a wrench to help deliver three submarines and aircraft carrier back to the fleet. that's a testament to the lengths people are going to to

cover for such an insane policy like sequestration. we are seeing the same thing at joint base. where 10,000 civilian employees have received notice of furlough. it's affecting military training where we have seen rotations to the national training center canceled. general brown at the joint base told our local paper, i quote, it is a huge impact on training. where is the fine line, he asks, where you go from being the best in the world to second best? it's not right that congress doesn't have their backs on this. we have to stop this policy. every day that this congress doesn't work on coming together on a balanced long-term budget is another day that folks around our country have to cover for congress'

dysfunction. democrats and republicans need to work together on this. this doesn't make sense for the folks in my district who face losing up to 20% in pay or those who can't apply for the open jobs. it doesn't make sense for the kids in the head start programs. we should stop these across-the-board cuts for them too. the right solution for congress is to replace these cuts with a balanced long-term budget. i am ready to work with both parties to get this done for our national security, for the economy and for the american people who deserve better. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, for five minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. a couple of weeks ago we began the 150 reasons to love west virginia project to honor our

tate's 150th birthday which is tomorrow. we asked west virginians to send us what they love about the mountain state and they delivered. many cited west virginia's strong heritage and rich history as reasons to love our state. we all know that west virginia is rooted in the values of hard work and the respect of our neighbors. i love how west virginia friends are for a lifetime. my family's history is deeply rooted in the state of west virginia, and i love that. i love the state's nickname, ld and wonderful, almost heaven. david stoffel said, we are a collection of communities joined by a common trust. respect, love and willing bs to help our neighbor. -- willingness to help our neighbor. once you're a mountaineer you're a mountaineer. thomas and thurman are the, quote, heart and soul of our great state it all began on

june in 1861 when a group of pro-union virginians met in wheeling, west virginia. together they created the restored government of virginia which sought to rebuild ties with the union. on april 20, west virginia became the only state in the union to acquire its sovereignty by proclamation of the president of the united states. and that president was abraham lincoln. and on june 20, 1863, 150 years ago tomorrow, we formally joined the union. as a community flourishes, it gives births to local myths and legends. we tell stories to their children so they can someday tell those same stories to their children. west virginia has its fair share of true stories and legends. we have moth man, and we also have a tale of the hatfield and mccoy feud which is a story of family honor, justice and vengeance. we have very well-respected west virginians who are here today with us.

chuck yager, jerry west, mary lou retton, jessica lynch, jennifer garner and a gentleman who shares my hometown, a very small town in west virginia of glendale, mr. brad paisley. pioneer stories like the hatfields and mccoys have been passed down to generation to generation as noted by deb walser. it allows us to put aside our differences and share a common bond and our heritage. that strong-nit community is built through events like the one i attended many times and one time with president bush, the fourth of july celebration parade in ripley, west virginia. as tracy wolfard kelly mentioned, she loves the parade. attending a mountaineer day -- mountaineer football game on a crisp fall evening. the fall victories are welcomed. west virginia is not only rich

in history it's rich in natural beauty. from, quote, trout fishing to cranberry, as one noted, or west virginia's quote, beautiful vistas and treed mountains. west virginia is a peaceful place. these images and places make the changes and seasons particularly beautiful, which robin barnett says looks like, quote, god's coloring book. they also bring family and friends together, as connie sherman of moorefield, west virginia, mentioned, talking about the trowl river. whether it's like pepperoni rolls or the coal fields and natural gas that power our economy, there's so much to love about the state we call home. r 150 years it's its country roads have provided people with a sense of comfort and pride, and we all do no matter where we are in the country or around

the world, we all like to sing the john denver song "almost home, west virginia" which my granddaughter can sing front to back. while these antidotes touches on what makes our state so great, i want to thank you and folks of west virginia for celebrating with me. there will be celebrations all throughout the state over the next several days. i love west virginia, and i'm honored to serve the citizens of an outstanding state. so for me to you, happy 150th birthday, west virginia. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. . chu: i rise today to introduce the san gabriel watershed restoration act of 2013. this bill could revitalize a california urban river by

directing the army corps of engineer to prepare a study analyzing the current state of the san gabriel watershed and how it can be transformed into a destination for los angeles county. we have such incredible resources right in our back yard in the san gabriel valley, and at the heart is the san gabriel river. that is why we must do all that we can to revitalize and protect this space. my communities are desperate for more open spaces to run, play and explore. the l.a. river is one of the most park poor in the country. the san gabriel river used to be a green, lush paradise. the local tribes people used to canoe down its waters out to the sea, but today in its current state it feels more like an abandoned waterway than the majestic river it once was. there are so few places for

families to sit and enjoy or to swim in its cool waters on unbearablely hot summer days in the urban valley cities. the san gabriel river also performs essential flood protection, drinking water, stormwater conservation functions, but it is inaccessible to local residents for recreation and lacks many natural ecosystems. additional provisions for flood control and water quality control are also sorely needed. increasingly, residents expressed the desire to rediscover the river and offer more of its benefits to all of the communities along its route. that's why i introduced this bill in the 111th congress to study how we can improve the river and expand its use and that is why i'm introducing this bill again. the study, created in this bill, would look at the best

ways to revitalize the watershed, focusing on ecosystem restoration, outdoor recreation enhancements and ways to conserve rain water and keep our water clean. this vital project is the first step that is long overdue toward creating more outdoor space within the highly urbanized watershed communities so people can enjoy this beautiful resource in a safe and sustainable way. a similar stutty and demonstration project were critical steps in the effort to revitalize the los angeles river and it was so successful that now there are regular kayaking trips on the l.a. river, a place many thought of as only a concrete wasteland. people can actually enjoy this little bit of nature again. this is a powerful testament to the potential and growing success of river revitalization efforts. my communities have a vision, to create an emerald necklace,

a 17-mile loop of multibenefit parks connecting 10 cities along two rivers. this bill is a critical part of realizing this dream, and i call on my colleagues in congress to support this bill and help make their vision a reality for generations to come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, for five minutes. mr. speaker, as we come to the house floor this morning, many communities across the west suffer from severe wildfires and they're having a more devastating impact due to extreme drought conditions this year. in my home state of new mexico, firefighters have bravely worked to battle a number of blazes, and i icks tend my sincere -- and i extend my

sincerest thanks for their efforts. with global changes contributing to hotter and dryer summers, it's crit -- and drier summers, it's critical to address the root causes of climate change before it gets too late. while we focus on the steps we must take to reduce greenhouse gases and urge every conservation, we must make sure we're preparing for the drought conditions that will continue to impact our communities in the years to come. the national drought information system is an important tool in this effort. this program collects and consolidates drought-related data and information. it operates regional drought early warning system pilot projects across the country. authorization for this program is currently scheduled to end this year. that is why i'm working in a bipartisan effort to re-authorize the national integrated drought information system for another four years. this will enable the federal government to further develop regional drought early watering systems and identify research, monitoring and forecasting

needs that can help farmers and firefighters alike. because whether it's growing crops and raising livestock or battling wildfires in the west, drought conditions in the coming years will continue to post challenges for our communities and we'll need to do all we can to assist those whose lives and livelihoods are impacted by climate change. mr. speaker, today i'm also offering an amendment to be able to provide grant authorization to many small predominantly hispanic communities across northern new mexico that are in these areas where these waterways have been carved through our mountains, through our watersheds, provide opportunity for small farmers, rural communities all across new mexico. for many years local farmers in new mexico have been asking for an amendment that would allow community ditch associations to access funds. it is a century's old

irrigation system still in use today providing opportunities for many private landowners all across new mexico and southern colorado. the landowners, the ditch association, is in charge of maint tainting the irrigation which requires work on the ditch on private land. these small community ditch associations do not have the authority to levy taxes, and that's why i'm asking members to please consider and offer your support on this amendment today. members who are watching and tuning in to c-span this morning as well as offices, please take a look at this amendment. we need your help in new mexico, and our farmers would certainly appreciate the kind support of members of congress. so thank you so much, mr. speaker. we have a lot of work to do and let's make sure we can get this done on behalf of people who are struggling to work all across america today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, for five minutes. mr. rahall: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, i join with my colleagues from the state of west virginia in celebrating our state's 150th birthday tomorrow. we invite the rest of the nation to join with us in our retpwhrex. ours is a proud history -- reflection. ours is a proud history in serve of our great nation of ours. west virginia was born of war. west virginians understand full well the price of service and sacrifice to defend our shores. in times of war, the mountain state sons and daughters have answered their country's call faithfully, honorably and nobly. and in times of peace we have continued to serve our nation from our mountains and our hollows. geologists tell us our ancient mountains, sharp peaks and -- were rounded and smoothed through the forces of nature over eons of time. the result satisfies the soul. thanks to the u.s. postal

service, the world can get a glimpse of our majestic mountains on a new stamp commemorating our 150 years. based on a photograph taken in pocahontas county, west virginia, that stamp stands as a testament to our bragging about being almost heaven in every inch legitimate. those same mountains, mr. speaker, have honed a people for whom the phrase mountaineers are always free is more than a state motto. it is a way of life. west virginians may be somewhat stubborn when it comes to asking for help for themselves, even if life itself depends on it. . but they are the first in line to offer help and assistance to their neighbors. in west virginia, mr. speaker, we if a step further. i doubt we have ever known a stranger in any of our 55 counties. if you need help, west

virginians are there for you. the charitable spirit along west virginia is built on wrong solid principles, first and foremost you will find an abundance of faith among those who dwell in our mountains. faith in the almighty. families from the core of our lives with west virginia parents, families form the core of our lives with west virginia parents and grandparents putting their children and grandchildren first. and you figure in that a big dose of loyalty to our hills and hollers, our family traditions, our common heritage, and our many unique histories, and you begin to see why hard times cannot keep us down. like most of americans, west virginians are in the midst of a transitional economy. but a new dawn is breaking. we have harnessed positive change while holding on to much that makes west virginia unique. enabling us to track new and promising ventures. witness 100-year commitment of the boy scouts of america,

almost half million dollar investment in a fayette county scouting reserve adjacent to the largest federally protected system of rivers east of the mississippi. recently wayne perry, the boy scouts national president, when commenting on our rugged but inviting mountain venue said, and i quote, we think god made west virginia for the boys scouts of america. end quote. mr. speaker, i have news for my colleagues and their constituents, we have more room at the in. this may -- at the inn. this may be our 150th birthday celebration, but west virginia is still wild and even more wonderful than ever before. i say to all, come and visit us soon. to my fellow west virginians may i say a happy 150th, and be assured as long as there is still one mountaineer heartbeating, there will always be a west virginia.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to remind my colleagues in the house of two very important words for the american people -- unfinished business. the american people by their voices that we hear as we go back to our district challenge us in unfinished business. two days ago i stood with mothers that demand action in my district to stand with their children, their babies in strollers, these mothers who love america, who are patriots, to stand alongside of the mourning families of sandy hook, and to read the names of the 26 who died almost -- more than six

months ago. to ask for the passage of universal background checks. and to ask the question, why the needed tozens project arm citizens in houston? we know the area that they attempted or are arming is an area where they felt intimidated not by their government to take over, but because of crime. i look forward to meeting with those citizens to be able to address the issue of crime in their neighborhoods, but we stood against the kind of arming citizens as a response to gun violence. and i have no galms of standing against that and working with my neighbors to ensure the safety of their neighborhoods but to move forward on sensible gun legislation to prevent gun violence. unfinished business. then the question of the national security agency and the

phone calls and numbers of our american citizens. we in congress must be challenged to rein that in, balance it with the need for national security which i promote and support as a member of the homeland security committee, and so i'll be introducing legislation to assess the use of outside contractors, 70% of federal dollars going to that in the intelligence community, and reducing those numbers by 2014, establishing more openness on the fisa court, but making sure that we don't interfere with operations and operatives making our country secure. and to be able to say to mr. snowden, i won't call you a name, but i know what you did in certain instances is wrong and you must stand up under the laws of this nation. then to be able to say that today as we go forward on the farm bill to be able to ask the question, why are we taking $20 billion away from the

supplemental nutrition program, from seniors, from young children, from babies when this is their life line from young army recruits, or those in the united states military, rather, who are on food stamps. i also want to say to my community that we need to get ready to enroll in health care which is going to be a major step in making america healthy. to the business, small business community, this is going to help you provide your employees, your one employee, two employees health care. that is something unfinished business. then i want to thank the u.s. postal service, letter carriers, the people who put our mail through small businesses, we got to fix this problem with the u.s. postal service, make sure that they are stable. financially able. the rural post offices, let's not close any more. this is the infrastructure of america. it's a job creator. then to our students, many of them who have graduated, we have got to fix the problem of the

increasing or the major increase in student interest rates that are going to burden our parents and students, 6.8% by july 1, congress can do better. we need to be able to join in the legislation that i signed on to to be able to keep that interest rate at 3.4%. unfinished business, mr. speaker. the american people want jobs. they don't want sequestration. they want the right kind of comprehensive immigration reform that has reasoned bobbeder -- border security, but not criminalize those students who wanted to do nothing else but go in the united states military, called dream children, who wanted to be able to serve the nation, who wanted to work and give back to their country, let us not go down that pathway. let's have the kind of value-based comprehensive immigration reform and border security legislation that was passed out of the homeland security committee which i was proud to be a co-sponsor,

original co-sponsor, coming out of the border security and maritime committee. unfinished piss, guns, preventing gun violence -- unfinished business, guns, preventing gun violence, reining in the issue of intelligence, balancing it with civil liberties, putting back in the supplemental nutrition, $20 billion, making sure americans are enrolled in health care under the affordable care act, supporting the postal service, and, mr. speaker, finally, supporting our students. unfinished business, it's time to get to work creating jobs in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ilson, for five minutes. mr. speaker, the

american people are now in the 7899th day of a scandal -- 899th day of a scandal that is truly worse than watergate. yet this has nothing to do with cincinnati or a.p. or benghazi or even n.s.a. it's the scandal of this republican congress failing to bring a single serious bill to address our unemployment crisis to the floor for a vote. the tens of millions of people affected by this scandal are not wanting to be on television drawing attention to their plight, they are too busy looking for work. they are not hiring lobbyists to press for change. they are too busy figuring out how they are going to pay for their next meals. for the roofs over their heads. or for their children's college

tuition. mr. speaker, this scandal unlike so many other scandals, in history is one that you can end instantly. ou have the power to bring the jobs now act to the floor for a vote. it deserves a vote. mr. speaker, the only scandal that matters to the american people right now is this congress' failure to address unemployment. our mantra should be jobs, jobs, jobs. for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

in order to get the bill to a final conclusion by the fourth of july recess. the senate's live now on c-span2. meanwhile, the congressional budget office reported yesterday that if enacted the senate bill currently being debated would decrease the federal budget deficits by $197 billion over 10 years. the government would pay out $262 billion, but those costs would be offset by an estimated

$459 billion in revenues. largely from new income and payroll taxes. the report also examined the impact on the u.s. population, estimating an increase of 10 million residents over 10 years with 1.6 fewer unauthorized residents and 1.6 million more temporary workers. we have a link to it on our website at c-span.org. well, over the last couple of days president obama, of course, was in northern ireland on monday and tuesday for meetings with world leaders at the g-8 summit. he's wrapping up his european trip today in germany. earlier this morning the president and german chancellor angela merkel, participated in a joint news conference in berlin ahead of the president's speech there, fielding questions on syria and the u.s. withdrawal of forces from afghanistan.

speaking german] >> i would like to welcome the resident of the united states, arack obama. is first visit to germany. we have had on numerous occasions the opportunity to talk. we have established ties of friendship based on trust and i would like to thank you for this. our cooperation is based on ties of friendship that have lasted for many, many decades between the federal republic of germany and the united states, and this is such a very good relationship because it is

ased on shared values. when the president addresses the crowd he will be a president who can do this in front of a gate that has opened. the president has had to remind us all of the wall needed to be torn down and the wall is down and this is what we owe to american partners and friends. but we see that the world is changing and changing at a very rapid pace. so new -- as new challenges come to the floor, and we want to tackle them with resolve and we want to tackle them together. what looms most prominently on our agenda here in germany but also in europe and in the united states and could be a very valuable project to these two great economies of the world, the free trade agreement. i'm very glad that we were able to conclude the negotiations leading up to the mandate.

we think that economies on both sides of the atlantic will very much benefit from it. it's going to be a win-win situation and it also is an eloquent testimony to this globalized world where we can work better together, both politically and economically, this is why i think is an important, important agreement and i say this on behalf of the federal government as a whole. we answered questions on the internet in the context -- we talked at great length about the new possibilities and about also the new threats that the internet looms -- opens up to all of us, the internet is new territory, uncharted territory to all of us and it enables our enemies and enemies of a free, liberal world to use it, abuse it, to bring a threat to all of

us, to threaten our way of life, and this is why we value cooperation with the united states on questions of security. a number of democracies live off people having a feeling of security, and this is why a balance needs to be struck. that is something that we agreed on to have a free exchange of iews on. between the secretary of state and here in germany. this is going fob an ongoing dialogue. we talked about a number of foreign policy issues. in talk.s engage this is a process we are going to tackle together.

challenges ed the of the past together regarding the security forces. we move forward together with the united states and solve outstanding problems that are very difficult indeed still. we also addressed, we addressed the middle east situation, as well as the peace process in the middle east. i think that the initiative of secretary kelly offers a very good opportunity to recognize the peace talks in the region, the region needs peace. partners ought to take up the offer that is on the table because it is absolutely necessary to bring about negotiations and we will continue also to work on one of the nuclear program of iran. that is also something we agreed on. we had very good talks. very good welcome to you, mr.

president. >> thank you very much. it is wonderful to be back in berlin. i always appreciated with the warmth with which i have been greeted by the german people, and it's no different today although i am particularly impressed with the warmth of the weather here in berlin. and i'm also very grateful for a chance for the invitation 50 years after the visit of president kennedy. the chancellor and i are just back from the g-8 summit, just one of the latest meetings that we have had together. during my time in the white house i have had the privilege f working with angela on a whole host of issues. she was at the white house, hi the privilege of presenting her with the immediatal of freedom, highest civilian honor that a president can bestow, and that speaks to the closeness of our

of tionship, the strength our alliance. i know that here in germany sometimes there's been talk that the 12 atlantic alliance is is fading in the presence, that the united states has turned its attention more towards asia and the pacific and in both conversations with chancellor merkel and earlier with your president i reminded them that from our perspective the relationship with europe remains the cornerstone of our fundamental security. that europe is our partner in almost everything that we do. and that although the nature of the challenges we face have changed, the strength of our relationships, the enduring bonds based on common values and common ideals, very much remains.

we began today talking about economic issues, following up on discussions we have had at the g-8 summit. overall germany is our largest training partner in the e.u., so enjoyment in each other's success. we agree there is more work to do. not only do we have to grow but we also have to reform our economies structurely, and when you look within europe obviously different countries are different stages in that reform and restructuring process. we are going through all need to reform, for example, our health care system, which is much more expensive than most of the developed world. largely accounts for our deficits and our debt. the good news is that we have gone through the worst recession in years and we are poised to come back stronger if we take advantage of these opportunities.

one of the opportunities that we spoke about obviously was the transatlantic trade and ti, stment partner ship or t it is one of the largest in the world economically, 13 million american and europeans have jobs that are directly supported by mutual trade and investment. and the chancellor and i share the conviction that if we are successful in these negotiations, we can grow economies on both sides of the atlantic, create jobs, improve efficiency, improve productivity, and our competitiveness around the world, and by doing so we are also raising standards for free-throw -- free trade around the world that will not just benefit us but everyone. when it comes to our security, the united states and germany are more than just nato allies, more american personnel are stationed in germany than any other country outside of the u.s. we are extraordinarily grateful for the hospitality of the

german people. one of the last times i was in ermany i had a chance to visit the facility where everyone who is injured in the battlefield comes through and to see the dedication but also the hospitality of the germans providing for our young men and women when they have been grievously injured is a strong symbol of how much this means to us. our men and women have been serving side by side in afghanistan, germany is the third largest troop contributing nation there. we are both grateful for the sacrifices that our service men and women and their families have made in this common effort, and because of those efforts afghanistan now has the opportunity to secure itself and determine its own destiny. we welcome, president karzai

announced yesterday that afghan forces will soon take the lead for security across the country, which is is an important milestone, one that we established in our nato summit. even as we wind down the war responsibly and nato's combat mission in afghanistan comes to an end, we are going to have to continue to invest in the shared capabilities and interopprablet -- interoperability painstaking set by our troops. i appreciate germany's interest in making sure that even after our troops are no longer involved in combat operations, that we can continue to see progress in afghanistan. and many of you noted that yesterday there was an announcement about the taliban opening an office for purpose of negotiations in qatar. i said yesterday this is going to be a difficult process. the parties there have been fighting for a very long time, even before 9/11.

we don't expect that it will be easy, but we do think ultimately we are going to need to see afghans talking to afghans about how they can move forward and then they can start actually building their contry. we also discussed other challenges in the region, including syria. we are united to see a negotiated political selllement to that conflict. we want to see a syria that's unified, democratic, and at peace. right now we need to see an end to the bloodshed, and we have to make sure that chemical weapons are not used on the ground. i thought we saw some progress at the g-8 in reaffirming the need for a transitional governing process, and a u.n. investigation of the potential use of chemical weapons there. i thanked the chancellor for germany's unwavering support

searching for peace between the learlings and palestinians. i briefed her on my secretary of state john kerry's efforts to find ground there. i want to thank chancellor merkel's not only generous invitation but also the humbling privilege i have to address the people of berlin from from the platz on the eastern side of the brandenberg gate. the other side of the wall that once stood there, the wall that res. president reagan insisted be torn down. a quearn century -- a quarter century since is then has been one of extraordinary progress. we can witness this in the prosperity of berlin, but one of the things i would address today is the fact that given the extraordinary blessings that we enjoy as americans and as germans, we have an obligation to make sure that others around the world -- walls around the world are torn down. we can only accomplish that together. i'm grateful for our alliance

and friendship. i look forward to the opportunity to answer some questions. am i starting off? >> follow up. on your comments on the taliban talks. when you announced those talks yesterday you raised pass began president karzai as being courageous for being willing to take that step. yet today karzai says he's suspending talks with the u.s. in response to the taliban negotiations. how is it possible for you and president karzai to be on different pages about this key decision? is karzai saying different things to you privately than he is publicly today? chancellor merkel, you mentioned that prison came up in your discussion was president obama, are you more reassured now about the scope of those programs following the discussions? did president obama give you any reassurances that the programs don't violate german privacy

rights? thank you. >> we had extensive conversations with president karzai both before and after the taliban opened the office in doha. as i think has been reported there were some concerns about the manner in which the taliban opened it. some language that they used. we had anticipated that at the outset there were going to be some is areas of friction, to put it mildly, in getting this thing off the ground. that's not sur is prizing. as i said they have been fighting for a very long time. there's enormous mistrust. not only the taliban and the afghan government been fighting for a long time, they are fighting as we speak. we are in the middle of a war.

and afghans are still being killed. by wait members of the international forces there still are being killed. hat's not abating as we speak. but what we also believe is that alongside the process in which we are training, eequipping an afghan government that can be responsible for its own security even as we go through some, frankly, difficult negotiations around what it would mean for the international community to have an ongoing training and advising presence after 2014, we still believe that you got to have a parallel track to at least look at the prospect of some sort of political reconciliation. whether that bears fruit, whether it actually happens, or

whether post 2014 there's going to continue to be fighting, as there was before forces got into afghanistan, that's a question only the afghans can answer. i think that president karzai himself recognizes the need for political reconciliation. the chal -- challenge is how do you get those things started while you are also at war? and my hope is and expectation is that despite those challenges the process will proceed. chancellor merkel, if you don't mind, even though the question was directed at you, i think it would be appropriate for me to go ahead and talk about the n.s.a. issue which obviously caused controversy back home but also here in europe. and then obviously chancellor

merkel would have her own views on this. what i explained to chancellor merkel is that i came into office committed to protecting the american people, but also committed to our values and ideals. and one of our highest ideals is civil liberties and prifecy. -- privacy. and i was a critic of the previous administration for those occasions in which i felt they had violated our values and i came in with a healthy skepticism about how our various programs were structured. but what i have been able to do how our and scrub intelligence services are operating and i'm confident at this point we have struck the appropriate balance. let me be very specific in terms of -- this is what i described to chancellor merkel, what these

programs are that have caused so much so much controversy. essentially one program allows us to take a phone number that through someovered lead that is typical of what our intelligence services do, we get a phone number. and what we try to discover has anybody else been called from that phone? data that allows us to check on phone numbers, nothing else. no content. nobody's listening in on the conversation at that point. it's just determining whether or not if, for example, we found a phone number in osama bin laden's compound after the raid, had he called anybody in new york or berlin or any place else. if in fact we discover that

another call has been made, at that point in order to listen to any phone call we would have to hen go to a judge and seek information through a process is that is court supervised, and this entire thing has been set up under the supervision of a federal court judge. when it comes to the internet and email, as chancellor merkel said, we are now in the internet age and we have to make sure that our administrative rules and protections catch up with this new cyberworld. what i can say to everybody in germany and everybody around the world is, this applies very narrowly to leads that we have btained on issues related to

terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. so there are a few categories. we get very specific leads. based on those leads, again, with court supervision and oversight, we are able then to access information. this is not a situation in which the rifling through ordinary emails of german citizens or american citizens or french citizens or anybody else. this is not a situation where we simply go into the internet and start searching any way we want. this is a circumscribed narrow system directed at us being able to protect our people. all of it is done under the oversight of the courts.

as a consequence we save lives. 50 threats least that have been averted because of this information, not just from the united states but in some cases threats here in germany. o lives have been saved. and the encroachment on prife -- privacy has been strictly limited by a court-approved process to relate to these particular categories. having said all that, what i said in the united states is what i shared with chancellor merkel, and that is that we do , and westrike a balance do have to be cautious about how our governments are operating when it comes to intelligence. and so this is a debate that i

welcome. what we are going to be doing when i get back home is try to find ways to declassify further some of these programs without completely compromising their effectiveness. sharing that information with the public, and also our intelligence teams are directed to work very closely with our german intelligence counterparts so that they have clarity and assurance that they are not being abused. but i think one of the things hat except is prates us from some -- separates us from some other government is we welcome these debates. that's what democracy is about. i'm confident that we can strike this right balance, keep our people safe, but also preserve our civil liberties, even in this internet age. >> for the german people i can say the following. it's important, it's necessary

for us to debate these issues. eople have concerns. precisely concerns that there may be some kind of blanket across-the-board gathering of information. we talked about this. the question that we have not yet addressed we will do address later on, but there needs to be a balance, there needs to be a personality of upholding the security and safety of our people in our country, and there is quite a lot of ininstances where we were getting very important information from the united states. and at the same time obviously people want to use those new modern mines of communication -- as we ogy and do learn to live and deal responsibly with other new means

of mobility. we have to deal with this one. i think today was an important first step in the right direction and i think it has rought us forward. >> mr. president, madame chancellor, first a question addressed to you, mr. president. there were a number of hopes in the world that were shattered because of your legislative term, for example, closing down guantanamo, stoming the death penalty, inall of the states, and as regards are you singling out germany because there is a big risk here? or, madam chancellor, the nobel prize winner obama is waging a drone war also via germany, and is he allowed to do that according to german law? >> let me see if i understood

your question properly. first question was related to policies back home? related to guantanamo, the death penalty? then you wanted to talk about droughns? or did you just want to focus on the drone question? i want to make sure i respond to your question. >> i guess i ought to inform the germans and guantanamo i believe as addressed to you. a it continues to be my policy i want to close guantanamo. it has been more difficult than i had hoped in part because there's been significant resistance from congress on his, and on some issues i need congressional authorization. but about a month ago i gave a speech in which i said i would

redouble my efforts to do so because 9/11 happened and we now have been involved in one form or another in a war for over a decade. one war i think in afghanistan was necessary. one war i disagreed strongly. but in other case -- either case there are dangers if we get on a perpetual war footing. the threat of terrorism remains real. and we have to be vigilant. and we have to take steps to protect ourselves. consistent with our values and consistent with international law. but we also have to guard against being so driven by fear that we are not changing the fabric of our society in ways that we don't intend and do not

want for the future. i have been close -- i think closing guantanamo is an example of us getting out of that perpetual war mentality. some of the people at guantanamo are dangerous. some of them did bad things. but we cannot have a permanent outboast -- outpost in which they are being held even as we are ending a war in afghanistan that triggered some of these -- the capture of some of these detainees in the first place. i'm confident that we can continue to make progress on this front, although you're right, it has not been as fast as i would have liked. one of the things you discover as a politician is that people don't always do exactly what you want. it's shocking. you have to keep on working at it. one thing with respect to drone policy is in that speech that i

gave i also addressed that issue the lethal targeting of identified terrorists. this also is a source of controversy. we have constrained it tightly al qaeda, we at have to, i think, very carefully examine how these technologies are used. i can say, though, that we do not use germany as a launching int for unmanned droughns -- drones to go after counter -- as part of our counterterrorism activities. and so i note that there have been some reports here in germany that that might be the case. that is not.

>> let me start by saying the ited states of america soldiers here, they fulfill a very important function, particularly in the fight against terrorism. i think of ramstein for example. and also supplies to soldiers, but also caring for woundeds. we as allies, members of nato, stand shoulder to shoulder here. and we provide basis for activities -- bases for activities, and our work is based on shared values. we have exchanges on values. i think it's good. i think it's the right thing to do for the united states of america to be present here with military bases in germany. it's a normal thing and as it should be and will be and ontinue to be.

>> mr. president, on syria, for the purposes of transparency can you be specific about what military arms the united states will be providing to syrian rebels and about which groups will be receiving them? on the same subject, president putin appeared resolute and isolated on syria at the g-8. how can a political process succeed in bringing peace if russia continues to support assad both militarily and politically? weapons,the lines that exports, deliveries, supplies need an escalation because they could land in the hands of terrorists. don't you think the situation is is going to be exacerbated if the -- if america supplies it? perhaps you would comment. >> first of all, jeff, i'm very

impressed with your german, and i don't know if had you to practice, but you sounded great. chancellor merkel said you were just ok. i cannot and will not comment on our programs nd related to the syrian opposition. what i can say is that we have had a steady consistent policy which is we want a syria that is peaceful, nonsectarian, democratic, legitimate, tolerant is our overriding

goal. we want to end the blood shed. we want to make sure that chemical weapons are not used and chemical weapons do not fall into the hands of people who would be willing to use them. so we have had a consistent view in our desired outcome in syria. it's also been our view that the best way to get there is through a political transition. and we said that a year ago, we said that two years ago. president assad made a different decision. and has brought chaos and blood shed to his country and has been killing his own people. and it is our view that it is not possible for him to regain 100,000 y after over

people have been killed and millions have been displaced inside the country. so the question now is just is a practical matter, and this is what i said to president putin, as a practical matter if in fact syria is to remain a unified country and the blood shed is going to end, how do we do that? the only way to do that is through some sort of political transition process. the good news out of the g-8 meeting was that you saw all the countries, including russia, reaffirming that communique coming out of the first geneva talks that said we need to create a transitional governing body with full powers. the second good thing that came out of the g-8 discussions was that all of us, including russia, said we have to investigate use of chemical weapons inside of syria and alt parties, clulling the government -- including the government of

assad, have to cooperate with that investigation. we are confident that in fact the government has used chemical weapons. the russians are skeptical. we said, fine, let's have the united nations get in there, but do a serious investigation of it. because we don't want anybody using chemical weapons. how he issue for us is have -- how can we continue to support a political opposition and a military opposition that becomes more capable, becomes more unified, that isolates extremists who have incorporated themselves into the opposition forces inside of syria. so that if, in fact, and when we get a political transition, there is somebody there who can

take over and function in governing and lead to a better future for all syrians. that's a difficult process. it's not one that's happening overnight. but all the assistance that we are providing, both to the political and military opposition is designed for that purpose. some of the stories that have been out there publicly have, i think, gotten a little over cranked in terms of the idea that somehow the united states s preparing to go all in and participate in another war. what we want to do is end a war, but the only way it's going to end is if we have the kind of transition that i described. although you're right that at this point president putin believes that what would replace assad would be worse than assad himself, what i think will

become more and more apparent over the coming weeks and months s that without a different government you can't bring peace. in fact you are going to see sectarian divisions get worse and worse and and start spilling over into other parts of the region. that would be good for nobody. >> on the issue of arms supplies, germany has very clear strict rules on this. legal rules. according to which we are not allowed to supply arms into areas where there is civil strife. and that is not specifically designed for the syrian question as a general rule. but that does not mean that we do not wish and can play a constructive role as regards the political process, regards

humanitarian assist, as regards also the debate on which is the right way to go about this. how can we strengthen the opposition? those forces that work in the best interest of the people in syria on the ground and the as tion is somewhat vague regards to the opposition. and quite different. it is our task also, at least here, that those who wish for a good fusion for syria, who are not linked, terrorists, get a chance to achieve for legitimatecy. germany, too, is of the opinion that assad has lost that egitimacy. not so clearly what i said just , that the syrian president but we have found common language in the sense that we wish to work for a transition government, and the question also has to be asked, what is going to come after that?

and that is the question we need to address. and we did so. and in the language of the communique of the g-8, we all of us reject terrorist forces in syria because they would, again, exacerbate the suffering of the people there. now we have to see to it that step by step all of these different steps come together. as yet there is no common u.n. position because russia is so far was not on the side of the others, but we must leave no stone unturned in trying, as we did during the g-8, to find a common basis. hich we can also speak and there are some areas which we differ. but our political responsibility is to seek to bring this matter forward in the right direction. since the situation f. we look to jordan, other countries, in

the have a sinity becomes mother and more unstable with the flow of refugees and all, i think it's worth every effort to try all of us to try to do something based on the language of the communique to do something in the interest of the people in syria. >> mr. president, in the past there was some different points of view about the best way out of the global financial crisis. chancellor merkel stands for a polsiff cutting backs buckets -- bubts -- budgets to reach financial stability. did you talk about this issue? hat's your position on that? >> same question addressed to you. a big discussion on the eurozone, do you wish to abide by the policy that in view of he countries in -- >> your question insin waits something we don't want.

we want prosperity, economic strength in order to bring about reduction of unemployment. we talked about this at some length. i also said germany in the long run will only be able to live well if europe as a whole is doing well. it would be a very broad policy to take if we were to pursue the kind of policy where we weaken those countries into which we -- i think the world is changing, however. and europe is not competitive enough in all areas. budget consolidation is one piece of the mosaic. the italian prime minister addressed this issue in the g-8. what does it mean for young people? jobs for young people? still the task is if 90% of growth is generated outside of europe, then we need to produce

goods that are so competitive for other markets to actually buy them. this is something that we need to undergo. we need o draw down -- to look for development. social reforms, affordable energy. all of this needs to be done. and part of that also is particularly in the continent that is growing ever older, and we are able to reduce our budget deficits so that we don't live at the expense of another generation. that's what this is all about. this is what i am asking for, working for. and europe can only help if it's strong. so the future is about europe is something can i not envisage for germany. on the one hand germany needs and wants to be competitive, and also want athens to be competitive and improve that

competitiveness. we all belong together. this is why we show solidarity time and again. this is something we addressed. >> all of us want the same thing. we want to have an economy that is growing. where people if they are willing o work hard able to succeed. and can find jobs that pay a minimum wage. and can retire with some dignity. and can send children to good schools. and have health care that is affordable. and we have to do all those hings so that we are not mortgaging our future or burdening our children and grandchildren. and i think all of the developing countries are all more developed countries have been going through some of the

same challenges. and we just went through the worst recession in many years. the good news is that we have seen some progress. in the united states we fixed our banks which were the trigger for some of these major problems. so we have a much stronger banking system now with much tighter supervision. the housing market's begun to recover. we have now grown for close to our years, 3 1/2 years, and we put in seven million new jobs. but we sent out some reforms that we have to do. we've got to improve the skills of our work force. we got to improve our infrastructure. we have to continue to invest in research and development. in all countries around the world, you are seeing growing inequality. so we have to find ways to make sure that ladders of opportunity

exist for those at the bottom, and that profits and increased productivity all does not just benefit those at the top. and so what's true in the united states is also true in europe. europe has different sets of problems. part of the challenge of the eurozone is that you have countries of different stages d levels of productivity and further or less far along on this path of restructuring and reform. so we have been discussing this. this has been a four-year conversation we have been having. we all think there is a peres pea. all of us have to make sure that our budgets are not out of control. all of us have to undergo structural reforms to adapt to a new and highly competitive economy.

what's true is all of us also have to focus on growth and we ave to make sure that in pursuit of a longer term policies, whether it's fiscal onsolidation or reforms of our overly ridged labor markets, or pension reforms, that we don't se sight of our goal to make people better. if, for gample, we start seeing youth unemployment go too high, then at some point we got to modulate our approach to ensure that we don't just lose a generation who may never recover in terms of their careers. and that's the struggle that i think all of us are going through. that discussion we had in the g-8. that's the discussion we had

here today. i'm confident that germany will succeed in this process. i'm confident that chancellor merkel cares about maintaining the europe zone and the european project, and she, i think, is confident that the united states wants to do everything we can to get europe through this difficult patch so that it can be a force for growth and prosperity well into the future. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] from earlier today in berlin, the president later spoke at the brandenberg gate, can you see this anti-president's speech later in our program schedule, and also at c-span.org. the president returns to washington tonight. back in the nation's capital, this afternoon the tea party

patriots will be hosting a rally coming up at noon eastern to protect reap cent revelations of the i.r.s. targeted conservative groups applying for tax exempt status. the rally will include a number of speakers. kentucky senator rand paul, mike ee of utah, tea party caucus chairman, michelle bachmann. you can watch live coverage beginning at noon eastern on c-span.org. with the house and senate in today, our tv coverage plan will pick up after the hearing is over with fubfib director robert mueller. that will be on c-span3. once that hearing wraps up the tea party rally live on c-span3. meanwhile the senate and house are in. senate taking up the immigration bill today. a number of amendments to be considered including ones dealing with border security. in the house this afternoon they'll deal with amendments to the farm bill, 103 amendments allowed under the rule. that debate getting under way shortly. it's our live house coverage starts at noon here on c-span.

until then part of this morning's "washington journal." host: congressman jerry connolly is our guest. thank you for being here. member of the foreign affairs committee. let's talk about foreign affairs. the g-8 shument we are seeing headlines like this one, the leader there sidestep differences over syria, but they haven't banned some economic goals. that's a head line. we see the leaders of the g-8 there posing for a picture. what progress, if any, was made on syria? guest: i think the issue probably is one of coordination now that the united states has ublicly committed to assist in syria. i 24i there are -- think there are, however, some real hurdles. who is it we are arming? the last thing the united states wants to see, and i assume our european allies as well, is that we end up with the best of intentions arming and training

and eequipping the jihadist element in the syria revolt, and that's the strongest part of the rebellion that ultimately comes to par to replace assad. that's not in our interest, regional interest, and i assume not aure peaian interest. those are real issues that have to be wrestled with. i also think it's matter of coordination for refugee assistance. there was an announcement about a $300 million package from the united states to provide additional assistance, refugees, coordinating that with our allies is also tricky business. host: we saw national journal have this headline, slip sliding towards obama's third war. is there a danger of turning this into a third war after afghanistan and iraq? something that's huge in the president's radar, the american people's radar, and internationally? guest: i think -- i find that an odd kind of headline because actually president obama's been criticized by the likes of john mccain and lindsey graham for

being too slow for leading from behind. i think the president has shown great caution, understandably so, in the point of intervention and to limit the united states in syria so that doesn't happen. this doesn't slip slide into a third engagement. this president is very committed to ending the wars he inherited not starting a new one. host: what is the danger of this escalating and spilling over into the spirian boarder? we see "the new york times" telling us some of these tensions are moving into southern lebanon. there are serns about the turkish border. you co-chair the congressional caucus on u.s.-turkey relations. guest: that's a great question, libby, first ever all we already see is hezbollah fighters coming from southern lebanon into syrian proper. and there is every risk of this conflict spreading into lebanon itself. lebanon is is a country that has certainly seen its own share of

civil war and we don't need to see that reignited. secretarytarian violence in -- sectarian violence in lebanon is serious. and likewise in the case of turkey, not so much sectarian violence within turkey, but there have been shelling incidents across the turkish border that have led to some retaliation by the turkish military. i think the turks have very concerned about the possibility of the spread of this conflict across their borders. that's something, again, as nato ally, throws ally of the united states that's something that has to concern us as well. host: the u.s. and taliban, we may see some peace talks over afghanistan. there is a plan now for meetings in doha, qatar. there is pushback however because har mid car zy, president of afghanistan, is saying he's not being included enough in this. what are your concerns and hopes for this process? guest: i have always been skeptical, frankly, about peace talks and negotiations with the

taliban. the taliban historically has been take no prisoners, very extreme ideological movement, and you have seen that whenever they govern their policies have been -- have harmed. the idea that's a crowd with by we can negotiate is, to me, a strange one. i go into this very skeptical as to the likelihood of positive results. i am worried that from the taliban point of view it's a tactical maneuver to buy time before the united states fully disengages from afghanistan. i hope that's wrong. i hope the taliban negotiators are sincere. they did open an office in doha that was seen as a welcome sign, but i think the jury's out on this one. host: as we see the g - 8 summit leaders conclude their meetings,

the "washington times" usings the headline of president obama leaving that gathering without syria headway. what kind of reception did the president get from the rest of the g-8 leaders? where do you think his relationship stands with people like putin? we see images of him, the two of them, a chilling meeting it was described by the press. guest: i don't know. i wasn't there. so i can only rely on reports. sometimes journalists have to report something, and they characterize it in ways that may not fully reflect the dynamics. these are regular meetings. the relationshipple with putin has always been problematic. partially because it's personal chemistry on the part of mr. putin. partially because, frankly, some of the activities of his government contradict u.s.

policy, long-term policy in hopes for a democratic russia. and so there are bound to be tension there is. russia has persisted in its support of the assad regime in syria. that flies directly against u.s. polcy, u.s. interest, and the rest of europe. of course there are going to be tensions. maybe it is a little bit chilly because there are real differences that will cost real lives. host: go to the phones. here are the numbers to call if you are a republican 202-585-3881. mocrats, 202-585-3880, and independent calmers, 202-585-3882. our guest gerald connolly, democrat of virginia representing the 119 district. he sits on foreign affairs. also the ranking member of the subcommittee on government operations, that's part of oversight and government reform. robert from baton rouge, louisiana. a lot of baton rouge callers

today. hi. caller: good morning. isn't it important for the international community to intervene in syria just to consistently enforce international standards on when there is chemical weapons used and genocide, you think about rwanda where the international community waited too late and many lives were lost. and to do it as a deterrent to other rogue nations or leaders. also don't you think it needs to be multilateral? if the united states does it unilaterally that just looks like a superpower bullying smaller countries. thank you. guest: thank you, robert. you have several parts to that question. let me take the multilateral one first. i agree with you wholeheartedly. this can't be unilateral intervention by the united states. it's got to be on a multilateral front with us, our allies, and arab league. whatever the intervention is going to ultimately be, it has to be done on that level.

i agree with you. comparing this to rwanda i think is perhaps an overstatement. in rwanda it was fairly clear there were people to be protected and people who were perpetrating atrocities among the worst of the last century anywhere. in syria, it's a much more sort of muddied waters, if you will. there are lots of different elements in the insurgency. lots of different elements in support of the assad regime. there are a lot of minorities in syria who, frankly, feel they are just better off under the assad protection than they would be under the insurgency's protection. it's not clear -- it's not a clear-cut situation. it's very clear that the assad regime is a brutal regime and needs to go, but what replaces it? who is it we support? it's not like you can just fly

in to alpeppo and pick out the good guy from the not so good guy. the guy we want to support and the people we don't. and we give weapons to the former and we make sure that the latter don't get. i wish life were that simple, but it's not. there is even disagreement between us and some of our allies, i'm sure, in terms of who would qualify for those categories. sorting this out going to be very complex, very difficult. i believe the obama administration's reluctance to directly get involved in the military supply of insurgency reflects this concern. and it's a legitimate concern. host: american hero asks for you to tell him why he should support the rebels in syria. guest: well, as i have been saying i think it depends on which rebels we are talking about and sorting that through is going to be a challenge. in an ideal world, obviously as

americans, our sympathies always go to anybody who is purportedly fighting for freedoms and for shared values. but when it comes to human rights, civil liberties, right of political expressions, and the construction of democratic institutions, the real question is, is that what all of these rebels are fighting for? and the obvious answer is no. some of them are. some of them are definitely of a secular bent who want to build secular lasting institutions in syria. that would be a wonderful welcome. that isn't the only possible outcome and that's what we have to really try to sort out. host: hear from herb in snoork, -- in new york, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. connolly, as you know president obama has cited the use by the syrian government of sarin gas and that's the reason

heed like to send arms to the rebels. as you probably also know the united nations has done their own investigation and they have not come to the conclusion that the assad regime has used the sarin gas. i might also suggest, mr. connolly, and you probably were in congress at the time a few years ago, when george tenet, the then c.i.a. chief, walked into the oval office and said, mr. president, it's a slam dunk. iraq has weapons of mass destruction. we know how that movie played out. i would suggest you should be and the rest of congress should be very skeptical about president obama's claim that he has proof that the regime of assad used sarin gas. guest: thank you so much for the call. i have to say to you, my gray hair notwithstanding, i was not

in congress when george tenet did that. i have been in congress for five years. i got elected in 2008. that was something that occurred before i got there. but i do remember that incident and i think you are quite right to remind us of it that we always ought to be skeptical about alleged intelligence information that leads to a major policy decision like military intervention. that's what i have been saying in this interview that's why i think the administration actually has been cautious and has been criticized by john mccain and lindsey graham, for example, for not just jumping into this and obviously making the right decision to support the rebels. as if it were that clear-cut. i think the president has been very nuanced in his approach. his administration and the intelligence community have declared other than what you suggest that sarin gas most certainly was used. that's a redline for this presidency. and for the administration. and something will be done by way of response.

what that something is going to be is what we are all now trying to shape. host: david, interpent -- independent line g. ahead. caller: hi, go ahead. host: turn down your tv first, david. we can't hear you, either. caller: i'm sorry. go ahead. re you on the air. caller: this stuff goes back all the way -- guest: david, we lost you. host: i think david got lost in the sound of his own voice. frank in london, kentucky. democrats line. hi, frank. caller: -- guest: god bless you, frank, a democrat in kentucky. caller: there are not enough of us. there are a lot that would like to be but it's a shame on account of their families. guest: let's hope we can turn that around. caller: i hope so. i just anted to say

found that president obama, which most people don't even give him the respect he deserves, don't seem right to me, and he's got a lot of conflicts right there. we certainly don't need to get into one without -- we've got to know what we are doing before we go in there. we can't go in blind hoping they'll give us roses again. my main thing was to just, if you really want to talk about n.s.a. and security -- >> "washington journal" live daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern and always at c-span.org. congressman connolly and house colleagues gaveling in next for more consideration of the farm bill. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by he guest chaplain.

the chaplain: lord, you are our strength. grant that we may become a people united in love and peace. grant favor to all who hold office in our land. especially president obama and vice president biden. this congress, governors, legislatures, all who make and administer our laws. may all be high in purpose, wise in counsel, firm in good resolution and unwavering in duty. holy spirit, we commend to you our schools, those who learn and teach, that our children may thrive in safe havens and bring forth the fruit of their lives and dreams. grant our armed forces personnel and families, courage and success. ,nd us, for whom they sacrifice

our unending respect and gratitude. receive our thanksgiving for those who serve, protect, labor, farm, care, heal, create and lead. thank you for this abundant land. give us calm compassion to live as one nation under you. in jesus' name, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on depreing to the speaker's a-- on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: please join in the pledge to our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it ands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert, is recognized for one minute. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm honored to rise to welcome my good friend, reverend james rehder, and his daughter who is with him today.

jim and i have known each other since our college days at concordia lutheran university in portland, oregon, before he went on to receive his master of divinity from concordia seminary in st. louis, missouri. reverend rehder was ordained into the missouri senate of the lutheran church in honolulu, hawaii, and is currently a pastor at belleview pilgrim lutheran church and preschool in belleview, washington. his passion for service extends far beyond the four walls of his home church. he has been a committed volunteer and supporter of causes like the northwest lutheran ministry services, the emergency feeding program of seattle, sophia's way women's shelter and the free burma rangers. and, mr. speaker, i thank reverend rehder for being here with us today and thank him for his dedication, for serving others.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as a fourth generation farmer, i know firsthand how important the farm bill is for farmers. i believe that we need a farm bill, but i also believe we need a responsible farm bill. unfortunately the bill passed out of the rules committee last night is a farm bill in name only. 80% of the spending going toward food stamps. mr. stutzman: this isn't the solution american taxpayers deserve. washington's unholy alliance of farm policy and nutrition policy has spun out of control and now we will consider a massive trillion-dollar spending package called a farm bill. mr. speaker, we must have an up

or down vote to split the farm bill into a true farm-only farm bill and a separate food stamp bill. the american people deserve an honest conversation about how washington spending that -- spends their money. we've made progress by ending direct payments but there's more work ahead. let's do our work in the full light of day by splitting this bill and having serious debate on both farm and welfare policy. without that debate, i cannot in good conscience vote for a welfare bill passed on the backs of hardworking american farmers. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor and celebrate juneteenth. each june 19th we observe juneteenth to commemorate the end of slavery in the united states. juneteenth is observed in 42 states, including my home state of new york. in buffalo we are proud to have the third largest juneteenth celebration in the nation.

in buffalo we are also proud to have a rich history in the anti-slavery movement. the michigan street baptist church hosted app ligsist frederick douglass and anti-slave gathering in 1943 and booker t. washington in 1910. arby mary talbert opened her home to prominent african-american leaders in the 1900's and founded the niagara movement which was a forerunner of the naacp. mr. speaker, i'm proud to honor juneteenth, to honor the strength of our nation's african-american heritage and to celebrate the promise of an even stronger future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, our country remains in a state of stagnation. nearly 12 million of our fellow americans are out of work. 4.4 million people have been out

of work for six months or more. we deserve better. america deserves better. we deserve more than the political posturing with which washington democrats continue to respond to the problems facing our nation. house republicans offer real solutions. we've passed a long-term student loan fix to keep rates from doubling this summer. a plan that's similar to the president's plan but yet the democrats in the senate cannot even get that bill passed. it's time to get past politics here. we need to create jobs. we must grow our economy. and secure the future for all americans. that's what hardworking taxpayers deserve and that's what house republicans offer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine seek recognition? mass. still recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: thank you.

mr. speaker, since assuming control of the house of representatives, republicans have brought 10 bills to the floor to limit a woman's constitutionally protected right to make choices regarding her own health. in january we were told that the republican majority was going to rebrand and refocus on the economy. yet this week my republican colleagues once again ignored the pressing problems of many american families and brought a bill to the floor that would reverse decades of progress for women's health. h.r. 1797 was muscled through by an all-male republican panel, would upend roe v. wade and contains the narrowest exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest. i received an email monday from a constituent that best sums up the problems with the bill. in this email, the constituent, who was an abuse victim and incest survivor, urged me to stop this dangerous bill from becoming law and threatening the health of women who, like her, are in the most desperate and tragic of circumstances.

while the bill passed the house yesterday, i am happy to say that it will not be acted upon in the senate. i urge my colleagues to stop these dangerous games with women's health and confront the true problems that are facing the country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. just this morning i met with student leaders from north carolina who are visiting the capitol as part of the 2013 electric corporate youth tour. one student asked mae question about what the house of representatives is doing to advance education and job creation. it was a perfect question, given our house republican plan for jobs and leadership to keep federal student loan interest rates from doubling on july 1. almost 12 million americans are struggling to find work, 4.4 million have been out of work for more than six months. young people in recent -- and recent college graduates longing

for jobs are disproportionately impacted in this economy. washington shouldn't be -- shouldn't be adding additional stresses to students' job hunts. but on july 1, if the president fails to lead and the democrat senate fails to act, student loan interest rates will double for student borrowers. he house agrees with students, #don'tdoublemyrates and we have acted to stop the increase. it's time for the senate to do its job, students are depending on them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the gentleman from texas is roadway -- the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak against the cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the farm bill on this juneteenth, 2013. as the nation's most important anti-hunger program, snap offers nutrition assistance to 46 million low-income americans and provides economic benefits to

communities. snap also allows families to more easily set aside a portion of their resources for food and to prioritize a healthier, more consistent diet without compromising on obligations such as rent, utilities and transportation. the proposed farm bill would cut $20.5 billion from the snap program and leave over 66,000 texans without any assistance. we cannot allow the budget to be balanced on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our country. i did the snap challenge. i lived on $4.50 for one day and i can tell you that it's not easy. especially if you're trying to eat healthy. we need to find ways to fund federally funded nutrition intendtific programs that will help hardworking taxpayers save money on health care costs in this country. for many americans, snap is the only form of income assistance they receive. i join my colleagues in support ing the mcgovern amendment which eliminates the draconian cuts to make sure that 46 million people

who rely on this program will have food on their dinner table each night. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks the 50th anniversary of national small business week. a lot of people think of small business and think, what's the big deal, what difference does that really make? here's the reality. 60% of the jobs created in the last 0 years were created by small business. i'm honored to represent the great state of utah, especially as a former small business owner. with over 57,000 small businesses that have employed more than half a million people in my state, it's clear to me that small business is the backbone of our economy. "forbes" magazine named utah the best state in the nation for business and careers and for small businesses for the third consecutive year. utah has reached a high caliber status through supporting

probusiness environment. it offers a low personal income tax rate. our cost of energy is 27% lower than the national average. probusiness policies like this in utah help to spur our economy and to create jobs. and they contribute to one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. being a small business owner, i recognize the amount of hard work that's required to run a small business. i congratulate the small business owners and wish them a successful small business week. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for ne minute. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks the 50th anniversary of national small business week. small businesses are a vital part of our nation's fabric, a big source of opportunity, pride and good-paying jobs in the communities that i serve. and here's what i'm doing in california for my district and

my small businesses. we're connecting our small businesses to the power of the ports, to help export their goods to new markets overseas. we're helping to clear away the misinformation and uncertainty about what the affordable care act really means for small businesses. we're providing resources and information to expand their access to capital, to help them grow and get more customers coming in their door. small businesses are the backbone of our economy. when our small businesses are strong, our nation is strong. all americans should take the opportunity this week to shop at a small business. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. daines: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize my friend, montana public service commissioner, chairman bill gallagher, who was recently diagnosed with early stage

pancreatic cancer. my wife and i enjoy montanans to join in prayers. yesterday i met with abby brown, a pancreatic cancer action network volunteer for my hometown who recently lost her dad to pancreatic cancer. she shared stories about her dad's fight, as well as those of other montanans like a district judge, also a friend of mine. abby also told me the importance of regular checkups and healthy living as key preventive measures of lowering one's chance of being risked with cancer. cancer affects each and every american in some way. i hope all montanans will work to promote cancer awareness and take preventive measures to prevent cancer and increase early diagnosis. know it. fight it. end it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman ask for unanimous

consent? does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank congressman mcgovern for his leadership on an amendment to the farm bill. this farm bill will have a serious and devastating impact. it will damage the lives of millions of vulnerable struggling hardworking americans. they are scraping by in the worst economy since the great depression. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say 47 million americans on food stamps is too many. i agree. 47 million americans on food stamps means testimony americans unemployed. it means too many underemployed living in poverty. rather than pointing the finger at these people, we need to point it at ourselves. what has the republican-led house done to repair our economy? what bills have they passed to support our industries and create middle class jobs? i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. keep food on the table of struggling american families. that's what we should be doing. we should support this amendment. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the military has taken $500 billion in budget cuts this year. congress has splashed its budget by 11% in the last three years. and this year at the president's command several government agencies have cut vital programs and employees due to mandatory spending cuts. everyone across the country is being asked to do more with less. families, business, the military, and government agencies. but the president is sending americans another message, you pay while he plays. mr. williams: that's right. the obama family is taking an extravagant summer vacation to africa costing taxpayers an estimated $100 million. that is obscene and americans should be outraged. this money could keep the public white house tours funded, which the president canceled due to budget constraints, for 26 years. it could pay for an additional 22,000 college degrees for soldiers enrolled in the army's tuition assistance program. it could reverse the potential

$90 million in cuts for border patrol agents and border security. in fact, it could fund the entire houston astros payroll times four. mr. speaker, instead of asking everyone but himself to make enormous sacrifices, it's time for the president to make his and put the people first. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mr. nabusa: thank you, speaker. i am -- ms. gabbard: thank, mr. speaker. i'm very proud to honor someone today who is a servant leader and honored to call my friend. chief master sergeant denise hall. she'll retire later this month after serving nearly 30 years in the united states air force where she earned the distinction of being the first female, first air national guard member to serve as the national guard senior enlisted leader. this is the highest enlisted rank in the national guard one is able to hold. while she's originally from a small town in minnesota and

served everywhere from nebraska to qatar, i'm especially proud of the tremendous impact that she's made on her nearly 20 years that she spent serving in the hawaii air national guard. she's happiest when she is spending time with soldiers and airmen and has done so in all 50 states and around the world as she leads by example, encouraging troops to focus on personal growth and education. she should serve as an inspiration to young men and women across the country through her great work ethic and leadership by example. congratulations to chief hall on her long, accomplished career in the service of her country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of the agriculture committee i strongly support the farm bill we are considering

today and the reforms that it brings. the e.p.a. has been implementing what is known as a total maximum daily load on the six-day chesapeake bay water shed. it's often described as a pollution diet because it mandates water quality standards and nutrient discharges into the water shed. aside from the great cost, one of the concerns i have had is the science behind the tmdl. e.p.a.'s model is substantially different than usda's. and as such i have been a strong advocate for e.p.a. utilizing the usda's data and agricultural expr tees while implementing this mandate. that's why i'm offering an amendment to the farm bill which will require the usda to provide such data in consultation with the e.p.a. while ensuring the privacy of farmers. the chesapeake bay is a national treasure. it needs and deserves our attention. however these restoration activities which require taxpayer dollars should include the best science available to continue the great strides we are making for the health of the

bay. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, in this the richest country in the world it is unconscionable that the farm bill we are debating today cuts nearly $21 billion from snap, our nation's most important anti-hunger program. ms. roybal-allard: today one in seven americans depends on the snap program to put food on the table. the draconian cuts in this bill will remove many from this program and increase hunger among millions of americans already struggling to survive. hardest hit will be children who in addition to suffering the agony of hunger will be at risk of having disability because studies have shown that the snap program is a critical buffer for preventing developmental challenges. our vulnerable senior population for which snap is a vital safety net also will be put at risk because it could make the difference between having food or going hungry.

mr. speaker, there are better alternatives to reducing our deficit. while it is true that the farm bill is an important bill that regulates and protebts our food industry, it is also true that it is tragic that in the united states of america this bill as introduced will increase the pain and suffering of hunger which already shamefully exists in our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as you can see i'm wearing a yellow ribbon here today, do i so to recognize the newest minnesota yellow ribbon networks being officially proclaimed at the national guard camp rippley near the community of little falls in north central, minnesota, also in my district. yellow ribbon is a truly remarkable program that uses the

transition of our soldiers to civilian life. mr. nolan: by providing job training, counseling of all kinds and support services for service members, veterans, and military families. i want to say a special thanks to morrison county in minnesota and to the communities of little falls, motley, royalton, swan vail, harding, buckman, randell, and others, all in my district, for supporting our returning service men and women as yellow ribbon communities. we thank and honor all our military for their service to our great nation. mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, unless congress acts in less than two weeks the interest rates on federally subsidized stafford loans will double from

3.4% to 6.8%, for more than seven million students. in my home state of rhode island, which is home to more than 40,000 borrowers of federally subsidized stafford loans, this means higher education will become less attainable for more and more young people who depend on financial aid. as we work to get our economy back on track, we should make it easier not more difficult for young people to access higher education. but once again the house republican leadership is failing to act in the best interest of the american people. rather than working towards a commonsense solution on student loan interest rates, we are spending this week voting on a $20 billion cut to children's nutrition programs. and a bill that would severely restrict reproductive health care for women. this has gone on long enough. in the interest of our constituents, republicans and democrats should setaside their differences and get back to solving the problems that our country faces. the republican leaders in the house should bring bills to the floor for a vote that protect students from interest rate increases and get americans back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from temperaturetown eek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. desjarlais: thank you, mr. speaker. the current united states sugar program is a clear example of government intrusion into a market. nowhere is there a larger gap between the u.s. government's free trade rhetoric and protectionist practices than in our sugar policy. the most prominent argument i hear from the other side is this program is of no cost to the taxpayers. that simply isn't true. it was reported yesterday that usda intends to purchase sugar off the domestic market costing taxpayers nearly $38 million. the government then plans to sell the sugar at a loss to ethanol companies. and who is ultimately footing the bill for this not so sweet deal? the taxpayers. but the most egregious point is that other countries actively try to lure u.s. companies to

relocate. an official canadian government prosure states canadian sugar users enjoys significant advantage. the average price of refined sugar is usually 30% to 40% lower in canada than the u.s. now when a government program becomes a recruitment technique to lure away our manufacturers and move u.s. jobs abroad, i believe reform is not only necessary but it's essential. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, since march of 2011 in syria, 90,000 people have been killed. mr. israel: millions have been displaced internally, hundreds of thousands have fled, and between 100 and 150 people have been murdered by assad's chemical weapons. now, we can debate what we should do and how far we should go, but there is one thing that we can all agree on. and that is legislation that my league from oklahoma,

congressman tom cole, and i have introduced on a bipartisan basis that would bring bashar assad to the international criminal court where he would be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. this is an example of bipartisan cooperation and accord on a challenging foreign policy crisis. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the cole-israel resolution and pass it immediately. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 271 and ask for

its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 34, house resolution 271, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. no further general debate shall be in order. section 2-a. in lieu of the amendments recommended by the committees on agriculture and the judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-14, modified

by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. b, no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. c, each amendment printed in part b of the report shall be considered home in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. may be withdrawn by its proponent at any time before

action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. d, all points of order against amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules or against amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. section 3, it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or

in the committee of the whole. the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. section 4, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage, without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the congressional budget empowerment and control act of 1974, i make

a point of order against consideration of the rule, house resolution 271. section 426 is of the budget act specifically states that the rules committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act. house resolution 271 states, i quote, all points of order against amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules or against amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. end quote. therefore i make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this rule may not be considered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. massa: -- mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. bobe sack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. loebsack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. lobe leb i would first like to -- mr. loebsack: i would first like to voice my support for the gentleman's particular amendment that he has before us and will later on today that restores the unfair snap cuts. i thank the gentleman for his amendment, for his courage and for his very, very good idea of restoring those cuts. when it comes to the underlying bill, later today i will offer an amendment to ensure farmers and rural small businesses have continued access to a critical tool to pursue investments in energy technologies and to meet their energy needs in an affordable and sustainable way. currently the rural energy for america program supports farmers and rural small businesses in pursuing sustainable and value-added energy project investments including wind power, biofuels, solar or

others. these projects put people to work. they create entrepreneurial opportunities. and they have created new value-added opportunities for our farmers, for rural small businesses and for our communities. i have heard from iowans about the importance of this energy and economic development tool and my amendment ensures farmers and rural businesses have continued access to it. i'm strongly opposed to the changes made in the underlying bill that weaken essential energy initiatives that create jobs and boost our economy. because of these initiatives, thousands of jobs have been created in rural communities in recent years. in iowa alone, over 1,600 rural energy projects were initiated between 2003 and 2012. mainly stemming from farm bill energy programs. my amendment stresses the importance of farm bill energy programs to job creation and our rural economieses and allows one

of our -- economies and allows one of our best resources, our farmers, to play a critical role in our domestic energy production and i urge support for it and, as i said at the outset, i urge support for my colleague from massachusetts' amendment to restore the snap cuts as well. thank you, very much, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. reserves. mr. mcgovern: i reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition of the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. sessions: i appreciate the speaker. the question really before us today, mr. speaker, is plain and simple. and that is, should the house now consider h.res. 271? and i have great respect not only for the gentleman from iowa and for the gentleman from massachusetts. yesterday we sat through a very, very long committee hearing where we considered over 200

amendments that were presented to the rules committee. and i believe that what we have done with the rule that was in reference here and being questioned here on the floor is not only a very fair and bipartisan approach, but we took this actually from the ag committee, where the gentleman from minnesota, the ranking member, and the chairman of the committee from iowa, both who have not only extensive farm backgrounds but also extensive service here in the house, to the people of the united states in their service both as chair man as the agriculture committee. the bill was brought to the rules committee, bipartisan basis, we talked about the amendments that the committee felt like was worthy. we worked extensively with both the committee and other committees of jurisdiction.

we had member after member come to the rules committee in a fair and open process. we deliberated. the gentleman from massachusetts knows that he, in some sense, got some satisfaction with how the process worked. and so today what we're here for is, yes, to talk about the amendments, some that were made in order and some which change ,olicy, but the essence of this are we going to put a point of order against the bill? i think that the resolution waives all points of order against amendments printed in the rules committee report, yes. and the committee on rules is not aware of any violation of the unfunded mandates reform act. i think this is simply an opportunity for my friends to come to the floor and to allow more discussion and time and i respect that. i respect not only that the

gentleman from massachusetts has very strong feelings as a member of the agriculture committee, as a senior member of the rules committee, but also those members of the democratic caucus who have strong feelings about some changes that are taking place. so, i admire my colleagues. i disagree, i do not believe that in any way that there should be any point of order against the bill. i think it's open, i think it's fair, i think it's inclusive, i think it includes a wide range of -- wide-ranging group of ideas and thoughts that are directly germane to the appropriateness of the agriculture committee and other committees that have jurisdiction. i think the rules committee did an awesome job, i think we did this in a fair and open process, i think our product is good. so how would i characterize it? i think this is a fair rule that made 103 amendments from both

sides of the aisle, i think 53 democratic amendments and 50 republican amendments in order. there were a number of bipartisan amendments. it's a fair rule that comes from a good process. so, in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day, i encourage us to keep moving. i thank the gentleman and respect the gentleman and he knows this, that we have been dear friends for many, many years on this committee. i know he wants more time and i respect that. so, i urge all members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution if necessary and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i appreciate the comments from the gentleman from texas. i'd like to yield now two minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: mr. speaker, i would like to ask to revise and extend

my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. moore: and put my remarks in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. moore: thank you so much. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me these couple of minutes. i would hope that we would -- that we would listen to the point of order that's been raised by mr. mcgovern. you know, for one thing, this bill criminalizes poverty. so many things in this bill, you know, no felony records, people are felony records will be allowed to get food stamps, that there be work requirements in order to get food stamps. these kinds of amendments and additions that we are going to see in this bill really raises some -- add to the flashese arguments that we have heard -- if a lashese arguments that we have heard about the gar gant

one cuts that are made to the program. that snap is run inefficiency. -- unefficiently. that these cuts won't hurt anyone. that these cuts don't serve the most vulnerable. let me just reiterate the facts. snap is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable populations, primarily serving children, seniors and the disabled and poorest communities. people who cannot work, people who don't have felony records. in my own state of wisconsin, 47.2% of snap households include children. 15.4% include the very elderly and 21.7% include a disabled person. 84.3% of those receiving snap in my state are children, elderly and disabled. tionwide 76% of snap households are composed of those

who are children, seniors or disabled persons. 68.7% of snap households have a gross income at or below 100% of the poverty level. and just let me say for the going forward, that as soon as this bill is enacted, as soon as we take away the categorical eligibility, 200 children will lose free lunch. children. thank you so much and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. in fact, the gentlewoman is correct. there is an amendment that was committee rules that's been made in order that essentially does what the gentlewoman says. and she'll have a chance to vote for it or against it. but what it says is, the amendment ends eligibility of food stamps for those convicted who are rapists, pedophiles and

murderers. so, the gentlewoman and every member of this body today will , ve a chance to say on record that's ok if you're a rapist, if you're -- convicted rapist or pedophile or murderer, that that's ok for you to be eligible for food stamps. in a program that does compete against mothers and children who in these difficult times you're seeing the agriculture committee try and set priorities about who should receive this government assistance. this amendment has not been accepted yet but every member of this body will be able to help prioritize and the amendment that the gentlewoman speaks of is about whether we will let

rapists, pedophiles and murderers who are convicted felons to receive -- to continue to receive food stamps. and the gentlewoman is right. and today she will get her chance to help us prioritize these government programs about who should be receiving food stamps in america. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . mr. horsford: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. horsford: first let me commepped the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgotsche, and your leadership for 18 years on fighting for the needs of snap program assistance for our most vulnerable citizens. i rise and stand with mr. mcgovern against this procedural

rule and in support of the underlying amendment that mr. ack govern, myself, and other -- mr. mcgovern, myself, and other members have. this amendment will prevent cuts to the snap federal program. the risk management acts of 2013 includes $20.5 billion in cuts to the snap program. that will come on top of an expiration of a benefits boost from the recovery act of 2009. snap provides food assistance to approximately 46 million americans in need and it is stimated that at least 353,000 nevadan also the -- will feel the impact of the double whammy of snap cuts from the farm bill and expiration of the recovery act boost. the bottom line is that the snap program is our nation's most important anti-hunger program. it kept 4.7 million people out

of poverty in 2011, including 2.1 million children. i had a community conference call with my constituents and families in my district who count on snap. many of them live in food deserts. the benefits they receive right now aren't enough for a healthy meal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. horsford: yet we are talking about cutting these benefits even further while we continue subsidies to big industries that are well off. those priorities are backwards. so for the mother in my district who is expecting another child and who counts on snap, for the disabled family that stands in line for hours at the food bank, and elderly who rely on snap to get the food they need, for everyone who made their voice heard by calling their office, i refuse to accept that we should cut $20.5 billion in vital food

assistance programs. i continue to work with mr. mcgovern and my colleague until we can restore these funds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. session: thank you very much. i appreciate the gentleman for coming down to the floor. i want to respond to the gentleman that what this bill is about is trying to make decisions about how we are going to take in difficult times to the government also. there are 25 million people unemployed and underemployed as a result of the policies that president obama has placed on this country. millions of people cannot find work today. millions of people across this country who are denied opportunities because of the job market out there is not growing. we are seeing rules and regulations, what is known as obamacare, causing employers to back away from hiring people. the president's inability to

make a decision about a simple, most publicized and most looked at pipe line that would employ thousands of people in this energy from use our friends. the president's inability to lead is what is causing this country to have massive unemployment and a g.d.p. rate of about 1 1/2%. it is a nightmare for people. i do understand that we have those in our midst who are in trouble. i don't think this bill is ever aimed at and we shouldn't try and say that it would be aimed at the disabled. mothers with children, that's not what we are trying to accomplish here. what we are trying to accomplish is to end eligibility of food stamps that compete against those families, those needy families that we talked about, for rapists, pedophiles, and

murderers. that's why you see members of the democratic party coming down here today. and they are saying we are going to take it away from other people. no, rapists, pedophiles, murderers. furthermore, under the current law people who receive as little as $1 in energy benefits, $1 in state benefits, automatically qualify for snap payments. and this legislation that we are talking about today says, if you are going to give away a federal benefit the state has to have some skin in the game. you can't give away something that comes from somewhere else. this legislation closes the costly loopholes that have been out there. without reform, are you going to continue to see dead people, illegal immigrants, lottery winners, and others still eligible for snap. that what is we are doing as we reform this bill today.

we are doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do to save the system. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern:00 it's my privilege to -- mr. mcgovern: it's my privilege to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i support the point of order that the gentleman has raised against the rule. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for raising that point of order. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the rule. and to the proposed cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the underlying farm bill. in the wealthiest nation in human history, it is unconscionable that every american cannot afford life's most basic necessities. snap helps millions of americans living in poverty put food on

the table. 80% of the households receiving snapping right now earn below the federal poverty level. making it a vital form of assistance for millions of working families. yesterday i proudly joined a group of my democratic colleagues in taking the snap challenge, a commitment to living on no more than $4.50 in daily food costs. mr. speaker, every member of congress should experience what it's like to subsist on such a paltry sum and understand how the decisions we make affect the lives of hardworking americans. we take food off the plates of hungry children, we have a moral obligation to fully comprehend the consequences of those actions. under this bill, two million people will lose their eligibility. and many more will see reduced nutritional assistance. mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on this rule and i encourage members to vote against these unnecessary and harmful cuts.

we can do better. we can put that money back into this farm bill and make it a bill that we can all support. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to support the point of order and in strong opposition to the bill that would cut more than $20 billion from critical nutrition programs, especially those that serve our nation's most vulnerable children. my home state of rhode island has nearly 67,000 children that rely on the support from the snap program. the bill before us today would devastate funding of these and millions of children and families across our country and every day.

because of the way this fund something structured it would be especially devastating for states like mine where families are struggling in a difficult economy and reductions in liheap will be a great hardship in long, cold new england winters. in the next days we'll consider a wide range of amendments, some like one offered by my friend from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, which i am a co-sponsor would restore this funding for acontiguousal programs. others would impose additional burdens on families struggling to get by. mr. speaker, the actions we take in this chamber and the bills we enact into law should reflect our values as a country. we should not take action that is will make hung irworse in america, and this bill will do that. i urge my colleagues to oppose these drastic cuts in nutrition programs and support the mcgovern amendment so that we can continue to help improve the lives of millions of families and children across our nation. america has always stood for the idea that we look after each other. we take care of the least fortunate among us. most importantly we protect our most treasured asset, the children of america. i thank the gentleman for

yielding. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i would like to ask the gentleman if he has further speakers or he believes we have now gotten to the end of this opportunity. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute. mr. sessions: i believe i have the right to close, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me close for our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: met me thank my colleagues who have come to the floor -- let me thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak to support an amendment that i and dozens and dozens of other members have authored to repeal the snap cuts. to repeal the $20.5 billion worth of cuts in snap that will result in two million people losing benefit and hundreds of thousands of children losing a free breakfast or lunch at school. that cut is too much.

it is too harsh. it goes over the top. it is a deal breaker for many of us when it comes to the farm bill. what we should be about in this house of representatives is trying to improve the quality of life for people. lift people up, not put people down. these cuts put people down. we can do much better. and again i thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and look forward to more debate on this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts for furthering it is true there are going to be people dropped off the rolls. we are having to make decisions based upon money. there's a vote today, vote today, that has not been decided whether rapists, pedophiles, or murderers will be eligible. also whether we are going to have people have to qualify on their own as opposed to some other consideration maybe that the state would put. and we are going to take off those that are will thery

winners, illegal aliens, and people quite honestly who should have the money to pay for these things. that's what we are doing today. so in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business which we are trying to do today, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all debate time has expired. the question is will the house now consideration the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is key sided -- is decided in the affirmative. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues on the democratic side for not only their vigorous support of the things which they believe in today on this important bill, but also for their consideration, participation, and bipartisanship yesterday as the rules committee considered this important bill. i believe it is important what

we are doing in the house. i think doing our work on a bipartisan basis should draw the attention of the president, the united states who has said that he will veto this bill, veto the bill before we even see what it looks like. i think that we should understand that what we are trying to do is work together. so for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from worcester, massachusetts, my very dear friend and good friend, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, we have already had a lot of discussion about this awesome bill, farm bill, that comes to us today. and h.res. 271 provides for a structured rule for

consideration of h.r. 1947. this rule provides for discussion opportunities for members of the minority and majority, both republicans and democrats, who represent 700,000 people back home to come together with their thoughts and ideas about how to make our farm policies and the things which are included in this bill even better. sustainable and moving forward so that we can know that we have done our job. this week, 230 amendments were submitted to the rules committee. the rule before us today provides for consideration of 103 of those amendments, 50 republican and 53 democrat, or bipartisan amendments. many of the amendments submitted were duplicative. some violated the rules of the house. and several were nongermane. given the universe of the amendments the committee received, i believe this rule allows the house to debate each and every important issue

contained in the bill and provides this body with an opportunity to work its will. despite the large number of amendments submitted, i believe the underlying legislation, h.r. 1947, is a strong and meaningful statement and measure that provides our nation with agriculture and nutrition policy necessary to meet the needs of this country. i want to commend in particular the young chairman of the agriculture committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the ranking member, the gentleman from minnesota, collin peterson, who have worked together over the years not just as time when mr. peterson served as chairman of the committee, but also throughout the years that mr. lucas has worked in a bipartisan basis together, the committee, to work on agriculture policy. their hard work over the past several years have led us to the point of where we are today. .