the chair: theys are 235. the nays are 192. the majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 50 printed in part b of house report 11-117 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 50, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be couvented. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 215. the nays are 211. the majority voting in the affirmative the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 98, printed in part b of house report 11-117, by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 198, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. pitts of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

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

quoip on this vote theys are 206. the nays are 221. less than the majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 100 printed in part b-of house report 113-117, by the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, on which

further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 100, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 230. the nays are 194. the majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment 101 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by mr. huelskamp on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 101 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 175. the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 102 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. house k: part b of report 113-117 offered by mr. southerland of florida. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 198. a majority voting in the affirmative, amendment is adopted. the question is on -- the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1947 and pursuant to house resolution 271 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill 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. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk: ms. brownley of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 1947, to the committee on agriculture with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. after line 14 add the following. section 8408, protecting homeowners from the devastating affects of wildfires in the wildland urban interface. the acts of june 4, 1897, 30

set 11, is amended after adding at the end, 30 set 3516 u.s.c. 551 the following new sentence -- to ensure that there are sufficient funds to provide the most modern equipment available for wildfire suppression. ms. brownley: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. is there objection? >> mr. speaker, i reserve the right to object, please. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman object to the dispensing of the reading? mr. lucas: i object to the dispensing of the reading, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read. the clerk: to ensure that there are sufficient funds to provide the most modern equipment available for wildfire suppression and to ensure there are adequate numbers of personnel to manage and suppress wildfires. there is authorized to be appropriated to the secretary of agriculture such sums as may be necessary for fire suppression equipment and personnel to conduct forest

fire presuppression activities on national forest system lands and emergency fire suppression or adjacent to such lands or other lands regarding which the secretary has entered into a fire protection agreement. page 379, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 380, line 8. page 384 strike lines 3 through 9. page 391, strike lines 19 through 24 and insert the following -- section. creating jobs to small businesses in rural america and protecting safe drinking water. a, water, waste disposal and waste water facility grants. section -- >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma asks to dispense with the reading. is there objection? he clerk will suspend.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a final amendment to h.r. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. ms. brownley: this is a final amendment to h.r. 1947. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. my amendment is a straightforward improvement that i believe both sides can agree is absolutely necessary. first, the amendment would protect homes and businesses nationwide from devastating fires by funding wildfire suppression, personnel and firefighting equipment. second, the amendment will help create jobs and small businesses throughout rural america and find safe drinking

water to these communities as well. mr. speaker, i proudly represent ventura county in california. in may we had a dangerous wildfire -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. ms. brownley: in may we had a dangerous wildfire that burned over 24,000 acres. it threatened homes, surrounded cal state university at channel islands and burned starts of naval base ventura county. as the spring's fire raged, we looked for help from the brave men and women serving as firefighters. not only from my district but throughout california and the western states. due to their tireless efforts, homes and businesses were saved and not one life was lost. following the spring's fire, i had the opportunity on occasion to thank the firefighters in my

county. they showed me the real-time computer equipment they used to successfully fight this fire. with this equipment, firefighters could predict the direction of the fire and the terrain they would face next in real time. they asked that congress make this life-saving communication equipment available to firefighters across this great nation. this is precisely the type of equipment my amendment would help provide, along with aerial tankers and other firefighting aircraft. so many americans rely on this selfless help of firefighters across the nation. most recently and courageously, fighting the recent fires in colorado that has caused so much damage and loss of precious lives. our firefighters put their lives on the line, and we owe

it to them and to our communities to provide adequate resources for fire suppression, personnel and state-of-the-art equipment. my amendment would also support three critical rural development programs. water, waste disposal and wastewater facility grants. emergency and imminent water assistant grants. and rural business opportunity grants. these grants help to provide critical water supplies to rural areas experiencing drought or other disasters. they also promote sustainible economic development, create jobs -- sustainable economic development, create jobs and build stronger communities. not only would these programs help in ventura county, which was recently declared a rural disaster area by usda, they would help in districts across the nation suffering from

similar and tragic hardships. . i came to congress not to nainl in partisan bickering but to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to solve the many critical cal lention facing our nation. --challenges facing our nation. partnering with our state and local communities during natural disasters and with communities who lack critical resources in difficult economic times is both a moral and economic imperative of this body. it is with this in mind that i ask my colleagues to support this important amendment to help fight wildfires and to support our communities when they need it most. mr. speaker, i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: to speak in

opposition to the motion to recommit, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i will not dwell on the points made by the good lady, but i would like to take this time to discuss for just a moment the process that we have gone through here and the nature of what we are trying to do in crafting another five-year comprehensive farm bill. we have gone through the most amazing open process in the house agriculture committee, two years in a row. and we achieved consensus. now, the bill this year might not be quite the same as the bill last year, and we have gone through, i think, an open process here on the floor where 103 or 104 amendments were considered by this body in open debate, open discussion,

recorded votes. once again trying to achieve a consensus. i know that not everyone, everyone has in this final bill exactly what they want. i know some of my very conservative friends think that it doesn't go far enough in the name of reform. i know some of my liberal friends thinks it goes too far in the name of addressing the needs of people. but i would say this to all of you, ultimately this body has to do its work. ultimately we have to move a product that we can go to conference with. ultimately we have to work out a consensus with the united states senate so that we will have a final document that we can all consider together that hopefully we'll support and the president will sign into law. now, i have tried in good faith working with my ranking member

and each and every one of you in every facet of these issues to chieve that consensus. i have tried and i hope that you recognize and acknowledge that. but we are at this critical moment whether you believe the bill has too much reform or not enough, or you believe it cuts too much or it doesn't cut enough, we have to move this document forward to achieve a common goal, to meet the needs of our citizens. no matter what part of the country, no matter whether they produce the food or consume the food. we have to meet those common needs in a responsible fashion. i plead to you, i implore you, put aside whatever the latest email is or the latest flyer is

or whatever comment or rumor you heard from people near you or around you, assess the situation, look at the bill, vote with me to move this forward. if you care about the consumers, the producers, the citizens of this country, move this bill forward. if it fails today, i can't guarantee that you'll see in this session in congress another attempt. but i would assure each and every one of you, whether it's the appropriations process or amendments to other bills, struggles will go on, but it won't be done in a balanced way. if you care about your folks, if you care about this institution, if you care about utilizing open order, vote with us. vote with me on final. and if you don't, when you leave

here, they'll just say it's a dysfunctional body, a broken institution full of dysfunctional people. that's not true. ou know that's not true. cast your vote in a responsible fashion. that's all i can ask. thank you, my friends. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion fails. ms. brownley: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on motion to recommit will be fimet votes on approval of the journal if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188. the nays are 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> call for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 195. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 195. the nays are 234. he bill is not passed. without, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. -- without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule

20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. clarke: to address the house for one moment, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday i was unavoidably detained at a meeting and missed the first votes of the day. had i been present i would have voted no on roll call number 254, the motion on ordering the previous question on the rule and no on roll call number 253, h.res. 271, the rule providing for further consideration of h.r. 1947, federal agriculture

reform and risk management act. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. he house will be in order. without objection, the gentlewoman's statement will appear in the record. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair will receive a many. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 475, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to include vaccines against seasonal influenza within the definition

of taxable vaccines. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. hastings of florida for june 19. mr. honda of california for june 19, and thursday july -- june 20. mr. garery miller of california for june 19 and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair announces the speaker's reappointment pursuant to 44 u.s.c. 2702 and the order of january 3, 2013, of the following individual on the part of the house to the advisory committee on the records of congress effective june 24, 2013.

the clerk: mr. jeffrey w. thomas of columbus, ohio.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, the majority leader. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet in pro forma session at 11:00 a.m., no votes are expected. on tuesday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until :30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative

business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition, i expect the house to take up and pass two bills from the resources committee. h.r. 2231, the offshore energy and jobs act, authored by chairman doc hastings. and h.r. 1613, the outer continental shelf transboundary outer carbon agreements authorization act sponsored by representative jeff duncan of south carolina. these two bills continue our efforts to increase domestic energy production, to foster an environment of economic growth, and lower energy costs and working families. finally, mr. speaker, i anticipate bringing to the floor h.r. 2010, the agriculture -- 2410, the agricultural appropriations bill offered by mr. aderholt of alabama. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman

for his comment and ask him a couple questions about bills not on the announcement. the gentleman and i had a colloquy last week about student loans. no action on those is on the calendar for next week. if i'm correct. can the gentleman tell me, knowing as we know, that student loan rates will double in july om 3.4% to .8%, and in light of our discussion last week can the gentleman tell me whether there is any thought that there will be some action taken by us prior to the july 4 break? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, the gentleman knows that the house has acted. that the position of the house is one of very close to where the president's public position on student loans has been. we don't want to see student

loan rates double. we also want long-term solution to the problem on the fiscal end while helping students. and if the gentleman witnesses what just happened on the floor, just seems that on bills where there are solutions and bipartisan indications of support, there seems to be a decision by the part of his leadership, perhaps himself, to say, hey, we are not going to go along with bipartisan work and success and maybe we are just going to make this a partisan issue. i'm fearful the same as it were for the student loan, mr. speaker. i hope that is not the case because i know the gentleman shares with me a desire not to allow students to be put in the position to face a doubling of interest rates if they decide to incur additional student owns -- loans. i would say to the gentleman his question. we stand ready to work in a

bipartisan fashion, have indicated so to the white house, the senate doesn't seem to be able to produce anything. the house is the only one that produced something very close to what the president's position is to make student rates variable to allow for those rates to be capped so the exposure is not what it would be otherwise. unfortunately no movement yet. we stand ready to work, though. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. very frankly i wasn't going to mention what happened on the floor today, but the gentleman has brought it up. the gentleman is correct. the committee passed out a bipartisan bill. democrats voted for that bill. the problem, of course, is that 62 republicans voted against it -- the bill as it was amended notwithstanding the fact they voted for the last amendment that was adopted which we think was a draconian amendment that

would have hurt the poorest citizens in our country very badly. so we turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. i will tell my friend, very frankly, you did the same thing, not you personally but your side of the aisle, did the same thing with respect to the homeland security bill, which was reported out on a voice vote from the appropriations committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan basis, except an amendment was adopted with your side voting overwhelmingly for it knowing full well that our side could not support that. i tell you with all due respect, mr. majority leader, i wasn't going to bring up what happened today. what happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill, necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of america, that many of us would have supported, and you turned it into a partisan bill. and very frankly 58 of the 62 republicans vote against your

bill voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious. we disagreed with the $20 billion cut. and you -- not you personally, but your side upped the ante. i will tell my friend we are prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion. very frankly with respect to the student loan bill, it was very close to the president's bill. and we would have supported it had it been even close to the president's bill. what your bill does as you know puts those taking out a student loan at risk of having their interest rate substantially increased in the future. the president suggested, yes, let's get a variable rate that reflects market rates, but that when you take out the loan, just like you do with your house loan, you know what your interest rate's going to be. so we have a difference on that. i think it's a good faith disagreement on that.

but i will tell you that, yes, i have been concerned about the inability to take a bill reported out of committee that is bipartisan in nature and turn it into a partisan bill. that's what happened on this floor today. it was unfortunate. as i say for farmers, it was unfortunate for consumers, and it was unfortunate for our country. if the gentleman wants to pursue that, i yield. mr. cantor: i appreciate the gentleman, mr. speaker. allow me to respond, the amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking member, with the chairman, the gentleman himself i'm sure, mr. speaker, was aware of mr. suther larpped's amendment. -- mr. southerland's amendment. his amendment reflects what many believe is a successful formula to apply to a program that has in the eyes of the g.a.o., in the eyes of the independent

auditors who look at these programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement, because of the error rates and the waste and other things that are occurring in this program. in addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that work, that able-bodied people, should have the opportunity and should go in and be a productive citizen. that's what this amendment says. it gives states an option. it was a pilot project. because it reflects a winning formula to the welfare reform program back in 1996 that was put into place. with unequivocal success. able-bodied people going back to work. working families beginning to have productive income, not just taking a check from the government. there was never an intention, at all, for our side to say we want to take away the safety net of the food stamp program. absolutely not.

this was a pilot project. that was it. it was up to the states whether they wanted to participate, to see if they could get more people back to work. again, consistent with what the g.a.o. reports have said over an over again, these programs are in need of reform. and again it was not as if this amendment came out of thin air. the gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority side knew this amendment was there, and the gentleman forever is on this floor, mr. speaker, talking about regular order. . talking about the need for us to have open process, the lot of house be worked, and then go to conference. that's what the goal here was. et the will of the house allowed to be seen through, work its will, and then go to conference and then we would try and participate in a robust discussion with the other side of the cab toll to see if we could -- capitol to see if we

could see clear on some reform measures on a bill to a program that is in desperate need of that. and what we saw again today was a democratic leadership in the house that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue. and, mr. speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case. i do agree with the gentleman. but i hope that we can see our way to working on other issues where there's potential agreement. yes, we have fundamental disagreements on many things. but we're all human beings representing the 740,000-some people that put us here and expect us to begin to learn to set aside those agreements, find ways we can work together. today was an example. the other side, mr. speaker, did not think that was their goal. did not think that was an appropriate mission. and instead decided to emphasize

where they perhaps differed when we wanted to reform in a certain area. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. we clearly have a profound disagreement. when we were in the majority we got no help on your side, mr. majority leader. you'll remember that. zero, one, two, three, four, on programs that we felt very strongly about. there was no opportunity to have bipartisan dialogue. there was no opportunity to have ipartisan agreement. the gentleman refers to regular order. quite frankly, the person who talks about regular order most is your speaker. and you talk about regular order. well, the past bill, then we ought to go and have an agreement. some 90 days ago, i believe, we passed a budget. at your insistence, the senate passed a budget. good for them. we have not gone to conference,

you have not provided an opportunity to go to conference. you haven't appointed conferees. that's regular order. the gentleman wants it on one bill but apparently not all bills. i tell my friend, we want regular order. we want to go to conference. we want to undo the breaking of an agreement that we made in the budget control act which said there would be a firewall between domestic and defense. you have eliminated that firewall. you've assumed sequester is in place. sequester's bad for this country. you and i tend to agree on, that i think. but the fact is there's no legislation to undo that sequester. except the legislation you talk about passing in the last congress. which is dead, gone and buried. yes, we want regular order. the reason the bill lost today s because 62 of your members rejected mr. lucas' plea which i thought was a very eloquent plea, and which he said, i know some of you don't think there's

enough reform in this bill and some of you want -- think there's too much reform. but mr. peterson and i brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill. supported by the majority of democrats and the majority -- i think all republicans, maybe. on the committee. i'm not sure of that, mr. leader. but the fact of the matter is, it was a bipartisan bill. just as homeland security was a bipartisan bill. and it was turned into a partisan bill. and you responded, the southerland amendment was for reforms. that's exactly what mr. lucas was talking about. he was saying, some people don't think we went far enough and some people think we went too far. mr. southerland thought we hadn't gone far enough. and 58 republicans voted for southerland, that then turned around and voted against the bill. the very reforms you're talking about. so don't blame democrats for the loss today. you didn't bring up the farm bill when it was reported out in a bipartisan basis last year.

you didn't even bring it to the floor because your party couldn't come together, supporting their chairman's bill . so that's where we find ourselves, mr. chairman. i wasn't going to bring up that bill at all. what happened happened. and very frankly when we lost on the floor it was because we lost on the floor when we were in the majority. we produced 218 votes for almost everything we put on this floor. don't blame democrats for the failure to bring 218 republicans to your bipartisan lucas-supported and peterson-supported piece of legislation to the floor. we believe that that loss, that partisanship in this bill hurt farmers, hurt consumers, hurt our country. let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it. that was reported out in a bipartisan basis. i think it would pass. maybe not because of your votes, that's been your problem all

along. don't blame democrats for the loss of that bill. don't blame democrats for being partisan. you knew those amendments -- yes, we knew about them, mr. leader. just as you knew about them. and you knew we were very much opposed to some of those amendments. notwithstanding the fact all the leadership, i believe, i haven't looked at the record, voted for those amendments just as they voted for the king amendment on homeland security. yeah, you pushed my button. i'm prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion. but i'm not prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion when it said, this is what we agree on, meaning your side, so you better take it if we're going to have any agreement. that's not the way it works. it never worked that way in america. that's not what america's about. america's about expecting us to work together. this bill was reported out overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis, could have been passed on a very large bipartisan vote and was precluded by the actions taken through these amendments on the floor.

most of which we did not support. and you knew we did not -- your party knew that we did not support. so i'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there's nothing, nothing to do on the budget conference that you wanted the senate to pass a budget. they did. you have just told me that you wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we could work together. you're assuming of course that the senate would have gone to conference. i hope they would have. i think they would have. because i've talked to the chair. she would have wanted to go to conference. assuming we got votes on the republican side of the aisle. but we also want to go to conference in regular order on the budget to solve the stark differences between the two parties. that's the only way you're going to get from where we are to where we need to be. by having a conference and trying to come together with an agreement. my own premise is, mr. leader, that you don't have a conference because there's nothing to which

patty murray could agree, that mr. ryan could agree, that he could bring back to your caucus and get a majority of votes for it. because they are for what you passed and nothing more than that. we're $891 billion apart. -- we're $91 billion apart. and if we divided in two, just said, ok, we'll split the difference, you couldn't pass it on your side of the aisle and i think you know that. i yield -- i don't know that i have any more questions. i don't know they'd be particularly useful. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say as far as the budget conference is concerned, you know, the budget is something that traditionally, as he notes, has been a partisan affair. it is a document that each house produces reflecting the philosophy of the majority of those bodies. and the budget contains a lot of

different issues, two of which i think the parties have disagreed on on the last several years. taxes and health care -- on over the last several years. taxes and health care. we understand, mr. speaker, that the other side rejects our prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded liabilities on the health care programs. but we've said we want to work towards a balance. we think a balanced budget is a good thing. unfortunately, mr. speaker, the partisan position on the other side of the capitol is no balance. no balance and raise taxes. so when you know that is the situation, there is no construct in which to even begin a discussion. again, the budget has traditionally been that, a partisan document. and then to be a guide by which you go about spending bills

after that. the farm bill frankly is a little different. it's for working farmers, it's for, frankly, individuals who need the benefit of the food stamp program. we believe, we believe that you need to reform the snap program. and reduce some of the costs because even the g.a.o., the independent auditors that we bring in, year in and year out say that that program is rife with error rates, waste and others that we should be ashamed of. so we put forward our idea through the southerland amendment to try and reform, put in place those reforms. but it's still in the construct of the farm bill. again, to the gentleman's point, we do want to work together, but it's going to have to be about setting aside differences and instead of saying, as the minority leadership did today, you disagree with us on that program, we're out of here, and

the entire farm bill then does not have a chance to go to conference, be reconciled, hopefully reforms adopted, so we can make some progress, according to what even the -- say ent analyst says should be -- analysts say should be done. it is a disappointing day. i think the minority has been a disappointing player today, mr. speaker, on the part of the people. but we remain ready to work with the gentleman. i'm hopeful that tomorrow, perhaps next week will be a better week and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. mr. speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the democrats for his inability and the republicans' inability to give a majority vote to their own bill. maybe the american people he thinks can be fooled. you're in charge of the house, you have 234 members. 6 of your members voted -- 62 of your members voted against your bill. that's why it failed.

we didn't whine, very frankly, when we were in charge, when i was the majority leader, about, we didn't pass the bill. we got 218 votes for our bills. and it was pretty tough. we got zero from your side. you got 4 from our side to help you -- 24 from your our side to help you -- from our side to help you. mr. peterson stuck to his deal. on the budget you say, we have different philosophies. yes, we do. mr. gingrich gave a speech on this floor about different philosophies in 1997 or 1998. and the speaker on your side of the aisle was talking about the perfectionist caucus. he made an agreement with president clinton which to some degree was responsible for having balanced the budgets. but your side thought it was not a good deal. not all of your side. on a bipartisan vote, frankly, we passed the deal, the agreement, the compromise that was reached between mr. gingrich and mr. clinton. but a lot of your folks said,

no, no, our way or the highway. and he gave as you -- and he gave a speech that he called the perfectionist caucus speech. that's what in my view i'm hearing on the budget. yes, we have differences. the american people elected a democratic president, they elected a democratic senate and a republican house. the only way america's board of directors and president will work is if we come together in compromise. the place to compromise under regular order is in a conference. with our ideas and their ideas meeting in conference. the most central document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. but you're not going to conference. your side will not appoint conferees. your side will not move to go to conference. patty murray wants to go to conference. senator reid wants to go to conference. your side over in the senate won't go to conference.

in my view, largely because they know you don't want to go to conference and they don't want to make a deal. they don't want to compromise on position is. so, we will take no blame for the failure of the farm bill. none, zero. as much as you try to say it, you can't get away from the statistic, 62, otherwise known as 25% of your party, voted against a bill. which is why we didn't bring it to the floor last year when it was also reported out on a bipartisan fashion. so i know you're going to continue and your side's going to continue to blame us that you couldn't get the votes on your side for your bill, because you took a bipartisan bill and that's what mr. lucas was saying. i thought he was very articulate. i thought he was compelling. in pleading with your side, join us, join us. it doesn't go as far as we'd like and you talk about reform

and that's a good thing to talk about, like we're against reform. the senate bill has reform in it, mr. leader. the senate bill has reform in it . now, it's not -- in terms of dollars, cutting poor people as much as this bill does, but it cuts. it has reform in it. what southerland wants, what apparently your side wants is your reform, not a compromise reform. mr. lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and couched it as reform and said on the floor, it may not be enough for some and it may be too much for others but it is a compromise. he was right. . ment -- but it was rejected by 25% of your party, rejected by unless the gentleman wants to say something further, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what reason does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. on monday, june 24, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. are there any requests for one-minute speeches? for what reason does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. speaker, politics trumped good government today in the u.s. house of representatives. members of this body demonstrate add failure to lead by voting down the farm bill. the federal government currently operates a costly maze of duplicative and outdated agriculture spending programs. the farm bill crafted by the

house reflected a fiscally responsible plan that would have ended the abuses of food stamps. ended wasteful agricultural spending programs. achieved a level of efficiency for existing programs that should be replicated in all areas of government. the farm bill would have eliminated automatic enrollment in food stamps, and prevent fraudulent payments by requiring states to verify eligibility for the program. it would have ended the economically disruptive policies that worked to further destabilize our dairy markets. the bill transitioned to a more free market approach that's better for farmers and taxpayers alike. in the absence of this comprehensive reform package, the overspending and taxpayer waste will now continue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what reason the gentleman from california rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here today is a failure to communicate.

i'm truly disappointed in this house because the bill, the farm bill that we just voted on, and did not pass, was not ready because it was not balanced and it did not follow the rules as it should have. in cardenas: $20 billion from the mouths of the poorest children and families in america, that's one of the reasons why i voted no on that bill. i also voted against the bill in part because we did not even debate an amendment that i also endorsed which was the denham-schrader amendment that. would have been the appropriate thipping to do, the proper order. we didn't take the proper order. i think it's very important for all of us to understand that what we witnessed here today wasn't a failure of government, it was a failure of some individuals to do the right thing and to even follow the rules that they say that they want to follow. and that's why we don't have a farm bill that passed. hopefully we can get back on track, follow the rules, and pass a farm bill very soon. thank you very much. i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what reason does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks the 50th anniversary of national small business week. each year we devote one week to recognize the importance of small businesses and to honor their successes. while it is admirable to devote a week to small businesses, what we have to remember is that every week is small business week. and that the family farm which we discussed here on the floor today was in fact the original small business. small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the engines of job creation. and over half of americans own or are employed by a small business. mr. speaker, there are 30 million small businesses in the united states, and they create seven out of 10 new american jobs each and every year. small businesses are the key to economic prosperity. the government does not create

jobs. american small businesses create jobs. the government and its lawmakers should do everything in their power to cultivate an ideal environment for small businesses to grow and prosper by removing roadblocks to growth and building economic certainty. we need to keep the focus on the american worker and on small businesses. we need to remember that every week is small business week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. further requests for one minute? for what reason does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise reluctantly to express my

disappointment in today's proceedings. i'm one of those democrats who voted for a bipartisan product coming out of committee. but unfortunately today the bill that we saw come out of committee became an extremely partisan product towards the end. i hope that as we continue because one of the challenges for me was that i'm a firm believer in the snap program. mr. gallego: it's an anti-hunger safety net that serves vulnerable children and seniors across our country. the average been fit -- benefit is $4.50 a day. that's a life line not a luxury. in 2010 snap held more than 3.6 million people in texas afford food. it's critical to children and seniors. in the 23rd congressional district there's 36,000 households in the district receiving snap. the vast majority are households with working class families.

working class families with young kids. today was a disappointment. i was perfectly prepared to work for a product that we could get to conference. i had my card to vote green. but it seemed and watching the debate here, the finger pointing immediately the blame on who did what to who is just so frustrating, because the truth is that we have got to get somewhere in the middle. and when you continually offer these amendments that move us further and further off the middle and move us further and further and further to the right, it makes it increasingly difficult to support what should be a bipartisan bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. for your time. the speaker pro tempore: what reason the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. most of america would ask the question, what happened here today? i can proudly say what happened here today is the little hand of a hungry child, raised it up and said what about me? you can talk about farms and little ones and big ones. and i'm a big supporter of our agricultural production in this nation. it is from the soil. but i am very glad that we stood up for the children who are faced and confronted with $20 billion in cuts from something that stamps out hunger. households with children receive about 75% of all food stamp benefits. but, mr. speaker, we didn't want to just stop there. we didn't want to just take food from 200,000 hungry children. we wanted to be sure if you were a disabled parent with a young child, don't have childcare, can't find a job, your snap money wouldn't be give to you by

the state and they would be able to keep t we didn't want to take food out of a hungry child's mouth, we wanted to slap them down. we wanted to make sure that the state would be grinning by saying ha-ha-ha. not only do you not get food but in the same breath we get to keep the money. we are better than this as america. we can do better. this bill was defeated because the hand of a hungry child was able to be heard on the floor of this house. i'm glad that i stand -- stood with the hungry child and stamped out hunger. in that child's heart, stomach, and mind. today, a child's voice sweet and quiet as it is, mr. speaker, was loud and clear. don't take food from me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentlelady's time has expired. for what reason -- under the speaker's announced policy of

january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. it's not often that you're able to come back to the podium as soon as i have been able to do so. i thank him for his courtesies. nd i come with a number of concerns. i started this week in the middle of the week to speak about unfinished business. but first i want to celebrate day this week a that many of us commemorate. in fact it is moving to become a national recognition. it's something, it is called june teenth. today is june 20th. yesterday june 19th was

juneteent. i didn't get a chance to explain what juneteenth meant on the floor of the house and i wanted to do so. for in 1865 the captain of a union army arose and arrived on the shores of galveston, texas, to let the then slaves who had not been noticed who had not been free in 1863 when on january 1, when president lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, finally the union came to our shores in texas and led a whole flock of slaves who were still working and toiling, unpaid, in conditions that were obviously unsatisfactory because no one should hold slaves. finally in 1865 on june 19th

those in texas and places to the west were free. so it is a day of freedom. when i talk to children about juneteenth, i said it is living freedom. it is accepting the values of this great nation that turned, i hope, forever against the idea of holding others as slaves. and it moves this nation forward even in difficulty of women not being able to vote, and african-americans moving from reconstruction into jim crowism in the terrible times of the 1900's, and as well moving into the time of second class citizenship, all the way through world war ii as president truman integrated the united states military. but it moved the country to a desire for freedom and opportunity. so juneteenth is a day of jubilation. it's a day when families gather together, but it is a very

important historic time. it is a historic time, if you ill, to be able to, in fact, acknowledge what has been wrong can be fixed. for it wasn't a pleasant time to, in essence, work as a slave, be held as a slave, be captured as a slave some 18 months almost to now almost two years after the emancipation proclamation. i say that because i wanted to explain further why something that had traditionally been bipartisan -- we love the farm life. for those who experienced it, those who read about it, and often in my tenure here in the united states congress, urban members and rural members came

together to pass a bill that generated not only food for america, but food for the world. let us be very clear that we took pride today to vote no because sometimes you have to listen and understand that there are things greater than your own selfish interests. i don't know what reason caused the implementation or the addition of a $20 billion cut to the snap program, who had to be atisfied to put that gigantic, unsympathetic, cruel cutting of food from the plates of americans. snap has no region, it has no racial identity. it has no age identity. it is, frankly, americans who are in need. let me share with you some numbers. households with children receive about 75% of all food stamp

benefits. that immediately quashes the stereotype that deadbeats get food stamps. 23% of households include a disabled person. 18% of households include an elderly person. the food stamp program increases households spending, increases greater than that would occur with an equal benefit in cash, these people are not asking for cash. they are asking for you to allow them to be able to buy decent food so there is nutrition and nourishment, but, again, what motivated a $20 billion cut that had never been implemented in a agricultural bill? that many of us voted on in a bipartisan manner. . did anyone listen to the chairman of the federal reserve? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message.

the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas may proceed. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. we pass -- paused for a message from the president. and that is the protocol of this house. but the chairman of the federal reserve just said yesterday that the economy is percolating, that it's doing all that it needs to do, that they are not going to reduce interest rates yet. but they're monitoring it because jobs are being created, not enough. but the economy is finding ways to restore itself. it was good news for some of our cliege students, finding more -- college students, finding more jobs than they found last year as a college graduate.

and so the idea that we need to continue to punish the american people, to wound ourselves because there's something out this alled the deficit, continue-to-undermine- government standard that everyone wants to use, there is a deficit but it's been steadily coming down because it's about tightening. but now we want to go beyond the belt tightening. we want to go beyond the family of four that says, you know what, we're not going to go out as much, we're going to have some more cereal than we used to have. no, we're going to tell the family of four, no, you're not going to have any cereal. just wake up in the morning and drink water. we're going to take everything away. and maybe you'll have one meal a day. this is absurd. and it is not the american way. every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice

as much, $9.20 in total community spending. the economics of snap, food, supports programs that benefit everyone by preventing new food deserts from developing. the impact of snap funds coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable. areas of grocery stores and supermarkets, more jobs for people. snap funds going into local food economies also make the cost of food for everyone less expensive. it is clear that the snap program is a valuable program. in fact, snap is the largest domestic program in the american domestic hunger safety net. the food and nutrition service program supported by snap work with state agencies, nutrition educators and neighborhoods as well as faith-based organizations to assist those

eligible for nutrition assistance. food and nutrition service programs also work with state partners in the retail community so improve program administration and work to ensure the programs' integrity. but let me tell you, beyond the $20 billion, let me provide you with what else occurred. not only did the $20 billion be in the underlying bill, but that wasn't enough. they offered an amendment on the $3.-- $31 ke another billion this looks. it might be $31 billion to make it an estimated $31 billion in cuts. if that isn't outrageous, i don't know what is. literally not only are they taking the food, but they're taking the table, the utensils and leaving you with a

good-looking floor if that's what you have or a rough floor. to simply go there and admire food. this is an outrageous addition. cutting off benefits of two million americans extra who struggle to find work, secretary ofering the tie between liheap and snap, which is the dollars that supplement those who are not able to pay their energy bills in the cold of the winter. how could you? penaltyizing those who don't abide by the necessary burdensome job search, if you ed child. able this is what was on the floor. not just taking food away but literally dismantling the table. oh, that wasn't enough. then they wanted to do this. this looks like a great idea. as you well know, varyying states have different economic

positions. some states are thriving. because of the industry that they have. a state like texas has an energy base, oil-based economy. some states have other kinds of economies. and those economies are coming back. but there are still poor people and people without jobs. and this is what the snap program is for. it is not for fraud, waste and abuse. i don't have any problem with oversight. but how dare you take food away from children? cutting out school lunches, cutting out school breakfasts that sometimes are the difference between a child learning and surviving. but, that wasn't enough. listen to another amendment that was offered and passed on the floor of the house. it makes the snap policies, this amendment, even worse than what i've just discussed. it would allow states to pocket, put in their pocket, smack their lips, roll their hands, the

savings if they cut people off of the supplemental nutrition program. that means disabled, parents with young children who don't have child care, those who are unable to find work in the area that they're in because there are no jobs available in that community, and there are census data and census tracks where you can't find jobs. this amendment would provide no funding for job search or job creation to help recipients of the snap program find work. and it places no restrictions on what states can use the bonus moneys that they put in their pocket for. oh, they can scroll it for all kinds of unnecessary extras, if you will. maybe they can do extra security for roaming elected officials. and when i say that, our state is quarreling over whether it should have paid security costs

for our governor. or maybe it could throw a few extra parties, maybe it could build another bridge to nowhere. i'd be happy to yield in just -- as i finish this sentence. what will they do with putting this money, money out of the mouths of babes, in their pocket? i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding and because it is with a full heart that i come to the well of the house and address the members to say that the gentlelady from texas and i didn't see eye-to-eye on every part of this bill, although we are in the same party. and those of us who are new to this congress, who came here because we heard that the american people wanted us to work together and solve problems, those of us on the agriculture committee approached this bill with an open mind and with a willingness to

compromise. and we did so. we worked together to include in this bill the best combination of things we thought would help the american people and in my case the people of the hudson valley. and that meant we also tolerated things that we disagreed with very strongly, mr. speaker. but we moved the process forward because we believed that if we brought it to the floor of the house and if the house passed it and we sent it to conference with the senate, that we would be able to accept the compromise in good faith that this body worked out. but what happened today on the floor of the house of representatives was that the extremism of a small number of people has set back progress for the rest of us. once again insistence on something so extreme has defeated good-faith efforts like those of my colleagues, particularly the new members of congress, on thing a cull --ing a -- on the agriculture committee who wanted to reach a compromise, to help our dairy

farmers in particular, to help our conservation efforts, to help our beginning farmers. mr. maloney: to help folks with flood milt gation, particularly in the black dirt county. we thought we could work together. and what we saw today, what we learned today was that extremism is still alive and well on the floor of this house and that there are those who would rather destroy the fragile efforts at bipartisan cooperation than work together on something that we can all move forward together with that will help the american people and help our farmers. the southerland amendment, which the gentlelady has properly described, is so punitive, so mean-spirited that it would deny basic food assistance to women with small children, to people with disabilities. it would require work where there is no work. it is not designed to be reform, it is designed to kill this bill. and it succeeded in that purpose today. by destroying the good-faith efforts of those of us who worked together. once again, tea party extremism

has destroyed the efforts of people of good faith to make progress and get results. it is a sad day in the house of representatives and it's a tough education for those of us who have come here ready to work together across the aisle and who have prove -- proven that with our votes in a bipartisan fashion to move this bill forward, despite the presence of things we didn't like. aped call on my colleagues -- and i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring this bill back to the floor because it matters. it matters for our farmers, it matters for our communities in the hudson valley and we can work together to improve it but we must stop these destructive efforts to stop all progress. and thank the gentlelady and i yield back. ms. jackson lee: i applaud the gentleman for his honesty and for his work. because as i began this debate we have always voted in a bipartisan manner on the farm bill. for those of us in the urban in s that have -- or live

states with large pockets of rural areas, we are well aware that we are the bread basket of the world. and when we travel the world we are always eager to see the food products. that has been our name. that's been what america's known for. not only its generosity and its heart but it's willing to feed the hungry. and as i indicated, who could raft an amendment that would deep-six this bill, adding insult to the $20 billion that i know the gentleman indicated we were looking to compromise in the conference. but to say to the gentleman, we all would hope the bill will come back and maybe it might even come back with the recognition that the $20 billion is spiking too high. but certainly the southerland amendment and the one previously that did not pass, that wanted to cut even more from the $20 billion, is -- it is too, if i

might say it's an oxymoron between the farm and those who need to eat. we always work together. that we were able to produce products and enough food to give those who are hungry and those who could not find work. and i want to make mention of the fact, as the gentleman said, that included in taking their checks away from them or their food, not their checks, were the disabled, parents with young children. so i want to thank the gentleman for his words and of course for his leadership, for his area, but also on this topic. so that is two members from two distinct places, democrats who would have been able to come and find a reasoned way to address this bill. might i also say that i do thank the committee for acknowledging an amendment, to be able to reach out. my amendment, the jackson lee amendment, that was included, but i'm willing to sacrifice

that amendment, that was to reach out and create opportunities for minority businesses, women-owned businesses, family farmers, black farmers who have been discriminated against for eons under the agricultural department. my amendment would have caused a pacific outreach to these individuals and i'm glad for it. was able to support the mcgovern amendment which had an offset that i believe was a proper offset, that would have put the money, $20 billion, back in. again, i want to remind my colleagues, our deficit is going down, our economy is percolating. i didn't say it was perfect. i didn't say everyone had a job. what i did say is that we're making progress. why are we continuing to do injury to those who cannot speak for themselves? i do not know. and again, i was eager to see in this bill, to be able to work with more urban gardens,

community gardens, what we call victory gardens. they've been successful in the city of houston, in acres home, in fact, in fifth ward. i see them as progress, the growing of food, the putting food on the tables, healthy food, of people who don't have the means to get good vegetables and to be able to use those urban gardens, to teach children, to help families come together and to be able to take home good food. i want to pay tribute to the houston food bank in my congressional district that has brought so many people together. but i can tell that you they're not lacking in business and the $20 billion of this snap program going down, meaning -- being taken away, one of the largest food banks in america would have been impacted negatively. by the idea of the nutrition

program. i wanted to mike sure we had an assessment of helping older americans, having accessible and affordable nutrition. one of my amendments that tnt get in. when we see older americans we can tell that they're making choices between food and obviously their medicine, their prescription. i wanted to make sure we had a special commitment to helping them build up their access to nutritious food along with those who suffer with disabilities. i wish that had goten -- gotten. in then i wanted to make sure we did not turn our backs on obesity, juvenile obesity, and just this week, the medical community has joined and name odd beesity as a disease. my amendment would have had a sense of congress that encourages food items being provided pursuant to the federal school breakfast and school lunch program and that the kind of nutritious items to be

selected so we can bring down the incidence of juvenile obesity and maximize nutritional value and take away the possibility of our children not having the right kind of nutrition. so i am eager to get back to the drawing board but i walk through neighborhoods that suffer from the lack of access to food. and as well, i'm aware of something called food deserts, where the only place that you can buy is the local gasoline -- gas station location. maybe you can find an apple or banana but mostly what you're going to find is a lot of, if you will, the other kind of food. some have called it junk food. it's pretty tasty, make sure there's a market for it, it's always good to have fun, but to raise hat you have children to provide for those

who are ill, disabled, parents who cannot work, that's not where they should be shopping. food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading, fewer places to access fresh fruit, proteins and other foods. that's why this bill is important, to help out small farmers but also to help those get assistance, and by the way, the supplemental nutrition program is not welfare because there are many people who are working, who are on food stamps, but their income is such that they cannot provide for the nutritious food for their children. the main insult is the loss of these dollars for our breakfast and lunch program that no matter whether you're living in rural america or urban america, your child has the ability to have a good, warm, hot meal for lunch and for breakfast to get them started and ready to learn. and therefore it avoids the

metabolic function that comes from malnutrition that causes the breaktown in tissue, for example, the lack of pro teen in a diet leads to disease, decay of teeth and bones. another example of health disparities and food deserts are the presence of fast food establishments. again, it's good to have fun but if that's all you eat you know that's not going to make for a healthy young person, child, in the growing years, maturing year the years that their cognitive skills are going, the years they're strengthening their physical being in order to grow into an adult that will be healthy. so many of us took the snap challenge, the supplemental nutrition challenge to live on $4.50 and i went to the groastry store and i was so scared about -- grocery store and i was so

scared about going over, i bought one apple, one banana, two apricots, i bought an avocado and a tomato and two potatoes and i was calculating in my mind because this was $4.50 for the day. area.went to the meat and looked at, of all things, chopped meat, hamburger meat, i couldn't find anything that would even fit, they were all $5, $4, i kept looking, cheese, too expensive, i found something in a package called smoked chicken and in this store they had it for 58 cents, processed chicken, and i said that i can use for protein. and so the meal in my mind was going to be an apricot, a banana for breakfast. lunch, boil a potato with sliced

tomatoes which you would save for your big meal, your dinner. but every day, a family has to look at $4.50 to have their meal and so for anyone that thinks that this is a bunch of folk who enjoy getting these food stamps to have a jolly good time, i'm glad that i experienced that purchase and what you get for $4.50. and on the floor of the house today, there were those who were willing to put up a bill that would take $20 billion and literally, as i started to say, and have said, dismantle the kitchen, the dismantle the table, take the utensils and just say plop down on the floor. as we came to the end of the bill, that was not enough.

the southerland amendment came rward and -- the -- came forward and said not only are we going to insult you, take away the table and utensils, we're going to make it a boondoggle, we'll make it a fwambling opportunity for our state. we're going to let them throw the dice. how many can you get off of snap? and if you get them off, you'll be able to pocket the money. we don't want to control what you do with it, we're not going to suggest you put it in education or maybe give back to the schools so they can get a different kind of meal for the child that's lost the breakfast program. no, we don't care. you're just going to pocket the money. nd run off into the hills. states have many burdens. i'm a champion of our states. i love my state. but i've seen the tough debates that my state legislators have had fighting to get a few

parcels for food, for education dollars, for infrastructure dollars. so i know it's tough. but as i said, some states are a little bit more better off than others. it's all about priorities. and i can only say, mr. speaker, that today we didn't commend ourselves well. i want to go back, i want to be able to, if you will, i want to be able to put the table, the utensils back, the table cloth, i want to be able to have a poor family have a nutritious meal. i want to be able to have a child to have a lunch or a breakfast, i want a disabled person to be able to have the the right kind of food to help them in their illness. i want an elderly person to have their prescription drugs and as well to be able to have food that will nourish them. i close, mr. speaker, by saying that i spoke about unfinished

business. and as we go forward, i join my colleague from new york, call upon the good people of this house, who represent the good americans of this nation, to come back together and find a way that passes a farm bill that does not put on the sacrificial table of destruction poor people who through no fault of their own are unemployed or disabled or have children or are only able to be able to support the children and provide for them in this way because they live in an area where there are no jobs. they hope there'll be jobs. they want there to be jobs. at this point, it hasn't come. i conclude my remarks by saying, and a list of things that we must do as unfinished business, i look forward as well to us being able to join the mothers that stood with me earlier this week, mothers that demand

action, and they ask me about the idea of protecting their children with sensible gun legislation that will prevent gun violence. i hope among other initiatives, universal background checks, we'll look to laws that will require the storage of one's gun, none of which have im-- can impact or take away from the second amendment. then i hope in unfinished business we will continue to find in a bipartisan way a pathway forward for helping those individuals who came to this country through no fault of their own, who have come to this country, are working, don't want to do us harm but simply want to find a way to stay in a country that they love and as well to say to the american people that we take no, no shortness in your need and commitment for border security. i don't see why we can't do it all. that is not unheard of. it's not impossible. it frankly is something that we

can do. i want to close by saying that i am a person that loves the constitution, believes in the bill of rights, the first amendment, the freedom of the press, speech, fourth amendment that protects you against unreasonable search and seizure, the griswold supreme court case along with the ninth amendment on the question of privacy so i'm going to make a commitment to my colleagues that we work together on the issue of ensuring the american people's civil liberties while we ensure our national security. we can do both. i've introduced legislation that would ask for a study of all of the outside contractors that are in the intelligence business and to present that study to the united states congress and ensure that all those who have top secret clearance are doing it in the name of this nation. otherwise, to present a plan to reduce that usage by 25%, by

2014. that is only the fairway. because certainly, we must have oversight to who has access to your private information and is it access to secure this nation? i stand with them if that's the case but i ask them, why are persons far flung and unsupervised with top secret credentials such as the individual who has decided to leak a number of information that is now being assessed, we ve to ask the question, is credentials, do they meet the test? are private contractors making a review of these individuals and assessing them and giving them clearance or if not, not supervising them, i have to ask that question. then i would say that it is important that where you can be presented opinions, that deal with something we call the fisa court, where we deal with something that we call the fisa court which is the court that we

go into to protect your rights and to be able to go into and make dergeses about whether or not there is surveillance. i would say to you that upons that will not impact on national security or classified information can be shown to the american people. there's nothing wrong with that. so i am looking forward to working in a bipartisan way on unfinished business. and i can only say, plng, in my final entreat to this body, the one thing we should not do is to take the little hand of a child and to push it back from the table or from food and what we did today was just that. i want a farm bill but today i was proud to stand with the children of america who are better off because they've been able to stamp out hunger through a program called snap. supplemental nutrition program. and will continue to do so until

we get it right. our children are our precious resource. that -- with that, mr. speaker, wreeled back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege of being recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. i won't at this time take up all the issues that were raised in the previous 45 minutes of so, mr. speaker. -- or so, mr. speaker. instead, i would like to talk about two topics, one of those topics is the topic of the farm bill, which historically new york a sad way, failed here on the house of representatives within the last hour or so. hour and a half. and the first thing i want to

y about that is that the chairman of the ag committee, frank lucas of oklahoma, has conducted himself in a fashion that is deserving and receives my admiration and should that of his constituents and the people in this country. one of the most difficult balances to achieve in any bill that we produce here in congress is that five-year, we call it the farm bill, the five-year farm bill that has roughly 80% nutrition in it, about 20% agriculture in it. each five years we try to write the best formula and look into the crystal ball for the next five years as well as we can and it takes the chairman of the ag committee, the least partisan of the committees here on the hill, to direct the committee staff, which are very experienced, some of the best staff people we have here on the hill, to work with the ag staff of the democrat side, the opposite party, and

work with the ranking member to try to bring together such a variety of issues that have to do with sugar and dairy and crop insurance and nutrition and the qualifications for nutrition, piece after piece of this, it's like a huge accordion, and the chairman of that committee has got to make decisions on each component of that huge accordion to try to get it lined up in a way that if you go a little too far into the necessary reduction in the food stamp side, you lose votes over here on the democrat side. if you don't take enough money out of agriculture you lose it over here on the conservative side and on the other hand, if you don't have enough subsidy, you lose votes on the democrat side. this is a very difficult balance, mr. speaker. and the marriage between the farm bill and the nutrition component of this, or the

agriculture component, and the nutrition component that we eroneous -- eroneously call the farm bill here because of the history, that marriage was created out of necessity because the farm program could not be passed on its own, there were too many opponents to that. and nut trigs program had too much opposition -- nutrition program had too much opposition on its own them. married both together and each five years or so, and it hasn't happened every five years, it's been dialed together as closely as possible and asked for cooperation from democrats and republicans to finally come together and pass a bill. frank lucas put that together as perfectly as i think it could be done. i think, mr. chairman, that he was a maestro in the way he orchestrated all of this. and i watched as we went through the committee markup, we did one last year and couldn't get floor time to debate a bill. and so the work of the committee wasn't necessarily wasted because we started again this year. and we began to put the pieces

together again and we had a long markup of the bill, an extended markup of the bill, not as long as it was the previous year, and the pieces came tote and here's what it needed. it needed to have a strong bipartisan support coming out of committee before it was going to get floor time. and it needed to have a prospect, a reasonable prospect of 218 vote here's on the floor of the house before that floor time would be granted. and, as we've seen from the speaker, he has consistently said that he wants to see the house work its will. now, he let that happen on a continuing resolution and -- in january or i'll say february of 2011, and we did 92 hours of debate here on the floor under an open rule and every aspect of the budget -- on every aspect of the budget. that was the house working its will and that was the longest and most expressive way that i have seen this house work its will. but the rules committee here on the farm bill that came out of

the ag committee allowed a full series of amendments here on the floor. the chairman spoke to that number. i think he said over 100 amendments here on the floor. and yes there was an agreement made under unanimous consent to pass a group of them they were not contentious en bloc, as we say. i think there was a real sincere effort to work a bill out here on the floor that would come to a conclusion that received 218 votes. and today, mr. speaker, we saw an example of when that didn't work. when an amendment or two or three went on that were more of an objection to that careful and delicate balance that had been put together by frank lucas. and in the end, when the votes could not come together, in a very rare thing, a five-year bill that actually has been six years since we passed one, failed here on the floor of the house of representatives. mr. speaker, i won't forget this day. and i hope that this congress, and hope the american people, and hope especially the

constituents of frank lucas remember the job that he has done. i don't ever remember seeing anybody in this congress work so wisely, so honestly, so justly, so carefully to put together something that had to be so carefully balanced, to have a glass of cold water thrown in his face which is what happened here on the floor today. so i wanted to express my regret that the farm bill failed here today. and my appreciation for frank lucas, for the subcommittee chairs and the ranking members that worked with us on this. those that gave their word and kept it. i thank all of them and, mr. speaker, i'm hopeful that the day will come that that work that has been earned is exonerated by a vote here on the floor of the house. in either case, i want the record to reflect my opinion and my appreciation for frank lucas. we've had a big week here, mr. speaker. and in this big week and this big day that i'll just call

yesterday, i look back on it after a full day and i wondered, one, how would one actually do all the things or accomplish -- that were accomplished yesterday? i just want to run through that narrative because it's fresh in my mind. and that is that yesterday we did did the longest press conference in the history of congress. i don't know what competition there might have been for that or who would want to have a long press conference. well, somebody who would want a long time to air out a huge issue and the issue was immigration. and i have believed for some weeks now, in fact two, or three months, that the machinery of this congress was set up to push immigration, and i'll call it comprehensive immigration reform, closed quote, which is of course the euphemism for amnesty, through this congress faster than the congress could adjust to it, learn about the policy within the issues and faster than the american people could learn about it and weigh

in. we always need to move at the pace of the american people so that they have a chance to let us know what they think and we have a chance to digest that policy and make those decisions. this immigration issue was moving too fast, i believed, and i believe that it was accelerate to do quickly in the united states senate. i believe that today. it's moving too quickly, without enough debate. it's too big a decision to be made. i believed and i believe that it's still moving too quickly through the house of representatives. and i would point out that there was a gang of eight in the senate, there remains a gang of eight in the senate, that had been meeting in private and holding some press conferences, talking about the things that they were attempting to do, that finally rolled out a bill. i think it was rolled out at 844 pages long. and the debate and the markup that took place in the judiciary committee in the united states senate was relatively long. there were a good number of amendments that were offered but

most of those votes, some might even say all of those votes, just came down the lines of whether they were part of the deal or whether they weren't part of the deal. it looked like the gang of eight had a deal going into the judiciary committee markup, it certainly came out of that with their deal in tact -- intact and it's to the floor of the united states senate today. that's fast and fast-tracked and while that's going on, the attention of the american people on this issue has been split between the united states senate and the house. there's been a working group, a bipartisan working group in the house also, in the senate it's four democrats and four republicans, on the gang of eight in the house i learned not that long ago that the working group was four democrats and four republicans. i also learned that the speaker encouraged their work and learned that they were working in secret for perhaps the last four years. well, it was in secret. i have i believe served more

time in the seat listening, hearing immigration information and reading through reports probably than anybody else on my side of the aisle over the last decade. although there are two or three that i think have a high level of expertise on immigration policy. my antenna aren't that weak here, mr. speaker, that i'm not picking up the signals of what's going on behind closed doors. we talked, we flew through here to vote, we meet with each other. but i didn't know there was a secret committee working here out of the house of representatives that had the blessing of the speaker. didn't know that until it was announced by the press some weeks ago. and the secret committee that didn't admit to its existence, some of them facetiously spoke about it as that secret committee, even though they finally admitted and the press i think ferreted this out i think that they were on this kevment this committee of four republicans and four democrats in the house of representatives that was secret. now it's not a committee of eight any longer, it's a

committee of eight minus one, at least as far as i know. their ability to produce a bill seems to have been stalled here in this congress. i'm not sorry about that. about the same time that that conclusion may have been drawn, i heard our speaker, i believe it was two weeks ago on friday, at his press conference, say he hoped to see immigration legislation pass out of the judiciary committee in the month of june. well, that was a surprise to me. and when the anones -- the announcement came shortly thereafter that we should clear our schedules for this week and next week as members of the judiciary committee to prepare for a markup on immigration, i saw that as a green flag that was cropped, that moves the immigration policy more quickly here in the house of representatives than i'm comfortable with but i do not criticize the conduct of our chairman of the judiciary committee. bob goodlatte is one of the more astute people on policy that we have in this congress.

he is a seasoned and knowledgeable and smart legislator and he sees the pieces that are move and understands what he needs to do to move the right pieces. and i have served with him on two committees now for more than 10 years. and yet the pace that's going through this congress may be a wise one. if ay be a wise one enforcement-first is what emerges here from the house of representatives. and if the bill in the senate can be slowed down or stopped in the senate. the consensus that i hear among the republican conference in the house of representatives is this, mr. speaker. stop the bleeding at the border, shut off the bleeding at the border, close the border, get that done. and when you get that done, then come back and talk about the other things. i'd make the point that when i came here, a little more than 10 years ago, i said then, let's stop the bleeding at the border.

we've got to close the border, i came to this floor and when people said, well, we can't -- i've advocated along that we should build a fence, a wall and a fence on our southern border and that fence, wall and fence that we can build on the border would be what would be -- would help to secure our border. i would agree that we would add to that sense i have devices, vibration sensors, motion detectors, you name it, add all that to it. but you simply cannot have enough border patrol agents to control 2,000 miles of border with the conditions that we have. they have to rotate shifts, they get their vacation, there's time off. it takes a lot of people on payroll to have enough people on the ground and we know that there's bleeding through that border, a lot that's crossing through the border. mr. speaker, i went down and did a surprise visit to a port of ntry in arizona and when i walked in there, they didn't know a member of congress was about ready to -- was showing up there, i spoke with the shift

supervisor and his name was mike kring and he has since passed away sadly, and i think he was a strong enforcement officer, he was well respected by his men that i saw around him. but i asked him about the frequency of the crossing there, at the legal crossing at the port of entry which is pretty much a rural port of entry. answered said, well this crossing isn't the busiest crossing near here, threans -- there's an illegal crossing east and west of me that's far business area. this is just our formal crossing. and that tells you something about what's going on at the border. we can close the border. we can do it with the resources that we have. i've long said that. i've not changed my position. i think it's stronger rather than weaker. and i maybe the only one that's actually gone back and done the work to calculate what we're spending to defend our southern border and these numbers are old, mr. speaker. that i'm about to quote here

this afternoon. they come to this, that when you add up -- there's a 15-mile area north of our southwest border, within that 50 miles, will you see border patrol agents, custom border protection agents, you'll see i.c.e. agents in there also and the effort that's done to control our border, also it's the cost of their vehicles, their communications, the benefits package, all of the things that we invest in that area, when you add that all up, and you divide it out by the 2,000 miles which is pretty close to the -- it's the best number to use for the length of the border, the southern border, you end up with this number. and this number would be adjusted upward, not downward, to get it more current than the roughly three years ago that i'm talking about. six million dollars -- $6 million a mile. we're spending $6 million a mile at a minimum every year to control our southern border. and we're getting, according to

border patrol testimony before the immigration subcommittee, about 25% enforcement. they think that of the 100 people that would try to cross the border, they might be stopping about 25%. it's probably gone a little better in the last couple of years -- gone a little betr in the last couple of -- gotten a little better the last couple of years, but when i ask the agents candidly, without identifying themselves and without going on public record, what percentage of the illegal border crossers are interdicted, the most consistent number i get is 10%, not 25%. some will smirk and say, or not really smirk but they'll just kind of snort and say, well, 3% or 4%. the real sean we don't know. they know more than we do. the 10% number seems to me to be more likely an accurate number than the 25% number, but think of this, at the peak of the illegal border crossings, we would have about 11,000 a night

that. comes from four million illegal crossing attempts a year. twice toe size of santa ana's army coming across our border every night on average. maybe those have been reduced by half. maybe. that's still the size of santa ana's army every night. and we're talking about whether we should legalize the people who came across that border and we're assuming by the argument of say, mr. gutierrez of illinois and many others, that they're all innocent people brought in by their parents, maybe against their will, certainly without their knowledge that there was anything wrong with it or illegal about it, that that's the universe of all the people that are unlawfully present in the united states are simply those who wanted to come to america for a better life. mr. speaker, i go down to the border. i sit alongside that fence at night.

i don't have night vision. but i have ears. and i can sit in the dark and i can hear the vehicles come down through the mesquite. when you hear the one with the bad muffler come back a second time and third time you know they're shuttling people to come across the border at night. within the last, say, hour after dark to the next two or three or four hours after dark is when the highest traffic is because they know they have to walk across the desert a long ways and they want to make as much time as they can before it becomes daylight where they might hole up or they might be picked up if they get to the highway north of there. i hear the mesquite scratch along the side of the vehicle, you hear the doors open, maybe 70, 0, 90, 100 yards south of the border, you hear the doors open. first they open the door, drop their pack on the ground, then they get out, close the door,

kind of quietly but it's still, it's a quiet slam of the door, you can hear them pick up their packs, whisper, you hear them walk through the brush and you can hear them cross the fence. when you're down there at night without night vision you sometimes think you see some things you don't see. if you ever sat around at night in pitch black dark and watched, your mind will play tricks on you. i can't say into the record, mr. speaker, that i saw good numbers of people walk across the border. i know i heard them. that's the only place they could have been going. i heard them going through the fence. i believe i saw the shah godos but i'm not certain of that particular component. i'm very confident that there are hundreds and hundreds of people who pour across that border at night and that number that i said is roughly half of 11,000, the size of santa ana's army which is 5,000 to 6,000 is roughly the number we will see every night.

now this border is wide open from that perspective. and all the people that came into america aren't those that are coming through that path and all those people coming into america across that border, sometimes you see a pack train of 75 and every one of them will have a pack of marijuana on their back and they're carrying it into the united states, smuggling into the united states. those people fit under the dream act definition too. if they came in to the united states before they were 16 and have been here whatever the length of time might be, if they came here before december 31, 2011, would be the senate version of the bill. i've been on the border, mr. speaker. and seen the shadow wolves interdict a smaugler, a marijuana smuggler coming through with a false bed in the box of a pickup truck that was extended downward about seven to nine inches and underneath that were the bails of -- bales of

marijuana, i unloaded them myself and took them to the scales where they were weighed and they weighed approximately 240 pounds. the reason for that -- 240 pounds. is because in some sectors of the border they don't have the ability to prosecute drug smugglers and so they set a limit, the prosecutors will set a limit. sometimes it's, you have to have more than 500 pounds of marijuana to have prosecuted. sometimes you have to have more than 250 pounds of marijuana to be prosecuted. the smugglers know that. i'm going to fwess that the sector i was in that day, the limit was, at least anticipated by the smugglers, to be 250 pounds. so they took it to 240 thounds and sent the guy through. he was caught. what we don't know is, was that a decoy so when all converge odden that smuggler, did another truck go through with tons of

marijuana. that tactic of using sometimes illegal crossings, sometimes going through the legal crossings we have. a lot of the border isn't marked. across new mexico there's a concrete pylon from horizon to the next horizon that's set there, you have to know what you're looking for to know what the border is, it's just open desert. i've flown most of that, a lot of that at night. i've also traveled, i'll say i've traveled probably every mile of our southern border with the exception of some of the miles along the texas border which zigzags quite a lot and i haven't covered all of that. mr. speaker, we can build a fence, a wall, and a fence, and we can do it with less money we're spending today on the southern border. over $6 million a mile on the southern border and to put this in perspective, to build an interstate across iowa cornfield, expensive now, expensive iowa cornfield, we can buy the right of way, pay for

the engineering, we can do the grading and the drainage work and the paving an the shouldering and the painting and the signage and the seeding and the fencing and open up a four-lane interstate highway for about $4 million a mile. and we're spending $6 million on every single mile of our southern border and we're getting something like 25% or less efficiency with what we have there. part of it is because the president has declared by executive edict, amnesty. and even though i think the border patrol is doing their job as well as they can within their limits it's clear that i.c.e. has been handcuffed. we had the president of the i.c.e. union, chris crain, testify before the congress, i think he's been nine time into this city within the last year and a half or so, doing a stellar job of pointing out that the law requires the federal

immigration officers to place into removal proceedings those people that they encounter that are unlawfully present in the united states. and it's their judgment on that that dictates. the president's prohibited them from doing so through the morton memo the morton memo that was been rejected by this congress in two ways within the last three weeks or so. one with a full vote of the house on the king amendment and the other a vote of the judiciary committee on the king amendment. we have in every way that we've had the opportunity rejected the idea that the president can simply make up immigration law out of thin air, decide that he can issue work permits, that he can legalize people that are here illegally, that he can, by executive edict, destroy the rule of law. destroy the rule of law. i often talk about the pillars of american exceptionalism. we are a great country, mr. speaker. and this great country that we

are relies upon this america that ronald reagan described as the shining city on the hill this city is built on the beautiful marble pillars of american exceptionalism. they are, many of them, within the bill of rights. freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly wrapped up in the first amendment to our constitution. there are property rights in the fifth amendment. there's a prohibition on double jeopardy, you get to be faced by your accuser and a jury of your peers, the states and personal rights that are reserved in the ninth and 10th amendment, all of those are pillars of american exceptionalism system of is free enterprise capitalism. if we had none of that, we wouldn't have the nation we are. if you build -- and i want to add to that, the core of our culture is judeo-christianity. we welcome people of all religions, the foundation of the american civilization is judeo-christianity. without it, we can't be the

america we are either. so think of this beautiful shining city on the hill that reagan so eloquently described for us, citying on the beautiful marble pillars of american exceptionalism, but i can't think of that city sitting there without also thinking of an essential pillar of exceptionalism called the rule of law. now if you would take a jackhammer and chisel away that marble pillar of american exceptionalism, which is freedom of speech, and destroy freedom of speech, the beautiful edifice of our shining city on the hill would crumble and fall. if you did the same thing to freedom of the press, our shining city on the hill would crumble and fall. if you took away our second amendment rights which i didn't mention but are a pillar of american exceptionalism, our other freedoms would crumble and fall and tyrants would take over. if you put people subject to

double jeopardy, we wouldn't be the society we are and the rule of law wouldn't be what it was. if you destroy the rule of lew if you have contempt for the rule of law if the supreme court disregarded the rule of law and if they ruled on interpreting their law to be their whim, their wish, not the very definition of the supreme law of the land being our constitution, and as the president so well described march 28, 2011, before a high school here in washington, d.c., when he was asked, why don't you just implement the dream act by executive order, his answer was, to the students who were listening, i don't have the constitutional authority to do that. you've been studying the constitution, you as students know that it's the job of the legislature to pass the laws, the job of the executive branch to enforce the laws, and the job of the judicial branch to interpret the laws.

now that's an accurate description as should aptly come from a former adjunct professor of constitutional law at the university of chicago, that is our president he knew what he was talking about. and that description was consistent with his oath of office, mr. speaker. the oath of office is defined within our constitution, it's specific, it has been concluded with, so help me god, for a long time. but within that oath there's also the oath to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the united states. and in the constitution, it requires the president of the united states, our chief executive law enforcement officer and command for the chief, to, quote, take care that the laws be faithfully executed. close quote. that doesn't mean, mr. speaker, execute the law, it doesn't mean

execute the rule of law. it doesn't mean execute the constitution itself. it means you take an oath and your job is to uphold the law. take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the president has defied his own oath of office. he's defied the rule of law. he's defied the constitution. and he said, i'm not going to enforce the law. i'm not going to enforce the laws that i don't like. i disagree with some of the immigration policy that's been passed by congress and signed by one of his predecessors, in fact, signed by bill clinton, he's refusing to enforce those kind of laws. that does great damage to the constitution. and it throws the balance of the three branches of government out of whack. and our founding fathers imagined that there would be competition for power and influence between the three branches of goth. they envisioned it always with three branches of government,

the legislative branch, the executive brafpblg and the judicial branch of government. this congress is in article one. that means we are more the voice of the people than any other branch of government. it was the first and most important branch. but they also knew they had to have a strong chief executive a strong president a strong command for the chief. the experiences they went through in fighting a revolutionary war with the continental congress told them you can't have a strong national defense without a strong -- without a strong command for the chief. they established that. and they established the balance between the legislative branch in article one and the executive branch in article two and also the balance, and i think to a slightly lesser degree, between the judicial branch. but think of it as a triangle. and as -- and they envisioned that each branch of government would seek to expand its power. that's human nature. you want want more power than

you actually have. whether you take this thing from the pope to the president, right on down the line to senators, which have 1/100th of the pow ore they have senate chamber, house members that have 1/435th of the house chamber. we want to have more influence, get your hands on a gavel or become the majority leader, minority leader, the speaker of the house and the former speaker of the house just walked across this floor, mechanic -- mr. speaker, she would understand that, as we all do. in a family, you want more influence. if the patriarch of the family is the one who writes the rules you grate a little underneath that. that's a natural thing to always try to grab more power. they knew it was human nature system of they set up this balance between the three branches of government. . but they envisioned that each branch of government would protect its constitutional

authority and not concede it to the use of some other branch of government. they envisioned that congress would try to grow in its influence in authority and they gave the president veto power so he could veto the overreach potentially of the house and the senate together. they balanced the house and the senate so that this hot cup of coffee or hot cup of tea they were thinking here in the house of representatives, which can be a quick reaction for us when things go wrong in america, a new crop of house members come in with the freshest of vigor that comes from the american people, and they set about changing things. that's a two-year election cycle. we saw that in 2010 when 87 new freshmen republicans came into the house of representatives. every single one of them having run on the office on the promise to repeal obamacare. every single one. meanwhile, while the house was being heated up, the senate itself, which, if all -- excuse me, if all senators rather than

roughly 1/3 of them were up for election each sickle, i think we would have seen the majority turn over in the united states senate. but it didn't quite do that. so the senate has been the cooling saucer to the hot cup of tea or coffee that is the house. our founding fathers saw that and they wanted to balance that, they wanted to have the longer view in the senate, they wanted a quick reaction force in the house and think wanted to blend together and they did. i think they did a very good job of that. but they also wanted to then check an overreach of article one, the legislative branch, of the congress, by giving the president of the united states veto power and at the same time they put constraints on the president because we can control the activities of the executive branch through the appropriations. if we can actually control the appropriations here in the house of representatives. so they granted that authority. but they expected that there would be like a tug of war for that power. they did not think that the

president of the united states would take an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and be required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and then go out and execute the law rather than enforce the law. but that's what's happened. the president has with impunity defied the rule of law and simply canceled immigration law that existed on the books, that requires i.c.e. and federal immigration law enforcement officers to place those individuals unlawfully here and remove proceedings. that's the law. the president suspended it and what has happened here in congress? there was an election after did he that. march 28, 2011, he said, i don't have the power to by executive order implement the dream act. march 28, 2012. june 15, 2012, he assumed that authority. and he simply suspended the rule

of law and imposed his will, his wish on america. and what happened? the people that took an oath to uphold the constitution, the rule of law, decided that they were going to honor the lawlessness and they decided that they were going to comply with the president's order because, well, their jobs were on the line, for one thing. i say also they have an oath of office for another. and when that happened, when there's a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch of government, the judicial branch needs to step in to sort out that dispute. i know they don't like to do that, mr. speaker. and so in any case, i asked for a meeting and invited people to come to the table, which they did. and we discussed how we move forward to put a block on the president's unconstitutional assumption of legislative authority. a violation of the separation of powers. i had been through that litigation in the past and on an

issue i'll not take up here but it had to do with the state issue and the state chief executive officer. i knew the arguments. out of that meeting came the lawsuit of crane vs. napolitano. chris crane, the president of the i.c.e. union, as the lead plaintiff, and of course now napolitano is the secretary of the department of homeland security, janet napolitano. that case went before the northern district of texas, the federal court, where judge reid o'connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, that's the i.c.e. union and the list of plaintiffs that are there ruled in favor of it and -- in nine of 10 arguments and sent the other argument back to the executive branch to reword it in such a way that -- i'll just use my terms, mr. speaker, it's more intenlble so he could answer and respond on that particular point. generally the decision was this. judge reid o'connor essentially not , shall means shall,

may. if it requires that the agents put people that are unlawfully present in the united states in removal proceedings, if it says they shall do so, then they shall do so. shall means shall and it doesn't mean may. there's no word in the english language that's more definitive that can replace the word shall, that's essentially the decision. so it seems to be, and i'm optimistic that it's moving in the direction that we will get a final decision in a federal court and perhaps the administration will appeal this on all the way up the line to the supreme court. but in the end, i can't imagine how a judicial branch of government, how a supreme court could come down on the side of the president and decide that the president of the united states has the authority to make up laws as he goes along or disregard law as he goes along. the president has argued that, well, at least the president and

his spokesmen and women have argued that they have prosecutorial discretion. prosecutorial discretion means that they can't enforce every -- the law against every person who might violate the law because they don't have the resources, so the resources need to be targeted where they do the most good. that's prosecutorial discretion. i agree that that exists and that it's necessary, that the discretion of prosecution exists. but i don't agree that the president can define broad classes of people that include hundreds of thousands in sing ale class, and then decide that he's not going to enforce the law against any of them. that is what he has done. he's manufactured four classes of people and decided he's going to waive the law and all of these classes of people, suspend its enforcement. that turns out to be an invitation to more and more people to violate the law. even to the extent of we have

had illegal aliens in the halls of the congressional offices that have lobbied members of congress with impunity. and they will come in boldly and say, i'm depemented from the law by the -- i'm exempted from the law by the president of the united states so i can be here and i demand that you agree with me and get me my my college education. they have been inside the judiciary committee room. they have been introduced by the ranking member of the judiciary committee. that's how far this has gotten, mr. speaker. the contempt for the law, the contempt for the rule of law and the sense of entitlement that have gone beyond the pale. so this rule of law which must be reconstructed now, because the verbal and keyboard jack hammers of the left have chiseled away at that beautiful marble pillar of american exceptionalism called the rule of law. and because they have done that we must reconstruct it.

and if we can't hold the rule of law together, if we cabinet restore it, if we want -- can't restore it, if we can't reconstruct it, then it crumbles. if the rule of law, according to the bill, the gang of eight's bill in the senate, according to what some of what seems to be moving here in the house, destroys the rule of law at least with regard to immigration, it destroys it, there would be no enforcement of the rule of law with regard to immigration unless you committed a felony, you are here unlawfuly, you commit a felony, a or you commit a combination of three mysterious misdemeanors that qualifies you for removal proceedings. those are exemptions that are part of it. they claim they will enforce the law on that. a balance of it. if you cross the border illegally and come into the united states, that is a crime. if you overstay your visa, which is about, let's say a number that approaches 40% of those who are unlawfully present in the

united states, that's a civil misdemeanor, not a crime, at least today. if you do either one of those things only, they're not going to put you in removal proceedings. and if you come across into the united states and you defraud your employer and you come up with fraudulent documents and you use that in order to get a job, this administration isn't going to enforce document fraud. which is a felony against you. essentially they've said, if you can get into the united states legally or illegally, if you can stay in the united states, you can cheat to get a job. you can lie to your employer, you can use document fraud and there won't be a penalty to any of these things. essentially nonviolent peaceful not going to be a problem. but if you get engaged in some of the serious things like maybe drug smuggling or the crimes of

violence that we all know about, then -- or the threat of violence even, then it makes the administration uncomfortable and they might decide to send you back and put you in the condition that you were in before you broke the law. but peaceful people have been granted amnesty by the president of the united states. and this congress has sat here almost placidly and accepted it as if he has that constitutional authority and he does not. that's why the lawsuit of crane vs. napolitano was filed and it's a clear understanding from my standpoint. but the confusion seems to be that too many members that take an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend this constitution as well don't have a clear enough understanding of the brighter line between article one and article two. our job is to legislate, write the laws. the president's job is to enforce them. it's that simple. and yet there is an exerpgs that came out to us on the -- an interpretation that came out to us on the morning of november 7,

dnesday morning, november 7, mr. speaker. and a lot of people will understand and remember what that date was. that was the day after the election. now, i was engaged in this election as much as i've been engaged in any election and as a member of congress from iowa, i was also engaged in the presidential nomination and election process. i was engaged in the debate. and i've done events that have to do with presidential candidates on a relatively regular basis. i think i understood what the debate was about for the election for president of the united states. and as i listen to that, it was about jobs and the economy. jobs and the economy. if would you put jobs and the economy in quotes and attach it to -- and then put barack obama's name in the search engine of google, or if would you put jobs and the economy in quotes and then put romney or mitt there in a search engine of google and send it off, you're going to get hundreds of thousands of hits altogether. because that was the topic of the election last november 6. jobs and the economy.

jobs and the economy. and i told the romney people, aveb heard jobs and comet so many times it puts me to sleep. don't you think you're putting the american people to sleep by beating the same drum over and over again? but remembering the mantra, jobs and the economy, until we were just drubbed into numbness with it also reminds us that the election was not, mr. speaker, about the immigration issue. i don't remember a debate between barack obama and mitt romney that went into in depth or substance on the immigration issue. yet when the sun came up on november 7, some of the leading pundits and experts concluded that mitt romney would be president-elect by now, before the sun came up on november 7, if he just hadn't said the two words, self-deport, or if he had not been such a defender of the rule of law on immigration. that was a surprise to me.

i wish he'd have talked about it more. well, he didn't. the election wasn't about immigration but talking heads eroneously say pragmatic individuals in my party decided they would contribute to this argument. it came from both parties. and they drove the argument to the point where some people were convinced the election really was about immigration. when it was not. and they argued that mitt romney would be president-elect if he had just gotten a larger percentage of the hispanic vote. he would not, mr. speaker. if he had won the majority of the hispanic vote in the swing states he still would not have won the presidency. if he had won 70% he might have. but that didn't happen. and no one really thinks that's going to happen in the near future. so they came to a conclusion, thought they could support it with facts, they've learned now that they can't support their conclusion with facts but they're determined to go forward with granting amnesty to initially they think 11 million

people that are here in this country unlawfully. while providing the emptiest and most vack white house of premises, that one day they'ring can to get around to putting a -- they're going to get around to putting a plan together and if the plan happens to be implemented they might secure the border. that's what's going on. and i don't know how in the world they can say this to the american people with a straight face and believe that there's going to be border security in the exchange for law enforcement. it's not going to happen, mr. speaker. . it didn't happen in 1986, one of only two times ronald reagan let me down. but in 1986, the promise was this. we had about a million people in the country illegally. it started 700,000 to 800,000, that sounds like a min us kuhl number today. that roughly a million people and the debate raged in the house and senate and i believed all along that good sense would

prevail. i believed that the people who gave their oath to uphold the constitution in the house and in have nate would enforcement if they granted amnesty, i believe they would have a less manageable situation than they had in 1986 but the argument for clemency, for amnesty, prevail in the house and senate. but i believe that ronald reagan would understand the principle the rule of law clearly enough and the long-term implications of such an act of amnesty in 1986 clearly enough that he would take the authority that's vested in him, was vested in him to veto that legislation and require that -- require the congress to pass amnesty by a 2/3 majority in the house and senate and overturn his veto.

i do not believe he would have done that in 1986. i believed reagan would resew the amnesty act in 1986. instead, to my great disappoint, he signed it. the calculation at the time was, if we grant am necessary toy ty to these million people, we'll get full cooperation to enforce the border and never again will there be another amnesty act. never again. this was the amnesty act to end all amnesty acts. it was going ton law enforcement from that point forward. the border was going to be secured. there was going to be a clear prohibition on hiring illegal employees. they were going to shut off the jobs nag et -- magnet and they created the i-9 form they have i-9 form which requires an employer to fill out the form, make sure you've got the documentation, the identify case, make sure you have the i's dotted and t's crossed on the i-9 form because a federal agent is going to come inspect your paperwork, an i.n.s. agent would inspect your paperwork.

i did all those things as carefully asic. i had a fear i would slip up and not meet the standard, mr. speaker. so we carefully documented our job applicants in my construction company to make sure we're in compliance with the law. all the while expecting the i.n.s. agent was around the corner taking a look at the paperwork of my neighbor or another business. i'm not disappointed they didn't show up to check my paperwork, i'm disappointed they didn't check anybody's paperwork. the enforcement didn't happen. and the litigation began. the aclu began litigating and other organizations did and they began to argue, you require an employer to make a judgment call when he looks at the document and the picture on the face of the person applying and if he cannot require a person to make tissue an employer to make a judgment call because it makes them liable for the lawsuit we'll sigh them with.

so the litigation of imgrigs turned it into a mess, intention alely, i believe so they could provide for open borders, which was the intention of the teddy kennedys and others at the time and they undermined the enforcement effort politically and they undermined it in the courts and undermined it culturally and began to convert the people who came here illegally into a victim's group and if you understand the politics of victimology, you understand that there's a certain amount of sainthood that gets attached to victims, people that are in victims' groups that conversion has been taking place since probably before 1986 but i remember from that point forward. what ronald reagan learned at the time, attorney general ed meese knows, what another member of the reagan administration, gary bauer knows and has spoken openly of, is that if you grant amnesty, if you suspend the rule

of law and you tell people, we're not going to enforce the law against you, continue to break it, you get more lawbreakers. more lawbreakers means more lawlessness. and more lawlessness erodes the rule of law. and when they bring a bill to the senate that legalizes, aside from the felons, the three mysterious misdemeanor committers, aside from that, it legalizes everybody in the united states that's here illegally. not only that, they send an ivenviation by the bill out to anybody that has been deported in the past and says, reapply. come back into the united states. we didn't mean it. an they say, if you came here after december 31, 2011, you're not going to be exempted by this amnesty act that is coming through the senate. so presumably they'll enforce the law against those who came here after december 31, 2011.

mr. speaker, they're not going to do that. if they were going to do that, you would see a news story about somebody who was put back in the condition they were in before they boeke the law, they came here after december 31, 2011. no, i.c.e. is prohibited from enforcing the law against people that fit these definitions. and i asked that specific question of the president of the i.c.e. union before the judiciary committee under oath and he said, if they're in jail, i can't put them in removal proceedings. even if they're in jail he can't go into jail and say, listen, i'm preered to -- required to put you in removal proceeding, i'll take you back to the port of entry, he can't do that. who's in handcuffs now? i.c.e. the border patrol. in handcuffs today. they can't enforce the law. the way it's written. in the, even the 1986 amnesty act, let alone the immigration reform act of which lamar smith of texas had such a huge role

in. good legislation, glad they did it, 1986 was flawed, should have never been passed. if i.c.e. can't enforce the law today even if someone is in jail and they are handcuffed from doing their job and there's a legalization of the people that came into the united states before december 31, 2011, and an invitation to those who have since been removed to come back again, and no prospect they're going tone force the law against those who come in after december 1, 2011, that makes it, mr. speaker, the always is, always was, always will be amnesty act. and i just, i use a little bit of, let me say, license here to speak of it this way. always is, always was, always will be. if he is in america -- if you is in america you gets to stay, if uffs in america you get to come back, if you will be in america you get to stay. this is a perpetual and

retroactive ams mity act, it goes on forever, you can you could never enforce immigration law again. you could never say to people you came here after our deadline, now we're going to enforce the law. not after you flow 11 million or 2 million into this country or the number that results from this, it may be over 50 million people over time. numbers -- numbers u.s.a.'s numbers is 33 million. robert rector's study at the heritage foundation and both of them did stellar work yesterday, his study only con tell late ps 11 spnt 5 -- 11.5 million people, the reduced number, the boiled down number of those we know are here, it essentially reflects off the united states census. that's the people who admit they're here when you ask them, are you here illegally? a number approach 1g1 million said yes, i am, i confess. we know in the 1986 amnesty act, with roughly a million people

anticipated it became over three million people. use the 3-1 multiplier that does reflect pretty close and it's not the formula used by numbers u.s.a. that formula is a kearful formula that calculates family reunification and the record we have on human activity on how they react to the legislative changes that take place. but if the formula was one three and 86, it became million, those with came in before the amnesty act was signed or after it was tine signed to take part in that and lied about when they came here, the one million became three million. it doesn't stretch my imagination to see that the 11 million become 33 million. that seems to me to match up in two different types of formulas. so do we really want to legalize 33 million people or even 11 million people? co-do we want to give them access to all the government benefits we have?

do we want to let them have -- andimmediately to say their children to, the systems we have, the health care system, the education system, the public security systems we have? do we want to put them in a place where they tax return may them eligible for the earned income tax credit so all of their children that may not live in the united states even at the time they get a check from the federal treasury for that? do we want to see this pour out to where the number that came from robert corrector's study is that on average, the people that would be included in this amnesty act in the senate over the course of the time they would live in the united states, the average comes in at 34 years old and a 34-year-old by the time they reach that edge will live to the age of about 84, that's 50 years in the united states, that's a net cost to the taxpayer of $580,000 per person?

do we want to write a check or boar rethe money from the chinese to fund that? do we need that many more people in the united states doing the work they say americans won't do for a price of $580,000 per person? do we twant to rent cheap labor for the price of $12,000 a year? that's what the math works out to, i think it's $ 1,600 a year. do we want -- do the taxpayer care that much about having somebody to cut the grass and somebody to weed the garden and somebody to do all of this work they claim americans won't do? by the way, i don't think anybody in this congress can find work that i haven't been willing to do. and i think my sons would certainly reinforce that statement. they remind me they've been out in 126-degree heat index pouring concrete on those days and they've been driving sheet 106 across the swamp at

they degree wind chill, say no one can survive that kind of temperatures, but they did. we do sanitary sewer work, demolition, all the work that they say that americans won't do, we've done a whole lot of that and we'll do more. no one is too proud to do work in this country. we're just sometimes not willing to do work for the price that's offered. and we know that free enterprise capitalism talk takes us to this. the value of anything, including labor, is determined by the supply and demand of the marketplace. corn "price is right"s go up and down -- corn prices go up and down depending on how much corn there is and how many customers there are to buy it. that's true for gold and oil and platinum and soybeans and labor. and because we have an oversupply of unskilled labor

and underskilled labor is why we have such low wages and benefits at low and unskilled labor. the highest unemployment, the lowest of skills, and people in this congress think you have to expand the low skilled labor numbers, bring people in, low and unskilled, senate version of the bill, seven unskilled people and undereducated people for every one that's going to be able to pay their going rate on what it cost it is sustain them in society. for every person that would come in under the senate bill that would pay as much or more in taxes as they draw down in government benefits, there are seven who will not be able to do that. the universe of those in the 11 million people cannot sustain themselves in this society that we have, not in a single year of their projected existence in this culture, in this society, in this economy. why would woe do that? why if we need more people to pull on the oars would we allow

100 million americans that are of working age and simply not in the work force to sit up there in steerage while we bring people on board to pull the oars and wait on the people sitting in steerage? that defies any kind of rational logic, mr. speaker. so to destroy the rule of law, to, i'll say, subsidize a nonwork ethic and now it turns into three generations of americans that are drawing down some of the 80 different means tested welfare programs, it is foolish for us to consider such a proposal and i'm hopeful that the good sense of the american people can do something about this spell that has been cast over too many republicans in the house and senate. so mr. speaker, i urge the american people to save this congress from themselves and restore -- rescore the -- restore the rule of law and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. waxman for 30 minutes. mr. waxman: today, the speaker of the house, not the presiding officer at the moment, but the speaker of the house, john boehner, made some irresponsible remarks about climate change. he was asked about the reports that the president is prepared to act to protect the planet and future generations from climate change impacts. and here's what the speaker had to say, quote, i think this is absolutely crazy. why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more american jobs at a time when the american people are still asking where are the jobs? clear enough? end quote. well, i could not disagree more

strongly with speaker boehner. presidential action to protect the climate and future generations is absolutely essential the house is controlled by leaders who deny the science and are recklessly ignoring the risks of a rapidly changing climate. the house has become the last refuge of the flat earth society. that is why the president must act, using his existing authorities under the law. the speaker's assertion that acting to reduce emissions will hurt the economy is absolutely wrong. we need to act to lead the world in the clean energy economy of the future. if we don't act, initiative, leadership and economic growth will go to countries that do. now i have been in congress for

over three decades. i worked on the clean air act re-authorization of 1990. i remember the testimony we received in the 1980's about how if we tried to do more in the environmental area, we would lose our jobs and our economy would be set back. we would face another depression. well, on a bipartisan basis, we adopted the clean air act. we had the bill sponsored and signed by president george h.w. bush. and that legislation led to accomplishments of reducing air pollution in some of our heavily polluted areas, including my own home of los angeles less. we were able to -- los angeles. we were able to stop acid rain

that were polluting our rivers and ponds in the northeast and candidate aveha. we did something about toxic pollution and cancer. and we were able to get legislation passed and move forward to stop the destruction of the upper ozone of our planet. we accomplished these goals because we didn't pay attention to the naysayers who told us our economy would be ruined. we would lose jobs. we should forget about a healthy environment. we should forget about pristine air in our national parks. luckily, we had leadership from republicans and democrats to do something. and we can now talk about the great accomplishments that we achieved. and at the same time, we created more jobs. we created more industries.

we created new technological developments. but let me talk about why the president needs to act on this question of climate change. on monday, the international energy agency, i.e.a., released a report, concluding that the world is not on track to meet the goal of limiting global erage temperatures to be low 3.6 degrees faren height. that is a tremendous concern because the sciencists are telling us if we don't achieve the goal of reducing the temperature rise, we are going to see some very severe impacts, flooding of our coastal cities, increased risk to our food supply, unprecedented heat

waves. exacerbated water scarcity. frequency of tropical cyclones, irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reefs. our country and other countries around the world joined together in 2010 and said we have to do what we can to keep the temperature rise below 3.6 degrees fahrenheit. the i.e.a. concluded that the world is failing to meet this goal. greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change and it's happening in an increasingly rapid rate. can we deny this is happening? should we say this is costing jobs and shouldn't pay attention to it? on our committee, the energy and

commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over this whole question, the democratic leaders on the committee have asked that we have hearings to bring in the sciencists, because some of our republican members have said, they don't believe in the science. we sent 36 letters asking that the sciencists be brought before the committee to tell us why they think these terrible things may happen. and we have never gotten a from a single letter of request for hearings. can you imagine the people running the congress denying the sciencists and then refusing to hear from the sciencists or claiming the science is uncertain and not resolved and then refusing to hear from sciencists who could come in and talk about what they have learned? if we are facing a world where all the accumulated greenhouse gases stay in that atmosphere

and to the point where our planet is heating up, and we're facing terrible consequences, you don't have to buy everything they say, but what are the chances that they're right? 10%? that we take the risk we're going to face a 10% chance of all these catastrophic consequences and do nothing about it? well, that seems to be what the republican leaders are saying, the primary leader of the house, the speaker. now, let's look at some other more recent examples. when the president announced historic fuel economy standards, critics said cars would get smaller, more expensive, and it would hurt the sales of our automobiles. well, they were completely

wrong. vehicle sales are booming. they are at lie levels now. -- high levels now. they are saving money because cars are fuel efficient. this is an accomplishment, an accomplishment, despite all the nay sares. when the obama administration issued mercury standards for power plants and other sources, house republicans said it would cost jobs and raise electricity prices. well, that hasn't happened. implementation has gone smoothly. electricity prices have not gone up. in fact whole sale prices actually went down down and have been no rolling blackouts as predicted by the doomsday scenarios. in 2011, the e.p.a. issued a report on the benefits of the clean air act over the period from 1990 to 2020. according to the study the direct benefits of the clean air

act in the form of cleaner air and a healthier population, more productive americans are estimated to reach nearly $2 trillion in the year 2020. we're talking about saving money by protecting our environment. so when the speaker says that we shouldn't pay attention, it's crazy to pay attention to the concerns about climate change, he's absolutely wrong. when he says action to reduce carbon emissions will harm the economy, just the opposite will happen. we will create new clean energy businesses and more economic growth. the president has said if congress won't act, he must act, and he's absolutely right. the president must act and he has the authority to act under existing laws.

congress will not act because the leadership of the house of representatives denies reality. they want to plight size science. -- politicize science by ignoring it. science isn't another political opinion. science is looking at the evidence. turn on the television news any day of the week, and you will hear stories about droughts and superstorms and new hurricanes and new climate events and new record levels of temperatures. don't we think that something might be happening and that we have some responsibility in government to try to do something about this issue? addressing climate change will require actions over the long-term, but the i.e.a. report

highlights four policies that could be implemented now and through 2020 at no economic cost. policies that will help reduce local air pollution and increase energy security. first report recommended that countries adopt specific energy efficiency measures. we don't have to build new power plants if we use our energy resources more efficiently. we could have more efficient heating and cooling systems in residential and commercial buildings, more efficient appliances and lighting in residential and commercial buildings. energy efficiency measures can account for half of the emissions' reductions that the report proposes through the year 2020. secondly, the report said that if countries limit the construction and use of inefficient subcritical coal-fired power plants and switch instead to cleaner and

more efficient plants, we will see the air get cleaner and the threat from climate change be dramatically reduced. thirdly, the report recommended that countries reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse as from upstream oil and gas production by installing readily available technologies in the short-term and pursuing additional long-term reduction strategies. and fourth, the report proposed that countries accelerate the phase-out of fossil-fuel subsidies which exacerbate climate change by encouraging consumption of carbon pollution emitting energy. why are we subsidizing the oil companies with special tax breaks? is a tax break for an oil company different than

appropriations for the oil companies? they are doing very well on their own. what we need to do is provide a level playing field for competition in renewable fuels and alternatives and efficiency. these are the things we ought to be focusing on, rather than keeping oil and coal the predominant sources of our energy for electricity and fueling our motor vehicles. things are changing. they're changing because investors don't want to buy into stranded investments because they know climate change is happening. the american people are getting a clear sense that something is happening in the climate, but they don't hear congress even talking about it. and around the world, others are moving forward. why should we allow others whether it's the chinese, the europeans, to develop the

technologies? we have always been the leader in the developing technologies for the future. we developed the catalytic converter to control pollution from automobiles. we invented the scrubbers that can be used to -- on power plants to reduce the emissions that come from these power plants. we have made all these advances over the years because we have given a clear incentive for anti-pollution control devices because we wanted to reduce pollution. and now we have a congress where they want to deny at the highest level of leadership in this congress that climate change exists and the president shouldn't take any action. imagine, the top leader of the house of representatives saying, i think it's absolutely crazy. why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more

american jobs at a time when the american people are still asking, where are the jobs. well, the jobs can come along with efforts to reduce pollution . we have always seen the economy and our protection of the environment go hand in hand. we shouldn't say that we have to choose. we can have both. we have a long history of this country, of bipartisan support for the proposition and the reality that we can preserve the environment and protect our economy and prosper if we are willing to adopt policies and show some leadership. . mr. speaker, i remember when the compliance costs were being thought of, when we were trying to teal with the acid rain problem. -- to deal with the acid rain problem.

and industry after industry on the record, it is all available, to review. claimed the costs would be enormous. and then we we -- and then when we passed the law, the actual costs were a small fraction of what was being predicted. when they were told that they had to accomplish the goal, under a cap and trade program to reduce sulfur emissions that were causing acid rain, we accomplished the goal at a fraction of the original estimates which enge were highly inflated for scare purposes, but we accomplished the goal because we said this is the goal, accomplish that goal, you can benefit from new technologies and new way it is accomplish our environmental objectives. and that's exactly what we did. we moved out with the acid rain pollution problem. so my colleagues, mr. speaker,

let's not have leaders who say we have to say that we're going to ignore the threat from climate change in order to protect jobs. we can protect and promote jobs and the protection of our environment at the same time. and mr. president, you were so right when you said if the congress will not act, you must act, you must lead, and we are looking to the president to show that leadership because we're not going to get it from this house of representatives. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary

date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the emergency declared in executive order 13617 of june 25, 201, with respect to the disposition -- 2012, with respect to the disposition of russian highly enriched uranium is to continue beyond june 25, 2013. the rifpk of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the russian territory continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in

executive order 13617 with respect to the disposition of russian highly enriched rue yain yum. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. today we did vote on the farm bill, as it's been referred to, the federal agriculture reform and risk management act. us pointed out and i attempted to establish through an amendment, this was about rm bill, 80% was

food stamps. and it was a very brilliant move by members of congress back when the democrats controlled the majority, the 1970's, the 1980's, in fact after vietnam, the post-water gate era, most liberal congress until speaker pelosi took the gavel, and they did a brilliant thing. they were able to take so much in the form of welfare, public assistance of all kinds, and put it into so many different budgets under the jurisdiction of different committees, that if at any one time, someone went fter one area that was multiplishes, it was simply a dupe -- that was pu --

multiplicious, that was duplicative, they could be marginalized, demeaned and have it said, you don't care about women or veterans or children or the poor or whatever. and it worked well, in fact, to the point that we now obviously have about $17 trillion in debt more than we've had revenue coming in. basically, we would be perhaps reece or cyprus, other countries that are in bad, basically on the verge of bankruptcy, except that we produce our own money and the dollar is the international currency so it's allowed all this reckless overspending. so i think it's time, and i know

there are many others who agree, that we reform congress to the point where all public assistance comes in one single committee. one area where all public assistance can be located, and will be easy to see all the duplications, all the waste, so much easier to see areas where fraud is running rampant when you put all of those public assistance measures in the same bill. i'd actually propose -- i've actually proposed an amendment which would strike title 4, the food stamp program, though it's een cleverly renamed the supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, has a real snap to it, but the gold was not to do away with that

program, and in fact, my friend across the aisle, mr. mcgovern, asked me are you wanting to do away entirely with the food stamp or the supplemental nutrition assistance program? and i replied, before the rules committee, on the record, for a television camera, into a microphone, no, i didn't want to do away with that program, but i did feel it needed to have its own time, its own discussion, and not be 80% of a farm bill. but what is really heartbreaking is not that children are not going to have food in america, because whether we bring a farm bill or back -- a farm bill back that separates out the food stamps program so we can deal with it mitt romney saw, was mitt romney, after saying, he's

a good man, good family man, but i think he's wrong on these issues, what came back from the drones, the human drones, that were speaking on behalf of the president, was gee, he wants to push people off a cliff, he wants people to die of cancer, he wants them to get cancer, he's obviously painted as a very evil man. and that came back to mind today during some of the discussions, i heard our friend from maryland , the minority whip here, talking about the farm bill, blaming republicans for not being bipartisan when, you know, three-fourths of the republicans , andoted for the farm bill

yet our friends across the aisle did make it a very partisan measure. and not only made it partisan in the rhetoric condemning republicans for not reaching out , things were said in the subsequent discussions, my friend from texas had been here on the house floor, but comments from friends across the aisle like, children were crying out here for food and republicans in essence not only voted down their help but wanted to slap them down. i would never say that about a friend across the aisle. i think they're wrong in the way they want to bankrupt, or they want to spend so much more money than we have coming in, it's bankrupting the country, but i would never think for a moment

that one of my friends from across the aisle wanted to slap down children. i wouldn't -- that -- i wouldn't bring myself to say that because i know it's not true. i think they're very wrongheaded on so many issues but comments like, you know, taking not only food but the utensils or table and just leave them with a floor, how could we do such a thing? and yet, when we look at the food stamp bill that had 20% farm in it that did not pass today, it certainly wasn't for a lack of work by the chairman of the agriculture committee, frank lucas. chairman lucas and i don't always agree on things, but i know that man. he is a good man.

and i did appreciate hearing mr. hoyer commenting as much. frank lucas worked very, very hard on this bill. and he actually got reforms in here. and there were actually amendments passed that some didn't like, but it was a bipartisan bill. there were -- there were some democrats that voted for this bill. that makes it bipartisan. not like obamacare that was rammed down the throats of america and the republicans without having input, without having the -- any opportunity for amendment, really, just forced upon republicans in the country. in fact, there's never been a congress that has been as closed to amendment, as closed to input from the other side, as we witnessed when the democrats

took the majority in january of 2007 until they lost the ajority in november of 2010. those years saw more closed rules, no amendments possible, it was unbelievable the way our friends across the aisle were so busive with the process. and preventing almost half of the country from having any voice in anything that went on. so when i hear our friends across the aisle talk about a lack of partisanship, it's a little difficult. and what really is a bit heartbreaking is to hear people across the isle speak so loquently, as i sat here listening today, hear people

speak with such incredibly persuasive words and expressions nd with such venom and passion that if i did not know the truth, i actually would be believing how horrible and evil and nasty and child hating republicans really are. however, i know the people on this side of the aisle as well. and there's not anybody that has been elected to congress, there's no other way to get to the house, there's nobody that has been elected from either side of the aisle that wants to see a child suffer because of anything we do. and it is very offensive to have people on one side of the aisle attribute those kinds of

feelings that we wanted to hurt children. really? and it sounds so real and so true. how can we ever have legitimate debate in this house of representatives when anybody can stand and attribute such evil motivation on the side of the other and make it sound so real? do we have any chance of saving this country? when people can come to the floor and make such ridiculous allegations sound so persuasive and true? can't have debate like that. on the other hand, i have looked in the eyes of constituents of

mine as i go all over my wonderful n to the hall.ity for a town i go all over the district. one of the things that makes me proud is to be introduced as having been to some community more than any other member of congress. oh, he's from tyler. i know all the people and they do care. when i look into the eyes of constituents who want to provide for their children, they want them to have the best that they can provide for them, and they talk about standing in line -- i have heard this story so many times when people who are broken hearted about it and sometimes get angry just thinking about

what they have seen and what they heard, but standing in line t a grocery store and food amp card and look into their basket and -- i love snow king crab legs. we haven't been able to have them in our house since who knows when. i'm standing behind a guy who has them in their basket and i'm looking lonningly where can i make enough to have something like that and see the food stamp card pulled out and looks at the king crab legs and looks at his ground meat and realizes that because he does pay income tax, he doesn't get more back than he pays in, he is actually helping pay for the king crab legs when he can't pay for them for

himself. and people across the aisle want to condemn anyone who is working and scraping and can't save any money and is trying to decide how in the world do we ever get ahead, can we ever get ahead. cutting back my hours at work, we're doing the best we can, and yet i stand in line and see multiple people paying with food stamp cards for things i cannot afford. how can you begrudge somebody who feels that way? how can you begrudge anyone who steps up on behalf of the constituents who feel that way. we don't want anyone to go hungry. and for the amount of obesity in this country, by people we are told do not have enough to eat, it does seem like we could have a debate about this issue

without allegations about wanting to slap down or starve children, because when i think of children, i think about those also who are growing up right now. they have no say in the amount of money we're spending in this chamber right here. billions and billions and billions with so much waste, fraud and abuse, and yet those very little children who have no voice in what we're doing are ing to have to pay for our waste and our fraud and abuse. what kind of parent would want that? i don't know of anybody on either side of the aisle that want that, but it is what we are producing. and i didn't vote for the farm bill because it's not a farm

bill. and i believe we need to have a debate where we bring all the public assistance into one place so we see what's there and we can cut out as much waste, fraud and abuse as possible, when we can make those cuts because when we're spending the billions and billions and billions we are for food supplement, whatever you want to call it, and there is story after story of people who interest in ling the food stamp card or what they buy with their food stamp card, can we really not come and have a discussion about how we can quit putting a heavier and heavier burden on children that have no voice in this congress? can we not have a debate and

discussion without demonizing people that say, look, i care about the children that are growing up and that are going to be born who shouldn't have to pay for the extravagance and the narcissim within this generation. can't we have that discussion without demonizing one another? i would hope we can get to that point. one point about tea party extreme him and killing the farm bill. when a small reform is made to the food stamp program and this additional requirement is added that for those who are able to work, they will need to work. is that evil and mean and just

so totally in disregard of those who are getting from everyone else? we heard this when congress wasn't a blip on my radar, but we heard this over and over as newt gingrich and the new republican majority after 40 years or so came into this body as the majority, and they said we are going to reform welfare. and they did. and president clinton didn't want it. he fought it tooth and nail, but just like the balanced budgets. he fought it, he fought it. e uses his veto, more than once. but finally, it's signed into law when it's clear to president clinton that there are votes here in a bipartisan way to override his veto. he might as well sign it.

and now today how wonderful it is when he talks about the virtues of his two terms as president. the virtues of what the republican party did when they finally reigned things in. i was told as a freshman, don't go as a staunch conservative or go to the orientation because it is just so liberal, they'll villify those who think like we do. we need to be more conservative in our spending. i went any way. i enjoy a good debate and we had several. i was struck even at the liberal harvard law school where they totally forgot the reason for their founding and what was required of students as they prepared to live a life in total

submission to their savior jesus christ. amazing when you go back and read the things that the students were taught and what they had to take an oath to believe. but there at harvard, we had a dean come in with charts who explained ever since the great society legislation in the 1960's -- i know some think being born out of less than nobel ideas, but i think they were born out of less intentions. let's give them help. there were deadbeat dads around the country so give the single mom a check for every child they have out of wedlock. single moms struggling to get by over the years, we have paid for

more and more children out of wedlock and as philosophers have said, you pay for some activity, you are going to get more activity. and now in this country, we are getting what we paid for. we are past 40% single moms, on our way, 50%. i think in large part because his congress decided, well intentioned, to try and help single moms. and instead of trying to help them reach their god-given potential, maybe help them with day care, get back in high school, finish high school, you can earn so much more if you finish high school than if you never do. go to college. if we care about the people, why wouldn't we want to push them. these charts from this dean at harvard showed since the great society legislation, single

momso income when adjusted for inflation for about 30 years was a flat line. single moms never, on average, did not improve their situations. and along came what was portrayed as being these evil republican congressmen and senators who said, we're going to reform welfare. we're going to require people that can, to work. and they pushed people out of being on the dole and pushed them starting to pursue their god-given potential and what they can do for themselves and feel good about themselves because they are providing for themselves. and he pulled out a chart to show single mother's income when adjusted for inflation after welfare reform, when people were forced to work that could, and

wow. for the first time in my 30 years, is single moms' income went up when adjusted for inflation. so who cared more, those who said you republicans are evil for trying to make people work who are getting child support from the government, who are getting welfare, how evil you are. are they in the more virt youous position are are those who say i know this will work and i know every human being has potential that god put there and we want them to move toward that. we don't want to pay them to be a couch potato and to keep having children outside of wedlock and to pay them for not pursuing that they are capable for pursuing themselves and that wonderful feeling. who is more virtuous in that

situation? i can tell you from that rhetoric, my friends on the democratic side, and the republicans were the evil, mean-spirited self-involved people because they wanted single moms to reach their potential and make more money, and it happened just like that. so then president obama comes in, and what does he do? right off the bat, he wants to eliminate the work requirement. i think he was motivated out of good intentions, but we're back to where we were. we want people who have been getting food stamps if they can work. then work. let's push people towards reaching their potential. that's not evil. that's a good thing. and people are free to worship whoever, whatever or no one if they wish in america.

but for those who say, well, gee, you're a christian. the christian thing is to give people money if they need it. well in romans 13, it talks about the government supposed to be an encourager of good conduct. an encourager, it would seem to reach your potential, not to kill your potential. to encourage people to reach for the stars, not kill a nasa program. and force people to teach to a test. . trying anyway they can to get in this country, then we must protect this country. that's what our oath involves. protect the country so it's not overwhelmed. prevent this country from

becoming one massive welfare state. but encourage the greatness in