, and others pushing forward. that changed in the second term of the bush presidency. outside waspartment punching above its weight. it is always going to be, by virtue of being the oldest and most senior cabinet agency -- host: even with the growth of bureaucracy in the white house itself? guest: i think so. there's usually a tension between the national security folks at at the white house and people at the state department. the state department is populated largely by career diplomats. the consider themselves experts. the more expert they consider

expertise thane those political people who serve for four or six years. host: thank you for your time. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the spea r. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 27, thrown. i hereby appoint the honorable ted poe to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than

the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. r. gutierrez: mr. speaker, yesterday a short time after the supreme court ruled that the domedome violated the constitution -- that the defense of marriage act violated the constitution of the united states, according to press reports, the bonds of rriage that tied shawn, an american citizen, to steve, a native of colombia, were not seen in the eyes of the law. the bonds of marriage that drew these two individuals together in love and in the sight of god all of a sudden became visible to the united states

government. they materialized before our eyes, allowing a spouse of a u.s. citizen to live peacefully in the united states with his spouse as our immigration laws intended. what a difference a day makes. well, actually the step towards justice took a great deal longer than a day. i'm proud that the supreme court finally caught up to shawn and steven. i'm glad that the law of the land finally caught up to the american people who generally feel that marriage equality, like other forms of equality, is a good thing. i'm glad that the supreme court caught up to the 21st century, and i'm glad the supreme court caught up to me. in fact, what does the 21st century congressman do on such occasions? i tweeted. and what did i tweet -- quote, i told you so. it was right here on this spot on july 11, 1996, that the house of representatives passed doma. i came to this well and walked up to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, barney frank, who controlled the time on the democratic side and i asked him if i could

speak on the bill. i had a great deal of respect for the gentleman from massachusetts, and i have a great deal of respect for him today now that he's happily retired and happily married. but on that particular day he said, luis, i have no time for people who are against the bill, shoe, go away. who knows, he saw a latino catholic from the midwest and said he can't be a friend. i assured the gentleman that as a chicago alderman, as a congressman, you know, just as a man, i was against discrimination, bigotry, unfairness wherever and whenever i saw it and that i had fought hard in chicago to pass groundbreaking ordinance on the lbgt equality in the 1980's. hmm. the gentleman from massachusetts smiled, welcomed me to the team and yielded me 3 1/2 minutes. i went to check the record and see what i said that night. the 2013 me agrees

wholeheartedly with the 1996 me. i said that supporters of doma were wrapping themselves up in family values. quote, i don't know many americans, regardless of their political party, race, religion or sexual orientation who do not believe that family values are vitally important, but i also don't know americans who want a couple hundred of politicians in washington, d.c. to impose their values on everyone else's families. let me tell you about some basic values. the values of people who love each other, people who share each other's lives, people who care about their future and the future of those around them, people who want to make a commitment that is legal and official and is important to them. to me that sounds like family values. end quote. i'm proud to have spoken up. i'm proud to have voted against that bill and i'm proud to have stood showeder-to-shoulder with

barney frank and other heroes who then said no and today said i told you so. the immigration judge that stopped steven's deportation because of his legal marriage to an american citizen was absolutely right. but we need to make sure our immigration law reflects the post-doma reality across the board. if the obama administration needs to write regulations to make sure our immigration laws match the constitution of our united states, then they better get to work. we can't afford delay. same-sex couples form families. our immigration laws are supposed to honor families. so, mr. president, please make it clear from your office on down that family unity means all families. we've waited long enough. the highest court in the land help us take another step against discrimination. now we must make sure that the administration of the law catches up with the letter and the spirit of the law. all families, like steven and shawn's, must be recognized

that families for the purposes of our immigration law. what a difference a day makes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fleischmann, for five minutes. mr. fleischmann: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to honor my father, max fleischmann jr. my dad passed away on saturday, last saturday. we buried him monday in the national cemetery in chattanooga, tennessee. and i wanted to talk to america today about a very special man. astoria, new n in york, on december 29, 1925. he grew up during the great depression. his stories were legend. he talked to me about dime

movies and penny candy, about radio, about what it was like to grow up in the great depression when his father had to take in other families and live with them. this generation was coined later as the greatest generation and now i know why. he would have folks come and visit the house, a fellow by the name of mo howard and his wife, helen would come by would come by and sing and play the piano. little mo was playing in a group called the three stooges. he would have a lady by the name of gladys visit their home. her brother, her late brother was a musician, an escape artist who had been deceased called harry houdini. these stories were tremendous. he talked to me about his first coca-cola at the 1939 world fair and what it was like to drink that. he was an incredible man.

he had one good eye. he stood 5'2" and one half inch. he took seven years to graduate high school because he quit high school to join world war ii. when he showed up to serve in the united states army, they said, young man, you can go home. you're what we call 4-f. you have one good eye, you have poor skin, you're short. you can go home. he said, no, i want to serve. i want to serve and serve they did. he went to china, burma, india theater. he didn't know a war was going on that part of the world because his brother was serving in the south pacific. he had cousins serving in europe but he was 18 years old and he went on a ship and on a train and plane and ended up in burma. over 2 1/2 years later he returned home and went and finished high school. my dad was a hardworking man, a company man. he always showed up and gave

100% wherever he worked, but he had a lot of hard work and he had a lot of hard luck. sometimes his companies would go out of business that he worked at. he did not have a formal education, and education was something that stood out to him. and the reason i say that is in honoring him today, i wanted to talk about the importance of education. i was the first person to get to go to college in my family. he married my mother in 1961. i was born in 1962, but tragically when i was 9 years old, only child, my mother got cancer and passed away a few years later. she lost that tragic battle. there were times he had no health insurance. there were times he didn't have a job. he'd go all over the country, new york, philadelphia, chicago , but one thing he insisted on, he said my son is going to get an education. that was so important. and i did. he'd put $20 away a week so i

could have an education, and i university of illinois. what we didn't know that was going to be the end of the story because when i finished up at illinois, he said, what are you going to do? he said, you're bright, you have an education, but what are you going to do? he said, go to law school and he helped me through law school and paid for law school too. so he got to see me get a college education and get a law degree. he had a lot of hard luck but he always worked hard and he made a great desession significance. he retired to chattanooga, tennessee. and when he retired to chattanooga, my wife and i started a law firm, and in that law firm we succeeded as a small business. he saw me work hard six and seven days a week and he always said work hard. make sure your kids get a good education and he did that. he was a big part in the life of my three sons. chucky, jamie and jeffrey.

they're 24, 22 and 16 now and they honored him this week with me at the national cemetery. what a man. he loved this country. he served this country. he never forgot the greatest generation who gave so much for this country, and he was a good guy. he was honest to the core, and he got to live to see me elected to this great house. sometimes we get ratings, 6%, 10%, 11%. he loved this house. he really liked it when i got to sit in the chair. he'd call all the relatives, my son is presiding over the house today. but, ladies and gentlemen, we have a great country, a wonderful country. he knew that. only in america could you do something like this, come from last to first.

so just wanted to say today, thank you to my dad, staff sergeant max fleischmann jr. you did well. god bless you. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland -- sorry about that, my colleague -- mr. hoyer for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask feak to revise and extend. -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i know i -- before i get to my remarks -- join all the house in saying thank you to your father and to the greatest generation who not only fought the terrorists of their time but came home and built the greatest economy we've ever seen and gave us all opportunities of our generation. i'm older than you are, but of

our generation. so i thank you for your comments and i know that your father is extraordinarily proud of you and extraordinarily proud of the remarks you just made showing how proud you are f him. mr. speaker, tomorrow the majority party is set to recess leaving e for a week in place the economy stifling and irrational policy of sequester. we talked about the greatest generation. i fear that this generation's going to be the greediest generation, is not going to leave our children the great economy that was left to us but will leave an economy that is limping because of policies that we pursued and the debt that we have incurred. when sequester took effect 17 weeks ago, it was the culmination of an effort by the

extreme wing of the majority party to impose severe and senseless cuts across the federal government without regard for the real consequences to our economy, our national security and our most vulnerable citizens. . let me remove just some of its many consequences. head start and title 1, we will ose between 70,000 and 130,000 seats in head start for some of the most vulnerable children in america. 10,000 teachers' jobs will be at risk in title 1 to teach most vulnerable children. so security administration -- social security administration, furloughs will cause delays in processing retirement and disability claims. nutrition for vulnerable populations, four million fewer

meals on wheels for our seniors who rely on them for a daily nutritional meal. 125,000 housing vouchers, perhaps more, will be eliminated for people who need housing. unemployment insurance, emergency unemployment insurance passed 26 weeks will be cut 11% for people who cannot find a job, in part because there has been no jobs legislation put on this floor since we have been here this year. 2,100 fewer food safety inspections. 18% reduction in making sure that the food we eat is safe and healthy. on top of these it also erodes our military readiness with 1/3 of our combat aircraft on the ground.

not being flown, not being training, not being done. as "the washington post" columnist $-- pointed out, last friday, sequestration is forcing the military to cutback on training programs vital to our defense readiness. yet we fiddle while rome is burning. david writes, quote, the army is sharply qutting training above the classic squad and platoon level. all bun of the combat training center for brigades this fiscal year have been canceled. depot maintenance has been halted for the rest of the fiscal year. the army will cut 37,000 flying hours from its aviation training. the list goes on and on, mr. speaker. in february, army chief of staff general ray, told congress, and i quote, should a

concontinue againcy arise -- contingency arise, there may not be enough time to avoid sending forces into harm's way unprepared. on july 12, mr. speaker, civilian defense personnel at the p.a.x. river naval air station which i represent, are scheduled to begin furloughs as a result of the sequester. that's not just a personal concern to me, it's a concern to their families. more broadly than that it's of concern to the national security of every person citizen. those folks are among the hundreds of thousands of civilian defense workers in maryland and across the country who are set to be furloughed next month unless, unless congress acts. congress can end these arbitrary and irrational cuts by replacing the sequester in its entirety as part of a big

and balanced solution to deficits. now, we had a deal. it was called the budget control act. o.m.b. now estimates it cut $1.4 trillion. it's not as if we ignored the deficit. $1.4 trillion. but we didn't get all the way to where the speaker said we needed to be, and therefore we adopted the sequester. which irrationally cuts congressional record -- across-the-board the highest priority and lowest priority. our ranking member on the budget committee, the democrat, chris van hollen, has tried seven times to bring to this exactly slation to modify this policy so we had a rational national security

protecting, vulnerable citizens protecting alternative while saving and getting to the same budget deficit reducing number. the same. however, our republican colleagues have refused the opportunity to consider that on this floor. we hear a lot about the speaker saying let the house work its will. seven times, seven times we have asked this house leadership to give us the opportunity to work our will. the best way to achieve the balance and alternative to the sequester and put america's fiscal house in order would be through a bipartisan agreement on a budget. leader pelosi is going to name our conferees in just a few minutes. this saturday will be the 100th day since the house passed its budget, and after we demanded

that the senate pass the budget . days eaker, but still 100 later no action on this floor by the majority party to go to conference. to sit down and try to come to an agreement. that's what democracy is about. coming to agreement. this house should not be going into recess without first appointing conferees. 10% of americans think we are worth anything. i need to talk to them because they are not sure what's going on here apparently. i believe there is a bipartisan majority of members. i hope that's the case, who will support a balanced approach that restores fiscal discipline and ends this irrational commonsense defying sequester. let this house work its will, mr. speaker. it's time to appoint budget conferees. it's time for a balanced alternative to the sequester.

as the sequester continues, there is no time to waste. we ought to stay here and get the job done. regular order. regular order. regular order. i hear it all the time. the problem is we are not following regular order. to the detriment of our country and our citizens. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all i want to say nice job to chuck fleischmann for his comments on his father. before my colleague from maryland leaves, i want to make sure that he understands that we understand the history of

this whole budget process. the nation's $16 trillion in debt. it was the president's proposal to sequester. and it was his vote along with my vote that passed the budget control act that enacted sequester. so many of us are not just going to come to the floor to get lectured to on this process of how do you eventually get control of this national debt. sequester is a tough process. it's a tough pill to take. it's the first time we have ever cut real dollars. and as i tell my colleagues, in the big picture of a $16 trillion debt, it's pocket lint. it's pocket lint. it's such a small percentage of our future obligations. and that's where the debate on entitlement programs has to go. it's medicare, medicaid, social security, and the interest payment on our debt that if we don't get control actuarially in the out years, we'll continue to have to cut the discretionary budget which is damaging to all those things my

colleague mentioned. but for him to come down and profess outrage over a proposal that the president presented to this body, and then to press outrage when he voted for the bill i think is just the height of hypocrisy. that's not what i came down to the floor to talk about. it gives us an opportunity to respond. i did want to talk about the , ent occurrences in egypt which identify -- identified the persecution -- the middle east is continuing in changing religion -- region and we have citizens protesting the nondemocratic government's numerous times calling for change and freedom across the region. in 2012 the world would watch incredible change in egypt followed by the election of

muhammad morsi when he became the president. this country continues to struggle instituting a democratic government. however the work of the morsi government is not met without opposition and attacks on majority groups are still an ongoing issue. in the recent past, coptic christians have been persecuted . recently on sunday, june 23, shiia muslims were attacked by a mob -- sunni muslims, in the village, four shiites died in this attack and others injured. they make up 2% of the egyptian population of 80 million people. while president norse which has condemned these a -- morsi has condemned these attacks, further steps need to be taken. persecution will continue as sentiments towards minorities are not changed. for egypt to have a successful,

lasting democratic government, people of all religion also need to be included. the united states was created on the principle that all people should have the right to practice their religion freely and openly and without fear of persecution. as a christian and member of the house of representatives that is composed of a vast array of members with different beliefs, it is my hope that this country will continue to be an example that egypt can look to. i urge the egyptian government and the people to continue to condemn these religious-based attacks and take positive steps towards religious freedom. i will continue to keep the country of egypt and the religious minorities in my prayers and ask my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, i

rise once again to address the house on the need to end hunger now. this is the 14th time that i have done so this year. next week the members of this house will return home to their districts for the fourth of july district work period. there will be parades and fire works and picnics for all of us. but for too many of our neighbors, there will be no such festtifts. they'll be too busy -- festivities, they'll be too busy working two jobs to make ends meet. they'll worry about their children who during these summer months are too often forced to go without enough nutritious food to eat because school is out of session. because in our country, mr. speaker, in the richest most powerful nation in the history of the world, the reality is that 50 million of our fellow americans struggle with hunger. now, i'm also sure that during the fourth of july activities that many members will be getting quite an earful from the farmers in their district.

those farmers are now facing confusion and uncertainty as they prepare for yet another season within a long-term re-authorization of the farm bill. they will wonder why this house of representatives can't seem to get its act together. i hope that my colleagues will tell them the truth, that the reason the farm bill failed in the house last week is because it would have thrown two million people off the snap program. it would have caused over 200,000 children to lose access to the free school breakfast and lunch program. it would have made hunger worse in america. it would have forced struggling americans to jump through all sorts of hoops like drug testing while not requiring the same of wealthy farmers who receive federal subsidies. it would have not only allowed but actually encouraged states to find ways to kick people off the snap program. in short it would have continued the republican majority's assault on hardworking, struggling poor people. for many of us on our side of the aisle, that price was

simply too high. as the columnist e.j. dion write, i jote -- quote, this is above all a story about morality. there's something profoundly wrong when a legislative majority is eager to leave so many americans hungry. that's what the bill would have done and why defeating it was a moral imperative, end quote. mr. speaker, i want a farm bill. our farmers deserve a farm bill. i'm honored to represent hundreds of small farmers and serve on the agriculture committee. know that chairman lucas and ranking member peterson worked incredibly hard to thread a very small needle. if the republican leadership really wants a farm bill, they should do away with these draconian snap cuts and bring the bill to the floor that acknowledges the struggles faced by millions of our neighbors. my fear, however, is they will do just the opposite. that they will go even further, make even deeper cuts to food and nutrition programs.

make even more americans hungry in a vained attempt to convince some of their form right-winged members to support this bill. indeed, we see that dynamic at work with the agriculture appropriations bill before us this week. a bill that makes drastic cuts to the women, infant, children program. i would like to urge, mr. speaker, that the house once active take an leadership role on this. . i welcome that threat. it was a positive sign. it was a positive sign that the white house understands that throwing two million people off of snap would be devastating. not just to those individuals but to our economy as well. but the administration quite frankly needs to do more. they need to convene a white house conference on food and nutrition so that we can get everyone in a room, including our farmers, to address the

issue of hunger in america. let's solve this problem. this is a solvable problem, but it needs attention and we need to have a plan. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reflect over the next week about where we should go from here. do we want to live up to the bipartisan tradition of giants like bob dole and george mcgovern who came together and help create this anti-hunger safety net that we have in this country? their leadership almost ended hunger in the 1970's in this country. unfortunately we have strayed so far away from what they have done that we find ourselves with 50 million people hungry. do we want to unite to provide a circle of protection around our most vulnerable -- around our most vulnerable neighbors? i hope so, mr. speaker. i hope so. i hope that this house of representatives understands that one of our obligations is to make sure that the needy, that the poor and the most vulnerable are not forgotten,

that we don't sit back and allow them to fall through the cracks. we can do this. we can end hunger now. all we need is the political will. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. . mcclintock: mr. speaker, major develops have occurred within the last six weeks that are each disturbing by themselves but extremely alarming when viewed together. the first was the revelation that for more than two years one of the most powerful and feared agencies of the federal government was used to harass and intimidate individual americans into silence because of their political beliefs. evidence has already established that hundreds of conservative groups were subjected to invasive interrogations when they sought to participate in the political process. this pattern of conduct was not limited to applications under

section 501-c but included audits of established conservative groups and individuals as well. this conduct reached the highest levels of the i.r.s. a similar pattern of abuse has been documented in several other agencies including the department of labor and the environmental protection agency. these facts are undisputed, and their implications are utterly toxic to a free society. the second development was news that the justice department had seized the telephone records of some 20 reporters covering congress for the associated press in an obvious attempt to discourage whistleblowers from talking to the press. fox news reporter james rosen and his family were stocked by authorities as he tried to get to the bottom of the benghazi scandal. to obtain the search warrant allowing this, the attorney general of the united states filed an absolutely spurious

claim to the federal government charging that rosen had tried act. late the espionage that is the act which two were executed in 1953. asking reporters of this administration could not possibly have been more powerful or terrifying. and this week the head of a.p. reported that their news sources have dried up in response to these naked acts of intimidation. the third development is news that the federal government has swept up the phone and internet records of millions of americans in the name of state security. just months after the official in charge categorically denied the existence of this program in sworn testimony to congress. the practice of the government searching your personal records without having first established reason to believe that you've committed a crime is expressly fore biden by the fourth amendment -- forbidden by the fourth amendment,

british officials searching for contraband. yet, this government has done precisely that on a scale unimaginable in colonial times. this case searching for evidence of terrorism. if i know the websites that you visited and what phone numbers you've called, i know a very great deal about your political and religious beliefs, your personal relationships, your sexual interests, your mental and physical health, your family finances. and with that information in the hands of officials who have already demonstrated a clear intention and ability to use their power to intimidate political adversaries into silence or to discourage reporters from asking embarrassing questions, our society could very quickly cross a very bright line between freedom and authoritarianism. as if to underscore the point, the administration spokesman told a national television

audience that, quote, the law is irrelevant. he called these matters a distraction. what does that say about a society that once prided itself on being a nation of laws and not of men? all around this capitol we're surrounded by the trappings of the roman republic. they serve as an inspiration, but they should also serve as a warning. the roman republic didn't end because caesar crossed the river with his legion. it was because that illegal act was not effectively resisted and led to another usurpation and then another and another over a period of years. it was the accumulation of many such infringements that brought the decline of freedom and set the stage for rome's age of tyrants. that's what jefferson meant when he said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. my great fear is we adjourn

tomorrow to celebrate the 237th anniversary of american freedom. sometime between the barbecues and the fire works we shrug off these profound developments and go about as if nothing has happened. this summer of 2013 has brought us to a crossroads and i rise today to urge the house to give these events its full and undivided attention. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega, for five minutes. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, just yesterday on the cover page of "the washington post" newspaper, there was an article itten by journalist john and rick. according to a recent poll taken among the sports fans of

the washington, d.c., area, and i quote, a large majority of area sports fans say the washington redskins should not change the team name. even though most supporters of the nickname find the word redskin is an inappropriate term for native americans. mr. speaker, not only is the term redskin inappropriate, but just plain offensive and derogatory towards native americans. and i want to share with my colleagues in congress and pecially the american people how the word redskin came about .nd its history in 199 it was a standard procedure in maine and nova scotia to scalp many of the neighbors of the micmack tribe and it was implemented in 1755 by settlers who live what is now known in the state of massachusetts that their object

was to skill and scalp members of the pebscott indian nation. you'll get paid for killing and/or scalping native american indians. if you get a scalp of an indian, you also get paid 40 pounds. now, for any female, mr. speaker, female indian under 12 years old that you kill or scalped, you also get paid 25 pounds. mr. speaker, i submit that these scalps were also called redskins. and i repeat again, mr. speaker, this is why this word is so offensive to native americans. now, mr. speaker, there's a saying in indian country, walk in a man's moccasins for two weeks before you pass judgment on that person. mr. speaker, my point is, what if that scalp belonged to your

mother or to your wife or to your daughter or your brother or sister or to your son or father? mr. speaker, it is my sincere hope that our washington fans and the american public will come to realize why the usage of the word redskin has brought nothing but a stark reminder of the horrors of how native americans had been treated for centuries. mr. speaker, i honestly believe in the fairness and decency of the american people. i believe that many of our fellow americans did not know of the history of the word redskin, and i sincerely hope many others will come to a better understanding as to why native americans feel obviously offended by the use of the word. i hope mr. roger goodell, the commissioner of the national football league, and all the nfl club owners will seriously raise this matter with mr. dan snyder to try and change the

name of his washington football franchise. the nfl has a moral responsibility to take corrective action on this matter. it is the right thing to do. under the mandate of the u.s. constitution, mr. speaker, the u.s. congress has both the legal and moral responsibility to look after the needs of our native american nations. it is for this reason that the bill h.r. 1278 was introduced to not allow or to cancel the registration of the word redskin as a trademark name simply because it is a derogatory term and a racial slur against native americans. mr. speaker, don't get me wrong, i'm a great supporter and fan of the sport of football. in fact i played four years of football in high school. many of my relatives played both in college level and in the nfl. the late junior seau of the san diego chargers, troy polamalu,

jesse of the 49ers, just to name a few, many others. mr. speaker, we need to correct this inequity. we need to show respect for members of the native american community. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the president this week declared he's going to unilaterally stop climate change. that's right. he's going to part the oceans and change the temperature to his liking. how is he going to do this? well, he's declaring war on fossil fuels again. this week it's coal. mr. speaker, coal counts for 37% of our nation's electricity. how does the president plan to make up for that 37%? well, it doesn't say. i guess that 37% will just have to do without heat come winter. in his radical climate change manifesto to a room packed full

of his environmental lobby the president issued an edict to the e.p.a. to regulate coal out of existence. both congress and the american people have overwhelmingly rejected this policy in the past. never mind the will of the people. never mind congress has said no to these ideas. the president is pandering to the environmental groups and he wants it his way. so he's just going to issue what i believe unconstitutional executive orders. mr. speaker, there are consequences for such rash actions by the president. it will raise the cost of energy for american families, cripple the economy and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs of people who work in the energy industry. the war on coal is really a war on the american people. mr. speaker, maybe the president is not aware that the coal plant over here on south capitol street heats part of the capitol.

is this a way to silence congress? who knows. this is just another day in the administration whose policy is, nothing from below, nothing from below the ground, nothing from below the sea. no oil, no coal, no gas and no jobs. that's the result of this policy. that's why i've introduced the ensuring affordable energy act, my bill would put an end to this back door attempt by this administration to go around congress and circumvent the will of the people. this bill would prohibit any e.p.a. funds from being used to implement the regulation of greenhouse gases. this has passed in the past in the house but has yet to become law. now, let's talk about natural gas. down the street from the white house is another marble bureaucratic palace they call the department of energy. sitting on their oak desk are dusty folders holding applications to export liquefied natural gas.

in 2010, the oil and gas industry contributed almost $500 billion to our economy, and over the last seven years, the amount of recoverable natural gas in our country has skyrocketed. for the first time in our nation's history we have more natural gas than we can use here in the united states even if we tried. america can sell that gas on the global market for billions of dollars, creating thousands of jobs in the process, but we're not doing it. for one simple bureaucratic red tape reason, the department of energy. . in typical washington-style fashion we have seen delay, delay, delay by the department of energy to approve these permits. over the last 70 years this bureaucratic hurdle was hardly noticed as the u.s. was an importer of natural gas, but not so anymore. technology has changed all of this. there are some 18 export

applications sitting over there on those desks in those dusty folders for the d.o.e. to approve. the department's response, no response. the last three years the d.o.e. has granted only two applications. meanwhile, countries that want to buy american natural gas are going to our worldwide competitors like china and russia. now, isn't that lovely? understand this, mr. speaker. there is already an agency, ferc, the federal energy regulatory commission, that is in the pipeline to approve applications such as this. so we have duplication with the d.o.e. and ferc. so what we have to do is remove the d.o.e. from the process. remove this duplication. mr. speaker, we have enough oil, natural gas, and coal in america to make the middle east turmoil, middle east politics, and middle east energy irrelevant. if we would just use our own god-given natural resources.

washington bureaucrats sit at their large oak desks sipping on those lattes every day and they are regulating american energy out of business. it's time to take the padlock off the marble palaces of the e.p.a. and d.o.e. and remove the bureaucrats from the energy business. let's use the resources the good lord has given us to take care of america. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. the struggle for equality, for justice, for freedom, for democracy is an awesome force. no force, no historical circumstance have done more to shape our nation, but that struggle has always been confronted by an endless series of attempts to block, minimize,

sidetrack, undo, and weaken our democracy. through all these struggles, those most oppressed have repeatedly taken the lead to reinforce our democracy and solidify our nation. we fought a bloody raging civil war to end the nation that was suffocating half slave and half free. three million men fought in hat war, and 620,000 died. though african-americans made up 1% of the population of the north, they made up 10% of the union army. in the aftermath, congress sought to enshrine in the constitution forever basic democratic rights in the 14th amendment, pouter to enforce the bill of rights, due process, and equal rights.

and in the 15th amendment voting rights regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. but a violent terrorist backlash led by the ku klux klan, prevented the implementation of our constitution for 100 years until a new civil rights struggle based on nonviolence, but no less powerful, forced our nation the courts, and this congress to recognize those promised constitutional rights. among the forms of recognition were the civil rights act of 1964 and 1965. they transformed the political landscape of america, but the truth is that beginning as far back as the nixon administration efforts sought to chip away at those rights. yesterday's supreme court decision undermining the enforcement of voting rights is

the latest attempt to roll back history. shall we go forward? or shall we go backwards? the rapidly changing demographics of our nation is calling new forces into the struggle for civil and voting rights every day, and our response to yesterday's supreme court decision presents a challenge for every member of this congress. and we have to ask ourselves which side are you on? for me the path is clear, we need a federal right to vote enshrined in our constitution, one clearly unambiguously, boldly, proudly asserting that we will not tolerate any infringement of -- on our rights as citizens to express the will of the people. those who seek to dilute voting rights, to place barriers on every citizen's right to participate in this government

will find themselves on the wrong side of history, and in the end will be no more evil to stop the movement for equality, for justice, for freedom, for democracy, and they are able to stop the sun from rising in the morning or setting in the evening, or to stop people who have decided that they love each other from expressing it. i thank you, mr. speaker. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. regal -- rigell, for five minutes. mr. rigele: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rigele: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. rigele -- mr. rigell: thank you, mr. speaker. before i begin my remarks i express my appreciation to my colleague, mr. fleischmann, and the tribute he paid his father

who was part of the greatest generation. we thank his father to his service to our country. i rise this morning to talk about my number one priority in serving the second district of virginia in this incredible country we live in and that's jobs. number one focus of our office and i rise in strong support of house resolution 2231, offshore energy and jobs act, that will come before this house either today or tomorrow. that bill includes language that i authored and introduced and it creates a clear path, an opportunity that can really change the lives of hardworking americans, and i'm awfully proud of what the bill will do. ideally when it's passed through the senate and made into law by the president and job creation. before i share with this house what the bill actually does and what the language does, i want to make clear what it's not. it's not a bill that spends more money. in fact, it's just the opposite. it's a bill that actually

creates federal revenue. here's how it works. right now there is a moratorium, a full stop on offshore exploration of energy off the coast of virginia. what our bill does and the language does is it breaks through that and it opens up that tremendous job creating potential of virginia's offshore energy. the first benefit of this bill, of course, is jobs. 18,000 jobs are estimated to be created by this bill just in virginia alone. mr. speaker, every one of those jobs is a life changing job. i'm a entrepreneur and what i refer to as a season of public service. i have had the privilege hundreds and hundreds of times, perhaps thousands, don't know, of being able to look at an applicant and say these incredible words, you're hire hired -- you're hired. i know the person goes home and says i got the job. that's what americans are

looking for is opportunity. that's what this bill advanced. as we become more energy independent, what happens is we have reduced our need to have our young men and women around the world protecting our sources of energy. it makes america a safer country. right now more money than any one of us would like are going to countries like venezuela and saudi arabia. these countries don't share our values. and we are fueling their economies. we should be fueling our economy. it creates the revenue, mr. speaker, that we need. i'm a republican who talks about the need for more revenue, but we get that by growing our economy. this is the way we can invest in our schools and have better roads, make the investments that we need to make in our infrastructure. and look, it fast traction a great renewable, wind. it has tremendous opportunity. frankly it's too expensive

right now, but we are americans. we are smart, we can innovate, we can think our way through this. and find a way to make wind energy more affordable. in this very body right here, the president came in and he said, i'm all of the above with respect to energy. mr. speaker, that's common ground. i'm delighted to say it's common ground. right now i'm having difficulty reconciling what he said with this full moratorium off the coast of virginia. and this bill represents common ground. we've got the governor of virginia. we have our two u.s. senators interestingly, both democrats, senator kaine and senator warner, both support in principle this same -- principal. the general assembly of virginia wants to move forward. there is a clear consensus in virginia that this legislation ought to go forward. right now the only thing

holding up these jobs, every one of these life changing jobs is the administration. we are not asking for a tremendous amount of money. as i mentioned in fact we are asking for the administration to get out of the way. mr. speaker, i didn't mention what tremendous local support this bill has. we have the local naacp is behind the bill. mator of virginia beach, the largest city in our district, is behind the bill. hampton roads chamber of commerce, hampton roads planning district commission, hampton roads global commerce counsel council, the virginia port authority. we can do this, mr. speaker, while meeting the deep obligation we have, the moral obligation, to leave our children with clean air and clean water and clean soil. to those who put one against the other, that it's either jobs or a good environment, i reject that outright. why? because we are americans. it's in our d.n.a. to innovate

and to think through these things. we can have a reliable source of energy. we can help right off the coast of virginia, create the local jobs we need to give our young people opportunity and our veterans exiting the military, so many who exit right there in hampton roads. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, last eek the 1,200-page farm bill was defeated. i'm told that the senate's immigration bill is now 1,922 pages. the previous speaker of this body, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, famously said that we would have to pass the very misnamed affordable care act, we would

have to pass it before we could figure out or find out what was in it. the last issue of the "weekly standard" magazine includes an article entitled our mass terse, the bureaucrats. -- masters, the bureaucrats. article says there is overwhelm one member of congress for each 5,150 federal bureaucrats. says this bureaucracy is too insulated from the people. this gigantic bureaucracy has produced so many laws, rules, and regulations that they have not even designed a computer that can keep up with all of them, much less a human being. almost everyone has violated the federal law at some point, especially a tax law. an innocent mistake it's not supposed to be criminal, but a zealous prosecutor can make almost anything criminal. a few days ago a woman who described herself as a progressive or liberal democrat and thus would favor all these regulations, testified in one of my committees and said that, quote, at the time each rule was created it made sense.

but over time the accumulation of rules and regulations ends up costing us money and frustrating the public. our federal government has grown so big that it is now almost completely out of control and the people are suffering because of it. jobs are killed. small businesses go under. and on and on and on. i started this morning by mentioning the farm bill. so complicated that cost estimates ranged all the way from $500 billion to $1 trillion. we didn't even know how much it was going to cost. everyone respects and appreciates farmers. we must help small farmers as much as we can. small farmers are important for our quality of life and our economy. however one part of the bill that i want to discuss here briefly this morning is the subsidy for crop insurance. every other business in this country, small or large, pays 100% of their insurance on their own. and these businesses do not

expect or request subsidized federal insurance. right now federal taxpayers are paying for 2/3 of farmers' subsidies in federal crop insurance. most of these subsidies go to the biggest giants in agriculture. these subsidies also primarily benefit a very few multinational insurance companies, the biggest crop insurance -- insurer is wells fargo, and several of these crop insurance, insurance giants are operated by foreign companies based in places like the bahamas, japan, and switzerland. that's who the federal -- u.s. taxpayers are subsidizing. the excessive amount of this subsidy just last year cost taxpayers $6 billion and was one of several reasons the farm bill went down to defeat. actually, the farm bill should be called the food stamp bill. i think 20% of it dealt with farmers and 80% for food.

i'm not advocating doing away with this program completely, but i did offer an amendment to the farm bill to eliminate premium subsidies being paid to any farm crop insurance policy under the harvest price option. if the price of the covered crop increases between planting and harvest, the farmer's revenue is recalculated using the higher harvest price, in other words, giving the farmer more money sometimes significantly more money than expected when he first planted the crop. as a result, harvest price options can cause the farmer to receive much more revenue than was guaranteed to planting. according to the congressional budget office, my amendment would have saved at least $7.7 billion over the next 10 years and possibly even more or much more in years for the severe drought such as the $6 billion last year. this amendment was endorsed by the citizens against government

waste, americans for tax reform, the national taxpayers union, heritage action, a slew of other fiscally conservative organizations. professor from iowa state iversity helped reinvent reform in the 1990's. he said it's a social program. because of how american agriculture works, it's a social program that helps the biggest agribusinesses the most. my amendment got an endorsement from the farm bureau because they realized this subsidy has now become just too lucrative and too excessive. the lobby was afraid of my amendment and big agri kept my amendment from being presented on the floor because they were almost certain it would pass. mr. speaker, we have to make changes in the future so too much tax money will not go to cadillac crop insurance programs. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the entleman from south carolina -- mr. murphy from pennsylvania for five minutes. mr. murphy: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, in may, more than 130 employees at pbs coals in somerset county, pennsylvania, were laid off. it was the third round of layoffs by the company in less than a year. the men and women join more than 5,000 coal miners who lost their jobs in 2012. with his announcement of cap and trade the sequel, the president declared not just a war on coal but a war on jobs. it won't just be coal miners who lose their jobs or boilermakers who no longer are building and maintaining power plants but also thousands of laborers, technicians, steam

fitters, welders, plumbers, carpenters, machinists and railroad workers will be without of work, real people, real faces, real families. they'll join the 130 at a factory in mirlsburg, kentucky, who were laid off in march or in peoria, the hundreds of boilermakers at an equipment factory who were let go. in erie, pennsylvania, where g.e. is laying off 950 workers at its locomotive plant because less coal means less work for the railroads. these men and women are out of work because at the country's 600 coal plants more than 20% of all coal-fired units are being shut down in part due to e.r.a. regulations. the hat was before president's speech on tuesday announcing new global warming regulations. now, more families will be out of work and struggling to get

by. these are american families trying to pay off mortgages, car loans, put their children through school, real americans who sweated and toiled all in hopes that the next generation of their children would climb higher toward the american dream. the president's new coal regulations will come at a cost of $184 billion and 180,000 fewer jobs each year in mining, transportation, manufacturing and power generation. as coal energy is cut off, it means higher electric bills. families will spend $400 more each year on their energy bill. that's on top of the $2,000 more each year they pay for gasoline. and higher energy bills means higher manufacturing costs, hurting our manufacturing industry even more as they struggle to compete in world markets. we should be modernizing, not shutting down, these coal-powered plants. we can burn coal cleanly.

since 1970, coal has tripled in its use. meanwhile, sulfur dioxide emissions are down 50%, nitrous oxide down 30%, mercury emissions in the u.s. has ropped roughly 60% since the 1950's. let's call for clean coal and use the talent of our scientists and engineers and our tradesmen for better technology. this week families throughout america were startled when a top obama science advisor was quoted in "the new york times," quote, a war on coal is exactly what we need, unquote. but this is not just a war on coal. it is a war on the american worker and their families. these families want high-paying jobs and lower energy bills. they want doors to open, not to have them slammed in their faces. they do not want washington to surrender american jobs to foreign manufacturers because these fathers and these mothers

and these children will not surrender. they are waking up and saying, stop the war on our jobs and they are not going to sit back quietly much longer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and talk a little bit about energy. later on today we'll be talking more about the offshore energy and jobs act, part of the republican party's all-of-the-above energy program. it's a good opportunity for us to talk about various different things in energy. i was home, mr. speaker, a couple weeks ago going through one of my manufacturing facilities in my district and i asked some of the folks working there, what could we do here to help create more american

manufacturing jobs and i was struck by the answer. the answer was clear. keep our energy costs down. they also talked about regulation. they also talked about health care. they talked about a lot of the things we hear all over the place. the first thing they mentioned to me was to keep energy costs down was very interesting. i said why is it so important. they make rings. they do heavy manufacturing. it's a metal foundry. nd they said that not only does lower energy keep their cost of materials down and make them more competitive in the world, but it keeps the cost of their operations down which makes them more competitive in the world and obviously kept the cost of their employees down of simply getting back and forth to work. low energy costs was the best thing we could do for this heavy manufacture back in south carolina. i think that's very instructive to us, mr. speaker, when it comes to answering the question, what are we doing for jobs? we're here today to talk about . t just energy but about jobs

the original objection -- one of the big pieces to our all-of-the-above proposal is the keystone pipeline. many people have heard about it and i want to talk a few minutes about it. one of the objections was environmental. many people saw this map. the map from alberta, canada, down to the gulf of mexico where very prominently featured by the administration this went through a large aquifer by a name i could not announce. they drew attention to the fact, oh, my goodness, it was going to poison the drinking water in all these american states and wasn't that a terrible thing? this was the map the administration wanted all of us to see. this is the map of the real world. this is the map that shows where these pipelines already function and function extraordinarily well. there are pipelines all over the central part of this country, all over this aquifer already without any harm to any persons. they are several hundred feet

deeps and plipes are 20 or 30 -- pipelines are 20 or 30 feet deep. we know how to do this safely and soundly. we've been doing it for over a century. there is no environmental risks through this aquifer. we know how to do it and know how to do it well. now we hear objection, mr. speaker, that the administration doesn't want to backslide. i heard an interview where a democrat activist used that word six or eight times in two minutes. didn't want to backslide on carbon. that we couldn't do this pipeline because it would encourage additional use of gasoline. it would make gas cheaper and that would be bad because we would use more of it. that's the administration's current position. absolutely absurd. if you go to alberta, canada, where this raw material is. who will you see? you see the chinese. if we don't use this oil, if we do not refine this oil, if we do not take advantage of this particular natural resource that's right across our border, the chinese will, and it will be used in a fashion that would

offend the sensibilities of most of the people who care about the environment. i've been to china. i remember landing at the runway not being able to see the end of the runway out of the window because the pollution was so bad. that is how this material is going to be used if we allow it to go overseas. we have the ability now to keep this material in this country. we have the ability now to help keep our energy prices down. we have the ability now to help keep americans at work and put additional americans back to work. and to the extent we keep it out of the hands of the chinese where there are no rules on how this use this material, we actually have a chance to help the environment. the keystone pipeline keeps energy prices down, puts american people back to work and protects our environment. absolutely absurd it hasn't been approved already, mr. chairman, and it needs to be approved now. and with that i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, for five minutes.

mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i speak today of the fourth coming centennial recognizing three bloody days that will forever remain emblazoned on our hearts. the battle of gettysburg was a pivotal turning point in the american civil war. one of the single most defining moments in american history and one that united the nation and restored peace and prosperity to our great land. therefore, be it known as we recollect and observe the horrific and critical events that took place in july, 1863, that the memory of these brave souls who sacrificed their lives is kept alive through the tireless efforts of the national park service and the work of countless organizations. the sons of the union veterans of the civil war, our allied orders of the grant army of the republic, the military order of the loyal legions of the united states, along with the sons of

confed rate veterans, united daughters of the confederacy and other heritage organizations honor all of the brave warriors lost on the fields of gettysburg. these organizations work together tirelessly to preserve the hallowed ground upon which these americans, our brothers and sisters, fought, bled and perished. for as long as there is breath in our chest and light in our eyes, we the people of these united states shall keep alive the memory of our ancestors and maintain the peace paid for with their sacrifice during the merciless four years of our nation's history. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

>> the senate continues work on immigration legislation. they have a few votes scheduled for about 11:30 eastern, including one to limit debate on the measure. possible final passage, too. follow the senate on c-span2. shortly here on c-span, we'll bring you live coverage of speaker john boehner's holding his weekly briefing. he'll take questions on reporters from range of issues, including likely the house agenda going into the july 4th recess and recent decisions handed down by the supreme court. leader pelosi has her briefing going on this morning. you'll see that later in our program schedule. acting i.r.s. commissioner, danny wuerfle is testifying this morning or the agency's tax exempt application review

process. in a report released earlier, the i.r.s. said it was suspending the use of the so-called bolo list that organized applications by group name. the report which called -- was called for by the white house says no evidence has been found, quote, intentional wrongdoing. the house ways and means committee, can you follow it live now on c-span3. >> this sunday, american history tv on c-span3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the 42nd new york here became best known as the tamm manny regiment. the main figure on this monument, the statue of the indian chief, represents teaff at that manny, a chief of the delaware tribe. he was known as being both a warrior and diplomat and became the symbol of the tamany hall in new york city. the third day of july would participate in the repulse of

pickett's charge. they lost at least 15 of their men killed. as well as over at the dedication of this monument said, this monument was american from head to toe. in its proportions, themes, and gallantry. it represented the best the nation had to offer. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live coverage sunday begins at 9:30 eastern with historians throughout the day including carol and alan. later at 5:30 we'll take your calls and tweets, from author of "gods and generals." 8:00, the commemorative ceremony, followed by a candlelight procession to soldiers national cemetery. it will end the day at 9:15 with civil war institute director peter car michael taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions and comments to our sunday guests oday at faith-based --

facebook.com/c-spanhistory. >> house speaker john boehner's weekly briefing is set for 11:30 eastern. we'll have it live once it gets started here on c-span. until then a look at the items in the news and viewer phone calls from today's "washington journal." host: the daily caller, want to tart by showing the "daily thedailycaller.com website. you are one of the few places not to lead with the gay marriage story. guest: we try to be different. host: why did you lead with tammy duckworth? guest: when we saw the tammy duckworth story yesterday, even people in the office who might not normally always agree with tammy, i think everybody was kind of blown away. she earned a lot of respect from conservatives yesterday. with her comments. she got into a debate over disability benefits with huntly

a parnle twisted their ank until prep school. she said i had my arm blown off in combat, i think i know more about this than you. it was the bold, direct statement that you don't hear often in washington, d.c. so i think we should always applaud it when it does happen. host: daily call did not have an opinion piece on the gay marriage rulings, did they? guest: we had opinion contributors on the side as an organization we don't take official stances on cases like that. host: is this a big deal? guest: it's a huge deal. i think when you are an activist for any cause are you waiting for that moment that is the tipping point. i think that's what we reached yesterday with this decision. this battle for gay marriage nationwide seems to have, if not quite come to an end, then we are getting close to it. it is not a galvanizing issue for young conservatives. you do not find young

conservatives voicing a lot of opposition to gay marriage. after all it was president clinton who signed the defense f marriage act into law, along with the h.i.v. travel ban who campaigned on doma throughout the south. this is an issue that young people even, even republican leaning young people, have fully embraced. now it's left up to the states which you can argue is a victory for federalism as justice kennedy did. host: as a young conservative, what do you think? guest: well, i'm not trying to label myself a young conservative. but my feeling generally-dirnl' 26 years old. i have grown up, i think -- generally -- i'm 26 years old. i have grown up, i think, very differently from my parents and grandparents. the single most important fact here is we have grown up with people out of the closet, gay

friends, we have people who are gay starting families. this affects their day-to-day life, bottom line, this feakts how much they pay in taxes, the benefits that they receive from the federal government. and that is just -- when you have that, you have that kind of skin in the game on an issue, the people who are really against this, it's a much more sort of abstract thing they are arguing for about how this will degrade society in some way. but it's a much more ephemeral notion than the day-to-day bottom line concerns that opponents of doma would have. one side was clearly more invested and that side came out the winner. host: from the "wall street journal" this morning, varied voices from the g.o.p. after decision. is this politically beneficial to the g.o.p.? harmful? is it going to cause a riff?

guest: this is -- i was struck yesterday by governor christie coming out and blasting the court's decision, which did seem to be a little bit of a head nod, perhaps, to iowa voters in the future. i think that will be kind of -- there's certainly an argument to be made, you can see a lot of it on the right, that the court oversteps its bound on this issue. at the same time you'll have a lot of conservatives saying this is a victory for federalism. i think congressman huelskamp and his idea of proposing a federal marriage amendment, i somehow doubt that's a fight the republican party wants to get into in 2013. i don't think that's going anywhere. generally i think this is -- because this isn't such a charged issue like abortion, which does remain something of a litmus test for success in the national g.o.p. this is something where there is a lot of diversity of opinion, i think, tolerated on the right

out of necessity. host: john boehner, this is part of his statement. i want to get your viewpoint on this. while i am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical we protect our system of checks and balances. a robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. guest: that sounds like somebody's stepping back and also might argue this is a victory for federalism. 121 -- 11 states right now have gay marriage. 30% of the american population, roughly, lives in states that allow gay marriage. some states, this isn't going to change anything. states like florida where they have an amendment to their state constitution. it would be very hard to override at this point. nothing is going to change in

florida any time soon. other states, more liberal leaning states, absolutely are going to see gay marriage increase steadily over the next few years. but on the national level i don't think this is going to be decided any time soon is. i don't think there is going to be an amendment to the constitution either way, either granting gay pargee to all 50 states or prohibiting it nationwide. this is going to be a state by state issue for the foreseeable future. host: another major supreme court decision this week was on voting rights. how significant do you see that one? guest: the first thing we have to ask our steffs -- ourselves when considering the voting rights act is how -- has this country changed since 1965? it's certainly my hope that it has. we have to then ask ourselves, are certain states, certain jurisdictions in this country more racist than others? the answer is, maybe. ut i certainly hope not.

this is not something -- you do not see republicans rushing out there to praise this decision is. this is a very legalistic decision. it's being blasted as radical, but roberts' opinion, of course, was that proponents of section 5 argue that the deterrent effect has made the games and registration possible. when you go back to 1965, black registration in mississippi was something like 6%. now the african-american registration in mississippi is actually larger than white voter registration. this statistic was included in roberts' opinion. but to argue, roberts argued section 5, if you just say this is all due to the deterrent effect of section 5, then section 5 would continue on indefinitely and they just simply didn't want this on the

books. another thing we got to look at with the voting rights act is the intended consequences that have come along with it and a creation of minority-majority districts. the good thing it's created a lot of opportunities for african-american politicians to go into congress. the bad part is that these typically are the most liberal districts in the country, and the representatives from those districts have a great deal of -- very hard time getting elected statewide. so much that in 2016 you can see that there is -- could you argue at least that there is a robust republican minority bench waiting to come to the fore than you have with the democrats. host: immigration in the senate potentially in the house. how does that play? guest: in the senate i think we are looking somewhere in the neighborhood of 68 votes. in the affirmative. you had 67 votes for cloture.

it's more like 69 when you factor in the senators who had their planes delayed. you can expect, i think, that one or two of those votes, particularly on the republican side, may break away. they vote for cloture, the thing that's really needed, and then they can go back home to their states and say, look, i voted against the immigration bill. 70 votes i guess has been touted by senator schumer as the magic number here. i think that's an awfully big hurdle to get to. either way i think even if it does get 70 votes, there is a chance that this isn't even brought to the fore by boehner in the house. and if it is brought to the floor by boehner in the house, . will in all likelihood lose you could have it tomorrow. could you have the combination of democratic and republican votes for it would probably be overwhelming, but right now, john boehner is not, i think, all that invested in bringing

this forward. host: if you are planning for running for president in a republican primary in 2016, is this issue going to have legs until then? guest: yeah. senator rubio is going to get kicked around a lot for this. on the one side he is -- has shown once again his political shrewdness and how he's able to martial republican support for this in the senate. you have rand paul very much against this. you have a lot of his probable opponents in 2016 are going to be taking shots at him for a long time. is that enough to actually sink marco rubio who still remains one of the party's most effective messengers who is a hispanic candidate and that of course will be a huge draw, republicans thirks well, are we going to win this in 2016? can we pull this off? marco rubio has a huge number of advantages, but right now it remains to be seen what the long-term damage to his presidential prospects are.

host: will rahn is our guest, deputy editor at the "daily caller" run by tucker karlsson. he'll be our guest for another half-hour. if you would like to call in the numbers are up on the screen. we'll begin with a caller from eric on our independent line. hi. caller: hi. c-span is a great thing. my opinion out here in california is that the issue of prop 8 was not decided by the supreme court justices. it was decided by two people, jerry brown and arnold schwarzenegger when they did their duty as governor and attorney general for the state in representing the people of california as far as the prop 8 went. when they refused to do it, there was no standing left. i think here in california we need to get some kind of amendment process going to force those individuals who are the governor or the attorney general of the state to represent the

people when a law is passed. that's basically the way i feel. take the comment off air. guest: california, it remains one of the most progressive states in the country. and their resistence to gay marriage is notable, at least was. i wonder if it was actually put again to a vote today whether gay marriage would pass in california. i think that would be an excellent indicator how quickly this would get across the country. host: does this decision do anything to the proposition movement? guest: if anything i would say it probably strengthens it. by strengthening the rights of udges to throw out these laws. absolutely. host: florida, republican. caller: hi, how you doing? i am listening to the gentleman here and i was wondering, all of

the laws were taken out of the bible. so the gentleman that called before stating that he's not religions and he's not -- all the laws from the united states of america have been pulled out from the bible. lincoln, george washington were christians. if we allow men and men to get married, we are going against the bible, number one. number two, can i marry my dog or horse? and let them die and collect social security? man and man get married. they don't multiply. that being said, in the future they have no children unless they adopt. most don't want to adopt, because if not they wouldn't suggest being gay. and gay is not being born gay. it doesn't work that way. gay is a spirit. that comes in the person and you could rebuke that. so you can -- homosexuals can turn away from being homosexual.

that being said, it's ridiculous what's going on. host: can i ask you two questions? where do you attend church, and how old are you? caller: me, i'm 47. i attend church. host: thank you for calling in this morning. mr. rahn. guest: one thing that we are going to have to look at with the gay marriage decision is how this affects polygamy. there was an interesting piece yesterday on buzz-feed in which it was asked advocates for plural marriage who are closely watching these decisions what they thought, and this was celebrated by them. we are going to have to grapple as a society, once we have lost the construct of the one man,

one woman marriage, what right do we have to tell a group of consenting adults who want to enter into a plural marriage that that is unjust and should be illegal. host: hillary is in potomac, maryland, on our democrats line. hillary, are you on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. the caller from california, the independent, he's wrong when he says the state didn't do its job in defending prop 8. it did. the proponents in the lower court, in the district court, and the proponents of prop 8 intervened. they had a trial. they were sued by the opponents of proposition 8, and they had a trial. and the state and the proponents had every opportunity to defend the law. they had to defend the law by proving that gay marriage was bad for society. that it hurt children or it hurt heterosexual marriage. they had the burden of proving

that and they didn't. therefore the law fell. and the supreme court did not do anything except let that stand. just a little fed up with hearing the coverage of this, the supreme court approved gay marriage by judicial fiat. there was no judicial fiat anywhere here. there was a trial and facts came out and the facts didn't bear out what the proponents or state needed to prove in order to defend the law. host: sorry about that. i thought were you finished. guest: this does go back to the point that the people are doing against this law have to deal with the fact that they are arguing kind after very abstract concept. that there is going to be some unintended consequence that comes along the line from this. at least to some kind of societal degradation on a massive scale, and that is an extremely hard thing to prove

versus the counter argument which is just are you married to this person and that should be acknowledged as a real marriage. host: going to ask you about this article on the "daily caller" this morning. f.b.i. is too racist to show pictures ever terrorists less than a week after washington democratic representative jim mcdermott wrote a letter to the f.b.i. about the faces of global terrorism. and he found it to be racist. the add is being taken down, the "seattle times" reports. guest: this is something that we have to deal with as we confront islamic fundamentalist terrorism. the worry always is on alienating people in the muslim american community. who are just americans practicing religious beliefs. and, b, we need as allies as we confront the problem of global jihadism. and it's a very hard note to strike, i think, the difference

between honest with ourselves about exactly what we are confronting, all at the same time not needliesly alienating and defending people. host: the one story the "daily caller" had on the gay issue. clintons praise the reversal of bill clinton's gay marriage ban. why did you -- >> follow today's "washington journal" online at c-span.org. live now back to the capitol to hear from speaker boehner. >> yesterday we learned that the company in the first quarter grew -- economy grew in the first quarter at an amemberic 1.8%. another sign that the obama economy is producing slow economic growth, high unemployment, and stagnant wages. as i said last week, this can't -- cannot become the new normal. that's why republicans are continuing to listen to the american people and offering a real jobs plan for american

families and small businesses. that's why we are passing two interview bills this week to expand interview production in north america. that's why we are fighting to make college loans more affordable for students and their families. our jobs plan could bring us out of this new normal and deliver sustained economic growth and expand opportunity for all americans. it isn't just the misguided policies are standing in our way. it's misguided leadership as well. interest rates on student loans are about to double because the president and senate democrats won't resolve this impasse. the president's national energy tax will cost us jobs and exactly what the american people don't want. that's why the president needs to approve the keystone pipeline soon because americans are still asking the question, where are

the jobs? finally, weeks ago i along with the leader and whip and chairman goodlatte issued a statement that i thought was pretty clear. but apparently some haven't gotten the message. the house is not going to take up and vote on whatever the senate passes. we are going to do our own bill through regular order and there will be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the american people. for any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the house, it's going to have ton a bill-to be a bill that has support of the majority of our members. immigration reform has to be grounded in real border security. it's what the american people believe, and it's a principle that our majority believes in as well. chairman mccaul has done a good job of passing a border security bill. chairman goodlatte is doing good work over in the judiciary

committee. and if immigration reform is going to work, it's essential that the american people have the confidence that it's being done correctly. that's how the house will approach this issue. >> mr. speaker, you said a couple weeks ago to george stephanopoulos that you believe immigration reform would pass and you seem more confident then than you seem now. what do you see as the path forward for reaching what you talked about a couple weeks ago? >> i made clear we are going to go through regular order. the senate will pass their bill, looks like today. we'll go home for the recess next week and listen to our constituents, and when we get back we are going to go to conference on july 10 to have a discussion about the way forward. i don't want to make any predictions on what the outcome of that conversation is going to be, but we are going to have a conversation to determine a pathway forward.

>> are the border security provisions overkill do you think? >> do i not believe so. people have to have confidence, the border is secure before anything else is really going to work. otherwise we repeat the mistakes of 1986. >> mr. speaker, are there any circumstances under which you personally could support a pathway to citizenship for people here illegally? >> my job is to determine the policy provisions that could be in the house bill. my, as i told you-all year, is to facilitate a discussion between -- my job, as i told you all year, is to facilitate a discussion between those issues. and i will continue to facilitate that conversation. >> there are several members on both sides about bills about syria and whether or not you are going to restrict the government from interintervening in syria. why not bring --

>> i think that we have -- the united states has a strategic interest in what happens in syria. we all would like to see assad go. we would also like to see a democratically elected government there. so for our interest and to support our allies in the region, we are going to -- i'm going to continue to work with the president on responsible steps that we can take to protect our interest. le >> i know there was a debate about this in libya two years ago. why not say this is the houses' position? >> i don't know we are ready for that conversation. the president has not suggested any specific steps forward at this point. and so there really is nothing o vote on. >> answer in terms of next steps

in the house for doma, do you plan to take any action given the supreme court's ruling? also do you feel that this $2 million that was spent of taxpayers' money was worth defending the law? >> as are you probably aware i was disappointed in the ruling yesterday. i believe in traditional marriage. but there are people on both sides of this issue with very heartfelt feelings about it, and i respect those views. i made it clear when the house took up this case that i was doing so to protect the constitution and our system of checks and balances. the president or the attorney general doesn't have the right to declare a law unconstitutional. only the supreme court does. and so i believe that the house 's actions were appropriate. the court made its decision.

no plans on -- at this point how the house would move ahead on this. >> on the farm bill, do you support the notion of splitting food stamps away from the farm program? >> there's a lot of conversations going on about the farm bill and a way forward. there have been no decisions. >> do you feel confident in the time line with the house and senate -- >> again, i think we are going to wait to see what our constituents have to say next week. have our conversation with our members. and we'll make some decisions about how we go forward. >> one seems to be that you are ot so confident -- >> i want to have a conversation with our members about how we go forward.

a imegrationpolcy. do you personally believe that actually a bill containing a pathway to citizenship would be best for the republican party? the long-term health -- >> you have all been trying to do this all year in terms of get me to take specific positions on immigration reform. i have made it clear since the day after the election that i thought this political football should stop and that the congress should deal with this issue. it's not easy. if it were easy it would have been fixed a long time ago. but i do think the house and senate have to act. and i'm trying to do everything i can to help make sure we act. the worst thing in the world that can happen is for me to take some specific -- some provision and declare my support or my opposition to it. all that's going to do is slow down the progress.

>> the bills that are moving through the judiciary committee are not getting democratic support. you said that this has to be bipartisan. can the house pass something without -- on immigration without democratic support? >> i think i have made it clear that if we are going to do this the right way, there ought to be a majority of democrats and majority of republicans in favor of it. the american people have to have confidence that we have been thorough about this, and that we have done a good job with it. because without that confidence, the trust between the american people and their government just slips. ll you have to do is look at obamacare. rammed through the congress with a bear minimum of votes, signed into law by the president, and the american people are in more opposition to it today than the day it was passed. that is not how we want to deal with immigration. >> a group of seven immigration bills seems to be pert petually

delayed. they say they are going to release the bill and it doesn't come out. is it time to move on and start to work on this? you say are you going to work on a piecemeal approach. >> i think the bipartisan group in the house, the gang of seven now, they have done a lot of very good work. they are hung up on a couple issues and i think they have acknowledged that. but i would encourage them to continue their work. because as we look for a path forward, we are going to need the ideas from both parties. >> mr. speaker, on the voting rights act, congressman indicated yesterday he would be willing to be the lead republican sponsor as he was the last time on a re-authorization. is that something that the house would consider this year, updating the voting rights act as suggested by the supreme court? >> i think we are reviewing the decision and trying to make some determination about a pathway

forward. we haven't made in decisions as yet. the last one. >> mr. speaker, on other issues like on tax policy and budget policy, you haven't been so shy about stating your position, like no tax increases. what is it about immigration you feel if you step out it's trimental? >> because we are talking about -- detrimental. >> because we are talking about a very contentious issue and difficult issue. i have made it clear i think we need a majority of both parties to support the passage of immigration reform. to do that i've got to facilitate a process and discussion, a bipartisan discussion. and that's what i have done literally since the day after the election. i'm going to continue to do that. me taking a position one way or another somewhere, it's just going to slow the process down and make it more difficult.

i've got a difficult enough job as it is. don't need to make it harder. have a nice and happy july fourth. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> speaker boehner will gavel the house in in about 15 minutes. they'll take up a gulf of mexico energy development agreement between the u.s. and mexico, and another measure expanding offshore drilling. up until then we'll bring you the briefing of democratic leader nancy pelosi from just a short while ago. she talked about immigration, students loan rates, and more. we'll show what you we can until the house gavels in.

>> good morning. soon we'll all be leaving for the fourth of july recess next week, when we celebrate independence day. observing health independence this week marks one year since the supreme court upheld the affordable care act. it captures the spirit of our founders. the spirit they wrote in the declaration of independence. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. affordable care act offers just that. a healthier life, liberty to pursue a person's happiness. to be free of constraint. the job locked because they are policy locked. if you wanted to be a cameraman,

writer, you want to be self-employed, if you want to be -- start a business, if you want to change jobs, whatever you want to do, you are free, you have the liberty to do. we had social security, medicare, and now health independence. and that's something our members will take home to celebrate over this independence day. it's also 100 days, those of you with us yesterday, with secretary sebelius, marking 100 days until the implementation of the affordable care act. very excited about what lies ahead for us. if you want me to i'll go into whatever. all the things already in effect to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if you ask me i will tell you that. right now bringing in the temple markers i always like to bring in, it's 176 days since the

start 113th congress, 96 days, 96 days over three months since the senate passed a budget. still no jobs bill. still no budget agreement. these two things are related. those two issues, as i say, are related. we must have a budget that creates jobs, grows the economy, reduces the deficit, that strengthens the middle class. republicans called for regular order, and now they are rejecting it. i told you last week when i was here with chris van hollen that i would be appointing conferees in the hopes that the republicans would see the light and the necessity to go to the table with the senate to reconcile the differences between the two budgets in the house. i will be appointing all of the members, house members, democratic members of the house budget committee, led by chris , n hollen, our ranking member

allyson schwartz, tim ryan, hakim gwen moore, jefferies, michelle lujan grisham, jerrod hoffman, earl blumenauer, and curt schrader, and others. i read these names so you can see the magnificent diversity of gender, ethnicity, race, geography, philosophical spectrum that we have on our committee. hopefully the republicans will see the light soon and appoint conferees so that we can have a budget. so that we can go forward. .t's really, really important i use -- i talk about the fourth of july about the health independence, but it's also really time for us to sound the

alarm. paul revere were here today, we would need someone like him to be running through the streets saying, sequester is coming. sequester is here, really. a budget is needed. this is very fundamentally important to the success of our country. to the survival of many here. to the strength of our military. as well as to the success of our economy. we shouldn't have any more time go by we at least appoint conferees, hopefully as soon as we come back and resolve these differences. the consequences are great. one of the issues that time is running out on, too, is the issue of student loans. just four days left to keep college affordable for our nation's young people and their middle income families. without action, student loans will double on monday, july 1.

last week congressman joe courtney, we talked about this last week, saw the discharge -- filed a discharge petition. we have 183 members on the discharge petition. republicans have attempted to block the democratic attempts to bring it to the floor four times. this is a matter of economic necessity for our families. and for our country. for both. education is essential to families and students. remember this, nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. whether it's early childhood, k through 12, higher education, post grad, lifetime learning. by making college costs more for families, we are not only hurting families, we are not only hurting our economy, we are hurting our budget as well. they are trying to use a student's -- a student to reduce

the deficit, but in the end nothing reduces the deficit more than investing in education. there is no time to waste. we could all just come to the floor and vote for the courtney bill, which would freeze the ate at 3.4% as senator reid is suggesting for one year. this does as well. give time for the american people to weigh in on the differences in their lives. as you know this week was the very eventful one. the court decisions on doma and on proposition 8 in the state of california. we are very historic and consequential to who we are as a nation. but to individual families in our country. that was a happy day. not so happy the day before when the court ruled on the voting rights act. immediately our caucus and some republicans as well, have spoken out on what we can do in

response to the court's action. we had a caucus yesterday. i tasked our assistant leader, jim clyburn of south carolina, to take the lead on this issue. to bring together in a bipartisan way the ideas that could meet the criteria that will -- it will be a set of criteria that could meet the court's judgment. you have to remember, it's really important to know, and i remember this very well because our office was very much a part of it, we had john lewis, mel watt, john conyers, our distinguished chairman at the time, ranking at the time, we were not in the majority, but we all worked together with the republicans in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that the voting rights act of 2006 that received over 290 votes, bipartisan, strong support in the house.

98-0 in the senate. that bill has been law only about five years before the court decided to take it up. so the fact that they think that this criteria should be changed, 's not criteria from 1966, it's criteria from 2006. 1966, that was a long time ago. the bill has been re-authorized since then. as i say most recently in 2006. so this is fresh. yet they think it needs to be changed. hopefully we can do so quickly. most importantly in a bipartisan way as we did before with a beautiful spirit of wanting to respect the precious right to vote for everyone in our country. with that i'll take any uestions you have. >> senate is due to take up the

immigration later today or tomorrow. speaker boehner told the g.o.p. conference yesterday they will not be taking up the senate bill in the house. they have been focused more on piecemeal, piece by piece approach. what do you think the prospects are for immigration reform here in the house considering they are not going to take up the senate bill? >> the seven, there were eight, the seven democrats and republicans who have been working for a number of years have produced a bill that we have discussed before. while again not everything i would have wanted in a bill, nonetheless a compromise and one that we can all support. t was a bill that, poison bill but not lethal. i would hope that would begin in some respect in the republican caucus because, as i said, a bipartisan product fully participated in by the republicans on that task force, as well as the fact that many of the provisions in the bill are

their provisions. the committee is taking piecemeal approach, different bills i think some of them are unacceptable, but on the other hand let's put it together and send -- if the speaker wants to have a house bill, i fully share that sentiment. i always want to respect the prerogative of the house. and to have a bill would be desirable, and i hope that we can. i would just make this one -- hope for whatever the house decides to vote on. to send to conference. i would hope that it would have a particular consideration that is in the recommendation of the bipartisan task force on the house side. and that is a consideration on the h-1-b visas that give more visas to high-skilled workers

coming into the united states. train americans to be high-skilled workers. we certainly have the talent here. we need more re-- resources to train in science in the whole stem, science, technology, engineering, and math. some of that science going towards health as well. i would hope that they would retain that aspect of the bipartisan proposal in the house to go to the senate. whatever else it has, it's a matter of discussion, a matter of what can pass on the floor of the house. but that would be a very important part of it because on the immigration bill certainly we want to attract more high-skilled workers, but we know we have the talent in the u.s. this bill affords us the opportunity to do both with the funds from the fees to invest. some of those fees would be invested in hispanic serving institutions and historically

black colleges and institutions that educate native americans as well. so that's one piece. whatever it is they put together that's one piece that i hope would survive from -- i hope it would all survive, but one i think is critical to going to conference to find agreement. >> a piecemeal approach might be the smartest way forward in terms of getting to conference? the speaker brings up comprehensive bill now that the conference doesn't like, it's chances -- of passage or even coming to the floor would be very difficult. >> the republican caucus is, but they have the majority. they run the floor. let's just move forward with something. to do so in a manner that is results oriented and not obstruction planned.

>> follow that in our video library at c-span.org. the house is gaveling in fecks for two bills dealing with energy development in the gulf of mexico. the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, chaplain angel barrios, 308th military intelligence battalion, fort meade, m.d. -- fort meade, maryland. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, we take time at this moment to acknowledge your presence with us here in this congressional chamber. we realize that without you, all our efforts are futile to make good and right decisions for the people of the united states. your word says that not a sparrow falls to the ground without you being fully aware so indeed we are convinced of the truth that you govern in the affairs of men. divine holy spirit, make

yourself real to us by revealing truth about every issue that will be discussed on the floor today. truth is powerful. truth is necessary. and truth will bring true liberty of which our country has so long experience. i rebuke the deceits of darkness that try to deter us from true truth, your holy word. i ask these things according to your will and that you hear this prayer. in your holy name, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings an announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approve. the pledge will be led by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne. mr. payne: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger, is recognized for one minute. mr. ruppersberger: i am proud to introduce and welcome to washington u.s. army chaplain angel barrios, currently stationed at fort meade in maryland. he's been an ordained minister with the assemblied of god for 24 years. for nearly two decades he served as a full-time evangelist ministering in 47 couldn'tries and 47 states. chaplain barrios joined the army and was assigned to the third squadron of the third army regiment in fort hood. he was assigned in iraq in operation new dawn and provided a church in the desert for 850 soldiers he counseled soldiers struggling with day-to-day life in a war zone. is min city earned him a

bronze star. his father a vietnam veteran, also served in the army for to years. we welcome chaplain barrios and his guests today. i wish to thank him for his service. m honored to call chaplain barrios for his service and thank him for delivering the opening prayer today. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. young: i rise on behalf of my constituents in the third congressional district of texas to introduce -- mr. johnson: to introduce the imprisonment protects targeting act of 2013. on may 13, the i.r.s. admitted

to targeting conservative groups, worse, our broken tax code does not make jail time mandatory for criminal offenses such as political targeting. mr. speaker, americans deserve better. the bottom line is that the use of the i.r.s. as a political weapon is outrageous and unacceptable. what's worse, this is the same agency that will be enforcing obamacare. as this blatant abuse of power continues to be fully investigated, this commonsense bill sends a loud and clear message to the i.r.s. -- if you do the crime you do the time. no exceptions new york excuses. the american people want, need, and deserve to know the truth and assurance that this never happens again. this bill is a step in that direction. i urge my colleagues to join my efforts. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized, without objection. ms. jackson lee: good morning, mr. speaker. this morning, a number of members of the c.b.c., the congressional black caucus, will speak on the emotion, the value, and the gift of the 196 -- 1965 voting rights act. i thank our chairwoman, congresswoman marcia fudge, and i'm delighted to lead that moment this morning. i will tell the members of congress that you will hear us other the next couple of weeks and months as we proceed to do what the supreme court has said that congress must do and has the authority to do. and that is to re-authorize the voting rights act of 1965. i disagree with the court's decision, for that bill was firm and just a few years ago as a member of the house judiciary committee with 15,000 pages, 21 hearings, a vote of 390 to 33 in the house and 98-0

in the united states senate, we reaffirmed every american's right to vote. in fact, since that passage, virginia has had 11 of its jurisdictions opt out, many other jurisdictions have opted out or take then bailout provision. but yet, that decision now has left bare the soul of so many voters who now will be unable to vote because of the voting rights act elimination or striking down of section four. mr. speaker, if the voting rights act is wrong, fannie lou hamer was wrong, the three civil rights workers was wrong and martin luther king jr. was wrong. today we stand together to encourage our colleagues -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> as of today, 85% of offshore areas have been blocked from drilling by the obama

administration. the legislation on the floor this week makes significant strides toward increasing offshore production this contributes to lowering fuel prices at a time when gas prices are 100% ig higher than when president obama took office. mr. gibbs: the offshore jobs acts creates 2 million jobs by removing barriers to offshore production. the legislation would also generate $1.5 billion in new federal rev thues over the 10-year period which helps pay down our outrageous national debt. this important legislation grows the economy and creates american jobs at a time when high unemployment and stagnant economic growth. furthermore, it puts us on a path to energy independent and security by decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of nrnl. we need to stand together to support this legislation that addresses our soaring gas prices anacinninging economy.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker -- mr. veasey: . speaker, i rise today to call my colleagues to action. they ruled the current formula is outdated. moments later, one prominent texas leader said they'll move immediately to reinstate the voter i.d. laws passed in 2011. mr. speaker new york 2011, the justice department objected to texas' voter i.d. law because the state's own data indicated that the law would have a detrimental impact on minority voters, the poor, and the elderly. why in the world would a state as great as texas want to implement a law that its own data said would hurt the very citizens in its own state.

for this very reason, me and six other plaintiffs have filed suit in federal court to bar enforcement of texas' discriminatory voter i.d. law. the lawsuit in place is to ensure we do not disenfranchise voters and to protect the constitutional right of all americans. i refuse to allow texas or any other state to replicate laws that constrict our american values. i firmly stand here as proof that texans and americans need a voice. i call upon my colleagues to work together to ensure voter protections remain. the supreme court has overreached and now it's time for taos act to protect the integrity of democracy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, today i rise in recognition of the national post-traumatic stress disorder awareness month. head injuries are the signature and oftentimes invisible wounds of our recent wars.

these injuries are not a sign on weakness or a character flaw, but rather the potential catalyst of more serious illnesses like traumatic brain injury and ptsd. mr. bilirakis: nearly one third of iraq and afghanistan veterans who receive v.a. health care in the decade after 2001 were diagnosed with ptsd and the numbers are only expected to climb, unfortunately. we must tear down the stigma surrounding head injuries and ensure veterans have timely access to quality care, particularly in situations of t.b.i. and ptsd. as we mark ptsd awareness month, let's work together to address these important issues by drawing attention to the real dangers, head injuries present and encouraging our service members to seek treatment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. speaker, in three short days, the student loan interest rate is set to double from 3.4% to 6.8% unless congress takes action. this is unacceptable. college is already too expensive for far too many young people and doubling the interest rate on student loans will only make things worse. we should be working together to solve this looming crisis. regrettably, the only vote we have had on this is a republican-led bill that would make college more expensive and prevent students from locking in a fixed rate. by the time 2013's freshman -- freshmen graduate they'll be paying more than double today's current rate for the subsidized stafford loan. rather than waging another partisan fight in a bill that the the president is prefire department veto, we should consider a bill that has a chance of becoming law.

i therefore strongly urge house republican leaders to allow a vote on legislation proudly co-sponsored by representative courtney of connecticut, it is important that we provide a top-notch education to every student in this country regardless of their financial means. congress must act to fix this problem and the clock is ticking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to extend my congratulations as the dubois elementary school earns the status of a pennsylvania school to catch. -- to watch. i commend the administrators, teachers and students for their air efforts. dubois is one of three schools designated a second time after

earning the designate in 2007 and then 2010. this exemplifies their outstanding responsiveness to the needs and interests of their students, helping them achieve their greatest potential. furthermore by working together to foster academic greth, the school has begun the extra mile to ensure success. the example of your success has set for other schools is an excellent one and i hope it will be shared widely. i encourage all people, students and adults, to continue to learn as it's probably the most successful ingredient in leading a successful and fulfilling life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, in a historic decision yesterday, the supreme court ruled that all married couples, regardless of the jender of the pouses, are deserving in equal protection

under the -- equal protections of their rights urn the law. mr. higgins: they recognize a what 13 states including mine know, a family is a family and love is love. a country funned on the basis any edom and equality, that discriminates anyone is an unjust law and a threat to us justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. we must bring to the floor and pass congressman nadler's respect for marriage act. it's time to get rid of this discriminatory law once and for all and bring us one step closer to full marriage equality. i yield back the balance of my time. ment. . soap for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection. >> one of the most treasured privileges of parents living in the united states is the freedom to choose the means to best educate their children.

for many families, including my own, that choice is homeschooling. unfortunately for many parents living in countries where freedom of choice and expression is supposedly valued, homeschooling can entail punitive fines, jail ime, and even seizure of their children. one family fled germany after facing persecution for homeschooling their six children and were granted asylum here in the united states. now they face deportation unless they are granted a hearing before the full sixth circuit court of appeals and receive a favorable decision. mr. speaker, no parent should be faced with imprisonment, fined, or removal of of their children simply for choosing to educate their children at home. i call on the obama administration to persuade germany to respect international human rights laws that recognize the authority of parents to direct their children's education. i also call on the administration to grant asylum to the family so they can be afford -- afforded the privilege our country offers to

educate their children freely in the manner they choose. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i agree with president obama when he said this week that america is uniquely suited to take on the challenge of climate change. those of us in the northeast know firsthand what the president meant when he said that hurricane sandy's destruction left our mightiest city under water and dark. sandy destroyed homes, businesses, and in some cases entire neighborhoods. t halted our markets and damaged the infrastructure that the country depends on. these costs are real and they are personal. now is the time to improve the world our children and grandchildren will inherit. now is the time to protect our beautiful natural resources.

now is the time to mitigate future natural disasters. and now is the time to take on the battle against climate change. as we know where to start. we need to reduce carbon pollution, utilize more renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, and oppose the big oil subsidies on the floor this week. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. mckinley: earlier this week president obama continued his war on coal. he used un-elected bureaucrats to fill his anti-coal agenda. he had implied he had a moral obligation to to so because congress is not acting. the congress has indeed acted.

and simply doesn't agree with the president's ambitions. congress realized his agenda will destroy jobs, and increase the cost of electricity. electric bills will go up for everyone who uses power. everyone will pay more. the president is basing his call for action on flawed theories about what may happen in the future. but his actions will have an immediate impact and negative on today. during his remarks, the president insulted his critics with sophomoric name-calling and dismissed the opinions of over 32,000 scientists and physicists who contend that the issue of global warming has not been settled. in the coming months, we'll highlight the devastating impact these anti-coal policies will have on america's future, its families, and economy in general. we'll point out the flaws in the climate protections. the president may believe that a war on coal is exactly what's

needed, but the thousands who will lose their jobs and the millions who will pay more for electricity beg to differ. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, a vote at the ballot box transcends gender, race, religion, and social economic status. knowing that an 80-year-old veteran, a sing -- a single mom, or 18-year-old high school senior voting for the first time has an equal vote. and thus an equal voigt as a millionaire or billionaire. this is what has separated us and made our nation great. unfortunately, the recent supreme court decision to strike down sex 4 of the voting rights act is not only a major

setback for civil rights and voting rights, but it is a major blow to basic fundamental democracy in this country. now is the time for congress to rise above partisanship and create free and unfettered access to the ballot. access to the ballot on election day may be one of the only times that most -- the most disadvantaged in our communities have an equal voice regardless of what they look like or where they come from. and as a member who represents some of the most disadvantaged, i am undeterred and will continue to fight so my constituents can have an equal access to the ballot box. from the wealthiest towns to the poorest cities. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, in a june survey on business optimism, respondents cite regulation and red tape as one of their top concerns. mr. tipton: i can speak from experience from my own small business . when government imposes new red tape, it takes away precious resources needed for small businesses to create and expand jobs. under this administration, regulations have steadily increased. according to the competitive institute, an annual cost of $1st8 trillion is collected on small businesses as a part of the federal regulatory code that has now reached 174,000 pages. since coming to washington, my priority has been to stand up for small businesses and improve the economic climate so employers and entrepreneurs can succeed and create jobs. throughout this fight to remove hurdles to job creation, the

national federation ever independent businesses has been a steady ally. providing a voice to its more than 350,000 member small businesses and advocating for issues that would enable small businesses to succeed and create jobs. this month marks the 70th anniversary of nfib and i would like to congratulate the organization for its decades of service to small businesses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington, d.c., seek recognition? ms. norton: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. norton: mr. speaker, the re-authorize voting rights act was passed by -- in a republican house, a republican senate, and signed by a republican president. then the house and senate republican and democratic leadership led members of the congress to the front steps of the congress to express their collective pride in the passage

of the voting rights act. yesterday the court did not nullify section 4 of the act. applied. ated it as and invited the congress to update the formula. the leadership who so proudly re-authorized the act on the front steps of the capitol remains in place today. if the pride they expressed then and the right of all americans to votes remains, they will now resume their place of leadership to assure that the entire voting rights act remains proudly the law of the land. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, last week on the front page of the "wall street journal" we read that the implementation of obamacare exchanges is falling

behind schedule. according to the g.a.o., both state and federal exchanges have major work to complete before the october 1 start of open season. the administration has predicted some, quote, glitches and bumps, end quote. would failure to open the exchanges on time be a bump? is the fact that some small business exchanges have only a single participant, a glitch? millions of americans will be required by the federal government to purchase insurance on these exchanges, but they are shaping up to be, quote, a train wreck, end quote. g.a.o. tells us that the 17 states running small business exchanges were late on an average of 44% of activities that should have been complete in march. the signals are flashing, the sirens are wailing, but we keep rolling on towards obamacare implementation. the only way we can prevent the disaster is by putting a stop to a law that is failing on nearly every count.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the voting rights act has a strong bipartisan history. it was re-authorized by congress in 2006 with the overwhelming support of both democrats and republicans. yet the supreme court in striking down a key provision of this historic civil rights legislation two days ago has undermined the integrity of the democratic process. mr. jefferies: it was the high jacking of the principle of responsive and representative government. it's a decision that will down in history right next to the infamous dred scott opinion written way back in 1857. the unencumbered right to vote

is fum to the foundation of this democracy in this regard the supreme court has failed the nation. let's make sure that this congress does not do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, year after year, decade after decade, the american people have been held captive to the middle east for what we pay for the price of gas. even today war-torn syria with its own civil war has impacted the price of gass each of us pay. in my own city of charlotte, we pay 14 cents a gallon more this year than we did last year. while families are going on vacation, over the fourth of july, throughout the summer, what they pay at the grocery store is all impacted because

america is not energy independent. mr. speaker, that's why i rise in support of house resolution 1613, to make america energy independent. we can develop oil and natural gas off our maritime border in mexico while creating new jobs and improving our economy. mr. pittenger: it's time for america to be independent and stand alone and to bring and restore solid economic period of time for this country. let's vote today, support gas price that is will be lower for america with energy independence from america. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, first let me thank congressman green for yielding to me the opportunity to speak out of

order. and to remind this body that in a recent conversation i had with john lewis, our hero and colleague, i asked him the question, just what drove you to place your body in harm's way and your life in jeopardy for the civil rights movement? and he said, because he he had confidence in this country that congress and he he also had confidence in the supreme court . recently he had to admit that the court's action has really plunged a dagger in the heart of this legislation that so many americans have depended on for fairness which includes, of course, the basic constitutional right to vote. but that light was dimmed. it wasn't extinguish. as i recall the voting rights act that we did pass overwhelmingly in both chambers, it was the names of

jim sensenbrenner and john conyers that comes to mind. they both are still in this house. they both love the country, love the congress, and love the constitution, and i'm confident that once again they will bring together that coalition of republicans and democrats. they may see things differently as relates to the ideology, but together they can bring the same forces that we had in 2006 to make certain that we restore the rights that the supreme court has taken away from us. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to pay tribute to the life of lieutenant general richard j. sykes of junction city, kansas,

recently. he became one of the first paratroopers from the jump school. he was promoted to be the army's youngest battalion commander and led its battalion throughout its historic operations in world war ii. mr. huelskamp: he ended the war with a silver star, two bronze stars and a purple heart. during his lifelong army career, including 37 years active duty, he received the distinguished service medal and legion of merit among many he remained active in his community after retirement. he was on the board of the eisenhower presidential library, president of the fort riley, central kansas chapter of the u.s. army and chaired junction city's economic redevelopment study commission. most recently, the general

richard j. sykes elementary school was named in his honor n the post at fort arthur. he exemplifies what we mean when we refer to him and his peers as america's greatest generation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we live in a world where it's not enough for things to be right they must also look right. mr. green: while it may be right for the supreme court to strike down section 4 of the voting rights act, it doesn't look right given that just last multiplicity of case wherein it was found that discriminate existed -- scrimination existed where those would have taken away rights except for the voting rights act. there were many jurisdictions under the purview of the voting

rights act have been allowed to extricate themselves. i'm so glad that medicine is unlike politics new york medicine when a drug functions efficaciously, we market it, extol the virtues of it, we keep it. in politics when something succeeds, a law succeeds, he we demean and eliminate it. i am here today because of the voting rights act. i never thought i'd sit next to the honorable charlie rain fwell in the house of the united states congress. thank god for the voting rights act, we must revise it, we must extend it, we've got to renew it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. four days. in four days, interest rates on student loans will double if nothing is done.

a bill to stop that from happening passed this house last month. but the president and the senate refuse to do anything but posture. the truth is, we don't disagree by much. the house plan mirrors a plan put forward by the president. both plans use market rates, both plans seek a long-term solution. mr. messer: buttle toic -- but politics is getting in the way and that is wrong. our plan gets politics out of student loan business and that's good for students. america's students deserve affordable rates, not school-yard antics. let's work together and stop the rate hike. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, since 1982, the congressional art competition has recognized special power that arts have in students throughout our country. in my district the art competition win they are year was elizabeth pelafox. her piece has a message for every young woman in the san joaquin valley. mr. costa: when describing her work, elizabeth stated clearly, my art defines women in our valley that don't give up on their dreams and live large in matter what challenges are brought upon us. her mother who raised her as a single parent has been a strong role model and taught her firsthand the lessons of hard work and life in her own artwork. sadly, elizabeth could not make it to washington to see her art work unveiled this week but she's watching back home. her self-portrait is

representing our valley well here in the capitol. elizabeth, your work reminds me of the hope we all have in the just in your future but for the future of all young women in our valley and throughout our nation. thank you for sharing your talent and congratulations on being chosen as the art winner from the san joaquin valley and my 16th district. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to talk about jobs in america and jobs in wisconsin. ne of the largest sectors of our industry is forest industry that industry is under assault. one of the largest portions of -- by est is held by the

a national forest. mr. duffy: look back in 1986 to 1982 we harvested 160 million board feet of lumber on arch. now we harvest 98 million board feet a year. we reduced that by 50%. what does that do? that causes thousands of jobs lost in rural wisconsin. let's kick start our economy, let's put our loggers back to work, let's open up our saw mills, open up our paper mills and by opening up those mills, we have to open up our national forests. let's make sure our national foretests -- forests don't rot and burn but we actually harvest them because they're a noble resource and they have a direct tie in to jobs in rural wisconsin. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman -- does the gentleman seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to bring your attention to an exciting global

initiative, the international year of statistics or statistics 2013, supported by nearly 2,000 groups in 120 countries. organized by the u.s. american statistical association, statistics 2013 primary's -- primary objectives are to increase awareness of the impact of statistical sciences on our society and nurture an interest in statistic among our youth. mr. mcnerney: statistic 20's13 are educating the public in how the statistical sciences improve our lives in a myriad of ways such as finding better cancer treatments and informing public policy. statistics is an incredibly powerful tool that can be used in understanding complex phenomenon and it's been used since antiquity. congratulation statistics 2013, i encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizes the contributions and goals of statistics 20 136789 i yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. bachmann: i rise to address the house for one minute and ask annapolis consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. bachmann: earlier on monday of this week, children and thousands of admirers gathered to bury the legendary author vince flynn. he was known, beloved, he's a minnesotan and great american. he lost his battle with cancer just this last week and he oleft behind a wonderful family, a beautiful family he left behind a literary body of work and most importantly, he left behind his deep and abiding faith in jesus christ. in his hands he held the rosary and also his beloved cell phone. vince educated america on the threat of islamic jihad and we will forever remember vince

flynn's strength, courage and faith he had a life well lived. we will never forget the contribution to america of the wonderful and legendary vince flynn. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute, without objection. >> thank you. mr. speaker, our amazing time traveling supreme court has truly surprised me this week. it was able to take us back to the 1960's on tuesday and to step into the 21st century the next day. by striking down doma. yesterday's ruling was a long overdue affirmation that married same-sex couples deserve the same federal benefits as everyone else. mrs. davis: it's a major step toward marriage equality. but this victory comes on the heels of a dangerous blow to voting rights. on tuesday, the court struck

down a provision that's been vital to guaranteeing the right to vote for all americans. the voting rights act is a crucial guard against states back sliding on the process of civil rights musme and we must now work to restore its protections. the struggles for voting rights and marriage equality are not so different. both have been long fights, with victory hard won. in each we have seen freedoms and progress. once thought impossible become inevitable. yet even as we celebrate victory for marriage equality, the voting rights act ruling shows we cannot take these gains for granted, that maintaining these liberties requires constant vigilance and continued advocacy. these fights are far from over ut in time, i know we will succeed. in the words of dr. king, the

arc of the moral universe is long but it bend toward justice. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker -- mr. poe: mr. speaker, another day, another i.r.s. scandal is revealed. inspector general has identified improper use of taxpayer money by the people who collect taxes. the tax collectors. while the i.r.s. was targeting conservative groups for audits, over 100 i.r.s. employees improperly used government credit cards. i'm shocked. tax collectors have been sticking it to the taxpayers with spending only the i.r.s. can only get away with, including, listen to this, thousands of dollars on diet pills, romance novels, baby bottles, baby clothes, smart phones, a popcorn machine, bandannas, stuffed animals, sunglasses, swag like kazoos,

and thomas the tank engine wristbands and bathtub toys. there's a lot more. you can't make this up, mr. speaker. were they ever disciplined by the i.r.s.? of course not, this is the i.r.s. they are the law. mr. speaker, it's time to audit the tax man and the tax collectors. the squandered money should be returned in full to the treasury with interest penalty just like the tax collectors charge citizens when they audit us. an that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to warn my colleagues about the corker-hoeven amendment within the senate's immigration bill. to my colleagues concerned with the fiscal health of our country, i call your attention to this provision which will commit $50 billion to double the size of the border patrol,

at a tame when we have record low northbound apprehensions and net migration from mexico is zero. mr. o'rourke: to my colleagues who value our civil liberties and constitutional rights, can you live with a $50 billion militarized buildup within the united states where more than six million of your fellow citizens live? and to my colleagues who care about human rights and the sanctity of human life, more than 5,000 people have died crossing the border into the united states over the last 15 years. let's not perpetuate this problem. let's solve it. we need comprehensive immigration reform but we need comprehensive immigration reform that's rational, that's humane, and that's fiscally responsible. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to thank carl myer for his years of service to parkland college and the champaign county community. carl originally moved there in 1971 when he came to the university of illinois to work as an assistant football coach. years later he left to work for the universities of arizona and cincinnati before returning to champaign county in 1992. in 1997, carl was asked by then park lapd college president, to serve as the executive director of the park lapd college foundation. mr. davis: throughout his 16 years with the parkland college foundation, carl oversaw a major gifts campaign raising more than $14 million. as well as seeing projects like the tony noel, agricultural technology application center, and the parkland automotive

technology center go from inception to completion. this is in addition to the more than 140 scholarships he established in the dozens of partnerships he created with businesses and academic departments. words can't express how much carl means to park lapd college and champaign county. i'd like to thank carl for his commitment to parkland college and students and leadership in the community. enjoy your retirement, carl. you know you will be missed and you deserve it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. far too long oma denied legally married same sex couples access to benefits including those provided by the vrnings a. but with yesterday's decisions the supreme court sent a clear

message that all americans, gay or straight, must be afforded equal protection under the law. there is no question that now we must implement the court's ruling throughout every department of the federal government. accordingly i'm proud to interyou dues the veterans spouse equal treatment act to amend the v.a.'s definition of spouse as an individual of the opposite sex. this is a basic matter of aligning the v.a. with our nation's laws, of living up to the principles of fairness and equality, of extending benefits to thousands of deserving military spouses, and of defending all those who have proudly worn the uniform of the u.s. armed services and their families. yesterday, justice and freedom prevailed over intolerance and hate. so today i ask my colleagues to work with me to see that this legislation is passed without delay. to implement the supreme court's decision and leave no question about equal protection under the law for all americans. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. session: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during consideration of h.r. 1613 and h.r. 2231, pursuant to house resolution 274, amendment 1 printed in part a of house amendments 31 and to number 5 and 10 printed in part b of that report be modified by the form i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modifications to amendments printed in house report 113-131, offered by mr. sessions of texas. in the amendment numbered 1 printed in part a of the report, strike noting and insert nothing. in the amendment numbered 5 printed in part b of the report trike $1 billion and insert, $99,999,999.

in the amendment number 10 printed in part b of the report strike noting and insert nothing. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the gentleman from oregon is recognized on his reservation. mr. defazio: i'd like to understand the reasons. i understand the typographical errors and appreciate that the chair wishes to revise those. but i'm curious about one provision. as the chair would remember i came to the committee and asked that they not waive the rule for the cassidy amendment because the cassidy amendment will increase the deficit by $15 billion over 30 years, and of course the rules of the house don't allow us to engage in additional spending without an offset. there is no offset. but the chair did make -- waived all points of order so the rules of the house don't

apply to this additional $15 billion of deficit spending. but now my understanding is that they want to substitute a different amendment which instead of $15 billion of additional deficit over 30 ars, would only create new -- of k. 970 of new deficit. i would like to understand why we are bothering to do this. i think over the span of 30 years increasing the deficit by $14,999 k. 999 k. 970 versus $15 billion which is easier to say because it has a lot of zeros, what's the rationale? why would we do this? why do we need u.c. for this? i'm curious, could the gentleman respond? mr. sessions: if the gentleman would yield under his reservation. adoption of this modification, i would say to him that what is contained in the report is going to be accurate.

what was printed the other day as the final report from the rules committee before it came to the floor was not accurate. the gentleman knows and does understand that there were several modifications that were made as a result of the final approval of the rules committee print. then we discovered there were some typos and some inaccurate figures that were presented. the gentleman knows that there have been previous times when the gentleman's amendment from louisiana has been offered in reports and has been voted on, and we made that consistent. i appreciate the gentleman asking me. mr. defazio: continuing to reserve the right to object. the bottom line here if i can define it for our colleagues in simple language is, the net difference in waiving the rules of the house of $30 -- apparently the total waiving of the rules of the house to allow

additional deficit spending in contradiction of what the other side of the aisle normally proposes, there is somehow a ramatic difference between $14,999,999,970 of new debt and deficit and $15 billion. which requires a substitution of this amendment because it's my understanding it would somehow violate the budget act twice is that accurate? so even though you waived the rule and we can go ahead with the amendment, you would have to -- you would be violating the budget act twice. we just want to say we are only violating the budget act once, is that the net difference? mr. sessions: once again yielding to the gentleman's question. i appreciate the gentleman not only coming to the floor but making sure that we work together on an understanding of what the final package will look like. i will state once again and i appreciate the gentleman, his

clarification, what the rules committee did is made an agreement of what would be made in order and there was a mistake therein. we are simply, mr. speaker, asking for unanimous consent on a bipartisan basis, we believe, with the gentleman, i believe, who will consent to modify the report to where it accurately demotes the amendments that were made in order and any wording, including grammatical misspellings. that's what we are trying to do here. mr. defazio: again, i just -- reserving the right to object. i really -- if you're going to waive the rules of the house to create $15 billion in new deficit, i don't know why we need unanimous consent to waive the rules yet again to create 4,999 k. 999 k. 970 of deficit, but i guess that makes

a dimps somewhere to someone. so i would not object. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendments are modified. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on a bill, h.r. 1613. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings. or what purpose? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 70, h.r. 1613, a bill to amend the outer continental

shelf lands act to provide for the proper federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 274, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill is adopted. the bill as amended is considered read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider further amendment printed in part a of house report 113-131 as modified by the order of the house today if ordered by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, or his designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debated for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1613, the outer continental shelf transboundary hydrocarbon agreement authorization act. the bill was introduced by our colleagues from south carolina, mr. duncan, a member of the natural resources committee, and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development in certain areas of the gulf of mexico, along our nation's maritime boundary with mexico. former secretary of state hillary clinton and mexican foreign secretary espinoza, signed this long awaited agreement in february of 2012. since that time the house committee on natural resources has repeatedly requested draft -- since that

time, mr. speaker, the house committee on natural resources has repeatedly requested draft implementing legislation from the obama administration. but it was not until march 19, 2013, when the committee finally received just that. several short sentences to authorize the secretary of the interior to promote development of energy resources that lie along the boundary with mexico. despite the obama administration's sitting on this agreement for over a year, that should not in any way down play the importance of getting this agreement approved. this agreement is good for our economy and it's good for american workers. opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates jobs, it creates more american made energy, and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign countries for our

energy needs. according to the bure crow of ocean energy management, and the state department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in the gulf of mexico. these areas are estimated to contain as much as over 170 million barrels of oil and nearly 305 billion cubic feet of natural gas. these areas are ready to be explored and developed and this bill will give the u.s. job creators the certainty they need to move forward. activity can begin once this agreement is enacted. this bill executes the implementation of the u.s.-mexico agreement, but it also looks to the future, providing a clear and transparent path for how future administrations should go about submitting future agreements with other countries with which we share international boundaries. give the fact that this implementing legislation was bogged down within several agencies for over a year, i

believe that mr. duncan's solution is necessary step to ensure smoother and more expedient process for the future. h.r. 1613 also includes language to protect american workers by removing uncertainty surrounding the application of dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act disclosure requirements. the agreement was signed by the obama administration and mexico specifically provides what royalty payments mexico would receive from energy developers. however, under current u.s. law, companies that commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to disclose payments made to a foreign government. this would create a potential conflict because mexico has yet to decide how they will collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that would prohibit disclosure of payments. this would then block american workers from being able to develop these resources.

waiving the dodd-frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect american jobs and american made energy this this instance. without it, foreign control energy companies could develop this american energy resource and the royalty payments to mexico would still be undisclosed and kept private. but the net result would be americans would lose out on this energy potential. the natural resources committee and mr. duncan have worked hard to advance this bill and get it signed into law, it's important to american energy, to american jobs, and american energy security. and it is important to supporting trade with our neighbor to the south, mexico. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: mr. cha