all right, congressman, thank you for your time. i want to remind you on c-span two, they will be looking at or not slowest learner waived her fifth amendment right on may 22. that is starting any minute on c-span2. and of course, our coverage of the house begins now right here in c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as we approach a week away from the nation's capital, we give you thanks for the many blessings we enjoy. may americans rightfully lebrate the greatness of our

particitive form of government. bless the members of this people's house in the coming week and their constituents with whom they meet. and as they complete the work of this week and this day, give them the wisdom they need to be their bestselves in seeing to the issues of our day. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. mr. wilson: mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. wilson: mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of

order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. mr. williams: 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: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i stand on the floor of the house of to recognize a woman who embodies what makes the united states an exceptional nation. today i wish a happy birth-day to edna yoder.

mr. yoder: born in the heartland in 1911, she spent most of her life milking cows, being a true partner to her husband and my late grandmother. her belief in hard work and humble living defined my grandmother. her generation saw the dust bowl, the great depression. her generation's perseverance and dedication to our country helped build the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. today on her 102nd birthday she's happy and healthy, she tells great stories of time's past and her smile lights up the room. grandma, we can learn a lot from you. thank you. happy birthday. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: mr. speaker, in two days interest rates on student loans will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. it's unnecessary and cruel. across this country, the things

that will happen in vermont are going to happen to all our kids and their parents. in vermont 20,000 kids are going to have their loans expense go up $1,000. that's when the cost of education has gone up 27% in the past five years. vermont has the seventh highest student loan debt in the country, 63% of our kids when they graduate is $29,000 they start out owing. we're first when it comes to debt to income ratio. 82%. it's brutal. what is this about? it's about our priorities. and the low interest rate environment, government borrowing at 2%, we're going to charge nearly 7% to our kids? that's almost like usery. it's also a reflection of our priorities. there's a way we can extend this as we should. why do we give shovel taxpayer money to oil companies that have $1 trillion in profits in the past 10 years? it's unnecessary. around kitchen tables in vermont, people are trying to

figure out who's going to college and how our kids are going to get started. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina s recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, according to an editorial in today's "wall street journal," president obama's climate speech was grandiose, even for him. mr. obama's climate action plan adds up to one of the most expensive reorganizations to the u.s. economy. imposed through administrative fiat and raw executive power. but over his 6,500-word address he articulated no such goal for the unemployment rate or g.d.p. an energy policy, including higher taxes, more out-of-control spending and increased government control of our daily lives mr. not promote jobs. it is a war on jobs. american families need job

creation. a clean environment, economic certainty and hope for the future generations. today house republicans will vote on an all-of-the-above energy plan that will create jobs, increases access to our energy resources and stimulates a weak economy. it's time for the senate and e president to support our efforts for american families to reach their full potential. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a moment us week, the supreme court striking down doma. and on stuse, president obama recommitted his administration to deal with the moral imperative of climate change. all around us the evidence is mounting with extreme weather events, drought, flooding, wildfires, shrinking polar ice caps, invasive plants and pests our farmers have never seen

before. the president outlined new administrative initiatives because congress is incapable of acting. sadly, the house of representatives is led by climate skeptics, climate deniers and climate cowards. my hope is that if the republicans in the house won't allow action it will at least stay out of the president's way. protecting the planet and our grandchildren's future ought not to be bringing out the worst in us but the best. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. williams: at a time when millions of americans are out of work and the cost of living continues to rise, the president could not be more out of touch with reality. for example, president obama has continued pushing for car manufacturers to produce vehicles that gets 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 through the

e.p.a.'s corporate average fuel economy program. what he doesn't understand is cafe standards are expensive for manufacturers, increases the cost for consumers and has caused a significant decrease in safety by forcing them to downsize and use lighter materials in provide dux. fuel efficiency has been and will always be important to consumers. consumer demand is incentive enough for producers to make fuel-efficient vehicles. some families might trade off miles per gallon for safety or more leg room. the bottom line is the people should make these decisions, not the federal government. the president needs to understand that american can make purchases without restricting our freedom to choose. that's why i've introduced h.r. 24 are 45 a bill to re-- h.r. 2445, a bill to repeal the cafe standards. i hope we repeal these restrictive government regulations. in god we trust. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. it turns out the targeting of conservative groups by the i.r.s. was just the beginning of a much bigger problem. every week since, we learn something new about how the i.r.s. has abused its power and this week is no different. wine, diet pills, romance novels and even x-rated movies were purchased with government credit cards. new reports tell us the i.r.s. spent nearly $50 million of taxpayer money to unlawful aliens. mr. speaker, we work hard for our money with the federal government offering no apologies. every person of the i.r.s. should be held accountable for their actions and we need to make orms in place to sure that taxpayer money isn't miss used in the future. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from oklahoma is

recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the president decided to raise energy prices on all americans which adversely affects the poor the more -- most and didn't ask congress. he reduced our strategic nuclear deterrent. no treaty that would require consent of the senate. the president has decided which health insurance plans that people are allowed to plan. the president didn't ask congress or the people for that matter. the list goes on. in america we are either moving more towards liberty than tyranny. an executive branch that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce. mr. bridenstine: on grounds the executive branch did not defend the laws in court. the legislative branch would have very limited power because they turned it all over to the president and the people would feel like they had no representation. the president told us he was going to fundamentally transform america and i think that's exactly what he's doing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to honor two dear friends, dedicated public servants, designate senator richard more from milford, massachusetts. mr. kennedy: they are being honored this week with the prestigious environmental merit award from the e.p.a. for their tremendous work that they have done to combat pollution in their communities. when studies showed that the phosphorus levels in the charles level nearly doubled, these two men recognized the dangerous impact it would have on the cities and towns. and ame up with a simple direct solution. most importantly, they got it through the state house and the executive chamber, delivering real results in record time for their constituents. that's par for the course for these two local leaders who have proven time and again that they are the best of the best when it comes to public

service. as dedicated as diligent, as creative and compassionate, they do more to do better for their communities and constituents. i call them friends. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: in recent years the medical research community has made great strides in treating cancer. however, not every form of cancer has shown the same progress. some forms remain just as deadly as they were decades ago. among the deadliest is pancreatic cancer with the survival rate of over -- only 6%. the survival rates of all forms of cancer is now 68%, up from 49% in 1975. last year congress passed and the president signed the cancer research act, a bill to focus research on pancreatic cancer and other problematic types of

the disease. with new plans to attack the disease, we can make progress. i met recently with a constituent battling the disease and another that lost multiple family members to it. they have hope with a tough road ahead. we will hopefully see new therapies and drugs to attack pancreatic cancer in the coming years greatly improving the rate of survival. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? , without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized or one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak on the pressing and important issue of immigration reform. yesterday the senate took the necessary step forward in an effort to enact comprehensive imgration reform. we must work together to reach a compromise that will benefit or

country, strengthen our economy, and allow 11 million people to step out of the shadows. mr. vargas: the house must reflect immigration reform that reflects the values of our nation. we are a country of immigrants and how we treat those who aspire to be citizens reflects our democracy's commitment to uphold the moral principles upon which our nation was built. i wish the republican leadership to bring the senate bill to the house so we can finally fix or immigrationcies tefment i want to thank all the faith groups that keep paying for all of us to pass a comprehensive bill. it is obviously working. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 2231. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 274 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of

the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2231. will the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2231, which the clerk will report by tight. the clerk: a bill to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to encrease energy exploration and production on the outer continental shelf, provide for equitable revenue sharing for all coastal states, implement the reorganization of the functions of the former minerals management service, and two distinct and separate agencies, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose on thursday, june 27, 2013, amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 113-131, offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8, printed in

house report number 113-131. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in part in house report number 113-131, offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is to remove from the bill rovisions that would mandate leasing off of the fabulous bristol bay area of alaska. now, this is -- when i said this bill was a little like groundhog day because we passed it before and we talked about it yesterday. but this is about a bizarre version of groundhog day, but i'm forced to offer this amendment.

actually after the exxon van deeze -- valdez oil spill, and i traveled up to the spill with then subcommittee chairman orge miller, and saw what an extraordinary mess had been created, something that in those cold waters is very, very difficult to deal with and very, very persistent, caused tremendous damage to the fisheries, the congress chose in h.w.under president george bush, to revoke the leases in the bristol bay area in order to protect this $2 billion a year fishery. and in fact the american people, the taxpayers of the united $100 of america, paid million to buy back those leases that have been sold in the 1980's. that moratorium remained in

place until then president george w. bush lifted the moratorium. now, the obama administration has done the right thing and reversed george w. bush decision and excluded bristol bay from o.c.s.g in the 2012-2017 leasing program. we had the first president bush agree that a moratorium -- a permanent in that area was warranted because of the $2 billion a year renewable fishery and other price resources. george w. bush reversing that. and then president obama reinstating a moratorium. now, this bill would mandate leasing off of bristol bay. there's a strong public opposition -- obviously there is always division over these issues, but there is strong

public opposition to drilling in bristol bay, 55 tribes, native alaska associations, and fishing organizations are opposed to the drilling in that area. national environmental groups like trout unlimited, wild salmon center, and others also support this amendment. this is a precious and irreplaceable area. one major spill in that area would devastate the environment, the fishery that supports thousands of jobs in alaska. and actually jobs all up and down the west coast of the united states are dependent upon the fabulous fishery of bristol bay. both the commercial and the sport fishing. i have guides in oregon who spend their summers in alaska guiding in the bristol bay area. it attracts people from around the world. we should not put this extraordinary resource at risk

in this bill for some possible potential future oil revenues in a state which is already quite rich in oil. where the former naval petroleum reserve has been leased but as in the case of many leases that oil industry holds, not developed even though there are no -- that was why it was in the reserve, there are known and large resources under that part of the area of alaska. so this is something that the balance is clearly in favor of protecting this area, not another area to drill given the resources already available in alaska. now, i had to do a so-called pay for. we passed last night the cassidy amendment which reduces -- increases the federal deficit by 15 billion -- excuse me,

by,999,999,970 over 30 years giving -- lifting the cap on revenue sharing of the gulf states. hat's costing $5 mund million, they say $1 less. but that didn't have to be paid for. they waived the rules. but because i want to protect this fabulous resource, they say you are forgoing potential possible future revenues for the government. you must pay for it. unfortunately given that i had to move to strike title 3 so we could protect this resource. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, my good friend from oregon talked about groundhog day as to the nature

of this bill. i can say, here we go again. instead of debating ways to create jobs, to enhance revenues, and to secure our nation from a national security standpoint, we are back to debating a moratorium on offshore drilling that will lock away america's energy resources. specifically this amendment would close a wide area of federal waters from drilling off the state of alaska. but this amendment just doesn't lock away america's resources, it also eliminates state revenue sharing provisions in the bill. president obama has already closed the north basin through presidential moratorium. closing off jobs and economic diversity to the people of alaska through 2017. the underlying legislation does not in any way modify this unscientific presidential closure or modify the existing presidential authority. it does, however, and this is important, mr. chairman, provide that if this contains some of

our nation's potential for energy, that we should open that area for the future. i know that logic is sometimes lost in this town, but in all honesty, mr. chairman, we should be drilling offshore in those areas where we know the most resources are located or potentially low kuwaited. -- located. the natural resources committee has heard testimony time and time again about young people leaving alaska to chase jobs elsewhere. we have also heard from individuals, actually from the allusions, such as east solutions burrough mayor who spoke about how the opportunity for drilling in the basin could be a real economic benefit for their communities. this economic diversification is even more important when you consider the petitions of extreme and environmental groups, proposing massive fishery closures across bristol bay and the region, for the potential for the declaration of

a no fishing national monument in those areas. tore the grave threat posed to fishing in alaska and the north pacific by president obama's executive order on ocean zoning. where bureaucrats in washington, d.c., decide what happens and doesn't happen in ocean areas off alaska and other states. finally, this amendment also completes -- eliminates revenue sharing for all coastal states. preventing alaska, virginia, south carolina, california, and others from receiving the share of any energy development off their shores. this important provision is about bringing fairness to the outer continental shelf revenue sharing instead of limiting to only four states. right now only the gulf states have that privilege. when gas prices climb to $4 a gallon in 2008, the miles per hour people strongly supported lifting the nation's offshore drilling band. and that support ran across the political spectrum from republicans to

democrats. and that broad support for expanding offshore drilling make it continuous to this day in country. this amendment would start us down the road on imposing new moratorium's on america's offshore which is the opposite of what america wants. let me make this point, mr. chairman, i said this several times in the committee, if there was a poster child of a state that was promised something when they got statehood and the reverse is being done, it's got to be country. this amendment alaska. i know there's controversy surrounding potential in the bristol bay, but it's not unanimous on either side. but those in alaska certainly, certainly should be the ones that are truly involved in that decisionmaking process. no, here we have today an amendment from somebody in the -- a member of congress, every right to do it, but from the lower 48 dictating what's going to go on in alaska. again, that to me solidifies the poster child of the state really not getting what it should be getting from its resources after statehood. so i urge my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment. i understand the gentleman from oregon has yielded back his time. i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. defazio: on that i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-131. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printed in part b of house report number 113-131, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, mr.

chairman. the bill before us today has the great potential to create jobs, boost our economy, and provide our country with new much needed sources of energy. but it is written it also has the potential to invite frivolous, duplicative lawsuits filed by outside entities with no real tie to the individual contracts stemming from this legislation. . mr. chairman, we've seen it time and time again, situations in which the community, the developer and the federal government are all on the same page. but plans are ultimately ground to a halt by activist environmental groups that file lawsuit after lawsuit in order to stop the development in its tracks. my amendment would stop this cycle as it relates to projects

begun under this bill. it would allow individuals and groups, not party, to a lease under this bill to file a suit once, only once within 60 days of an official action under the bill. should a suit -- should a suing entity lose, it would be allowed an appeal to the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit, and a final resolution would have to be reached within 180 days. finally, my amendment would also include a loser pay standard meant to protect taxpayers and discourage the filing of a suit without true legal merit. mr. chairman, the underlying bill would do much to move our country ahead, but i fear that we will not reach our full potential unless this important

language is included. i would like to yield some time to my committee chairman, doc hastings from washington. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i simply want to say the amendment adds to this legislation and i support the legislation and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise to claim opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. to begin with, this amendment creates a major obstacle for parties such as states, municipalities and local entities and nonprofit organizations from challenging unsound licensing decisions in the courts. it does -- it does this by requiring the losing side in these disputes to pay the legal costs, not just of the

prevailing party, but for every intervening party as well. just imagine what this would mean. how good a local breach of community -- excuse me -- how could a local beach community risk bringing an action knowing it may have to pay for its own legal costs let alone the legal costs of all of the parties in the case which could include some of the nation's largest il and gas producers without -- producers? it will have a chilling affect on the rights of individuals, municipalities to challenge licensing decisiones that could have devastating effects on their communities. sure, the provision allows the prevailing party to argue its position was substantially ustified or that special are special circumstance makes an award just but that could

require expensive litigation. this savings provision offers the tiniest of fig leafs. it is clear that the real intent of this provision is to ensure that only the wealthiest members of society will be able to litigate these issues. second, this amendment is not necessary. current law already authorizes federal court to sanction a party for frivolous actions or for engaging in wrongful conduct. federal rule of civil procedure 11 deems every pleading, motion and any other paper filed by a party in a federal proceeding to be a certification by such party it is not being presented for an improper purpose, that the claims and legal contingents asserted in the -- that the factual contentions made in the pleading have evidentiary support.

and should the court find that any of those requirements have been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction, including requiring the offending party to pay all costs of the -- of the prevailing party's reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses arising from the violation. in addition, the court, under certain circumstances, may also impose monetary sanctions against a party who violates rule 11. so in sum, this amendment is not necessary. this amendment is not an affront to the federal judiciary but could disrupt the ability of the court to help litigants in other pending matters. this amendment does this by set really fast and hard deadlines that ignores the complexity of the case or the court schedule, and it requires the court to prioritize these actions over all other pending matters

before the court. not surprisingly, the judicial conference of the u.s. has long opposed legislative efforts to impose specific guidelines, specific deadlines and mandate that certain actions be prioritized over others for some sprornte reasons. important -- reasons. it will undermine the effective civil case management and unduly hamper the court's managing and prioritizing its case docket. each case should not have artificial deadlines. worse yet, this amendment specifically provides that if the district court fails to meet this deadline the case st be dismissed with prejudice and terminates all rights relating to such cause or claim. just imagine how a defendant

could use this provision to its advantage by running the clock through delaying tactics such as employing a multiplicity of procedures and time consuming discovery demands. this amendment is anti-justice, it must be opposed and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, reserves. the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, is recognized. mr. broun: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, reserves. the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, has 15 seconds remaining. mr. johnson: i'll yield the balance -- yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, is recognized to close. mr. broun: mr. chairman, i'm not advocating for loser pays in all civil cases. my amendment relates only to these specific cases in which an extremist environmental group files suit after suit simply to stop the development of natural resources in our energy -- and our energy

resources on american soil. parties to a lease aren't subject to this standard. furthermore, my amendment does not undo the ability for members of the community who are concerned about a particular lease to petition the government. state or federal, during the nepa process. finally, while i understand the concern that loser pays harms complaintants with the least amount of disposable income, i would simply say that near record gas prices are harming them and are hurting the most vulnerable in our society, poor people, and senior citizens on limited incomes. in fact, my colleague from georgia, my good friend, was saying it's unnecessary. but if it's unnecessary, he shouldn't be afraid of this amendment. this is a commonsense amendment, and i urge support and i yield back the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: i'd ask for a recorded vote, mr. speaker. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part b in house report 113-131, as modified by the order of the ouse on june 27, 2013. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 113-131 offered by mr. grayson of florida, as modified. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, mr.

chairman. this is a simple savings clause amendment of the kind we include typically frequently in almost every bill that's a major bill that passes this house. it says as follows -- nothing in this act and the amendments made by this act affect the right and power of each state to prohibit management, leasing, development and lease of navigable waters within its boundaries. the simple purpose of this is to avoid any implication by this statute that is taking away any rights of any state, including my state of florida, where drilling rights are a matter of extreme controversy. now, why do we do this? because of the constitution, because the supremacy clause in the constitution says the federal law is the highest law of the land. and whenever we're dealing with any area, any area at all of the law where there are states' rights and there are federal rights, it's incumbent upon us to complain we are preserving those states' rights.

not just in this bill but in every bill. in fact, we are shoring up the provision that exists already in 43 u.s.c. 1311 entitled rights of states. why do we need to do that? because this is a comprehensive scheme to regulate offshore drilling in this country. and when you establish any comprehensive scheme, you run the risk that a court will determine that you have obliterated, you have annihilated, you have eliminated states' rights. that is what happens when you pass a law that is a comprehensive federal scheme. now, yesterday we had a similar amendment come up. in that case the vote was very exciting 213-213 tie vote. and the arguments made against the amendment yesterday today simply do not apply. yesterday, if you may recall, mr. chairman, a map was provided by the opposition to that amendment. the map pointed out the drilling in that area was limited to -- offshore drilling on the u.s.-mexico border.

well, today we're dealing with drilling from sea to shining sea. dealing with all of our shores. so that limitation that was promoted yesterday doesn't apply. yesterday there was an argument made at the last minute that somehow or another the definition of states in this amendment apply to mexican states which was absurd and ridiculous and yet it was made against that amendment. all you had to do was look at the definition, not just in the title, but in the chapter and the subchapter of the word states and you would see that the word states is defined as limited to the united states of america. now, today's bill provides a much greater threat to federal preemption of state law than yesterday's bill did. in fact, this bill explicitly intangles federal and state law together in this area under section 1344-a-2-f of this bill. this actually establishes a consultation regarding the

states which could be construed as being in lewd of and extinguishing states' rights. it's a clear error in the drafting of this bill, and my amendment is necessary to protect it. my amendment is necessary to prevent a preemption through this bill of states' rights. this bill clearly, as drafted, conflates federal and states' lead to a ould disastrous preemption of states' rights based on section 1344-a-2-f alone. now, today we have new arguments that have been made against this simple savings provision, and neither one of these arguments carries any weight. one argument that we've already heard is that this bill couldn't possibly preempt states' rights. well, in fact, it could preempt states' rights. i explained to you how that could happen. any court could look at this bill, reach the conclusion, articularly with regard to the 1344-a-2-f, this preempts

states' rights. we've not heard any explanation how it could not preempt states' rights. secondly, we've heard argument which respectfully verges on the specious that this would negate individual rights and that is completely false, completely without any merit. in fact, i've -- i would venture to say there has never been a case where a statute or an amendment or a bill that contains the phrase nothing in this act affects the right and power of each state. i don't know how that could ever be construed as somehow negating individual rights. clearly on its own terms, explicitly, this amendment simply preserves states' rights. we are in a fundamentally different situation today than we were yesterday because of the presence of section 1344-a-2-f. in this bill there is a far need today than yesterday with a tie vote.

i would call upon the chairman of the committee to agree to this amendment today and let us move on. i reserve the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grayson: thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognize snigs -- recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this is unnecessary amendments to delay the work of congress and expanding offshore energy production in order to create once again millions of new american jobs to lower energy prices, to strengthen our national security. h.r. 2231 is similar to legislation passed last congress and fully upholds existing states' rights within their boundaries and offshore areas. nothing in this bill changes the fundamental 60-year-old relationship between states and the federal government enshrined in the submerged

lands act or the outer continental shelf lands act. this bill is focused on activity in federal waters and respects states' abilities to control and govern their waters. states' authority is no way limited or affected by this bill. existing federal law protects states' rights over its waters and boundaries are not changed or amended in this bill. i've now repeated that three times. the gentleman's amendment is asserted as a simple restatement of these states' rights. though its sponsor admits the principle is not a restatement of existing law but of the principle. big difference in that, mr. chairman, which is where the amendment then raises several serious questions that leaves me to oppose its adoption in the form it is written. . as drafted the amendment currently reflects current law with regards to mappingment of natural resources, but it could effectively usurp the individual property -- private property rights of individuals in favor

of state control. the amendment reads that it is, and i will quote, the right and power of each state to prohibit management, leasing, development, the natural resources within such lands within its boundaries on, end quote. i will not at this time. states have the right to regulate natural resources but not outright prohibit development of property. that's the point here, mr. chairman. in the united states unlike much of the remainder of the world, natural resources are owned both by the government and private individuals. the right to private property is one of our -- one of the foundations of our constitution. natural resources property rights include the right to own minerals. timber rights. water rights, and those are just a few examples. congress should not be endorsing a policy that gives the states

sole power to prohibit development of these rights, and that's what this amendment could do. such an action like that embodied in this amendment could be construed as a massive taking in violation of the constitution. the government can't take property without compensation. the courts have held, including this week in the state of florida, a florida case at the supreme court, that state taking property or impinging on its very use requires fair compensation. even if a state may not be inclined to fully exercise such authority, granted by this amendment, should it become law, simple passage could open the door to lawsuits challenging private property rights. it's for these reasons that i urge a no vote on the grayson amendment. mr. chairman, at a time when our nation's economy continues to struggle, we should avoid erecting new barriers to economic activity and private freedoms. again, this amendment is

unnecessary on h.r. -- as h.r. 2231 fully upholds as it does not change or diminish or impinge existing -- no, i will not at this time. how much time do i have left, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. hastings: i would like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman of the full committee, representative hastings, and i'll just reinforce the last point he was making. i don't believe that the gentleman from florida intended his language to do this but it says, and i quote. it is the right and power of each state to prohibit -- excuse me, we don't have enough time. it is the right and power of each state to prohibit management leasing development of the natural resources within such lands within its boundaries. i don't believe it was intended, but this could have the dangerous consequence of trampling on private property

rights. it's been tried in the fifth amendment that it's a vital core principle in our bill of rights. i know you didn't intend so this language could plead to that. for that alone we should reject this amendment. this could have dangerous consequences. i agree with the full chairman, the gentleman from washington, let's reject this amendment. mr. hastings: i have 15 seconds left. i want to make this point in the 15 seconds. the gentleman from florida referenced 1334-a-2-f that is not amendment or referenced in this bill. the gentleman's argument that that could somehow play a part in that is simply because not true it is not referenced. i urge rejection of the amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, as modified. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment as modified is not agreed to. million grayson: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 113-131. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in part b of house report number 113-131, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, this is a straightforward amendment that is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, and i hope we can all agree to it. the amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision in the bill that actually mandates new drilling in the sensitive waters off santa barbara and ventura

counties in my district. whatever the reasons behind this provision, the fact remains people most affected, my constituents, don't want new drilling. my colleagues have heard me before, to invoke santa barbara's devastating 1969 oil spoil. that's because it galvanized central coast residents and the entire state of california against more offshore drilling. we were outraged by the damage to the environment, to the wildlife, to our economy. and we understood the havoc that similar blowouts could wreck on our economy, especially our tourism and fishing industries. that's why california permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in state waters in 1994. it's why some 24 city and county governments, including both santa barbara and ventura counties, have passed measures banning or requiring voter approval before any new onshore facilities to support offshore drilling can be built.

it's why in 2008 then republican governor schwarzenegger told president bush and congress to oppose new drilling off the west coast. even the pentagon has expressed concerns with new drilling in the area. mr. chair, californians have spoken loud and clear. we do not want more drilling off our shores. i urge my colleagues to join us in striking these harmful and necessary provisions from the bill and support the capps-brownley-lowenthal amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, when juan first sailed up the santa barbara channel in 1542 he noted a massive natural oil slick. that's how vast are california's

petroleum resources. today we hear much about the shale oil formation that has produced unparalleled prosperity for north dakota. yet california's monterey oil deposit is nearly five times the size of the field in north dakota. california also has 1.6 billion barrels of untapped offshore oil in unleased acreage right now that can be reached with slant drilling from onshore. the california's resources are placed off limits by the ideological extremism that is now on full display, courtesy of the amendment offered by my colleagues from california. they have had their way in california for a full generation. and i have watched their folly take what once could boast being america's golden state and turn basket case onomic and national laughingstock.

california's unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, 8.6%. north dakota's is the lowest at 3.2%. yesterday the average price per gallon of gas in california was $4.03. in north dakota it was $3.69. since 2000, california's reliance on foreign oil imports has literally doubled as a percentage and tripled as a volume. they are not helping the environment. when i grew up in ventura county 50 years ago, everyone on the coast kept pans of ter pen tine in their garages to wash off the globs of natural tar that you couldn't avoid as you walked on the breach. the offshore oil development of that era relieved the natural pressure that had polluted the waters of santa barbara channel for century, and over several decades the tar disappeared and the beaches have never been cleaner. those were also the days when

california literally led our nation's economy. people had high-paying jobs, low energy bills, and families from across america seeking a better future for their children flock to california. now those same families leave from california. mr. chairman, if i sound a little bitter it's because i am. i have watched their policies destroy the promise and prosperity of my golden state for my children. for god's sake, don't let them destroy our country. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll make a quick comment. the suggestion that oil seats are good for the environment or that more oil drilling would reduce oil seats is simply bad science. even the authors of the one study that suggested this might be possible have repudiated its use before congress. i'm pleased now to yield two

minutes to my colleague from coastal california, mr. lowenthal. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. the the hal: i thank gentlewoman from california who has been an outstanding champion of ocean protection. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment t it would not only honor the wishes of the governor of california, but also f the -- all the federal, vast majority of the federal and state representatives, especially all those that are closest to where this misguided bill would not only authorize but would force the sale of offshore oil and gas leases. these are the people who would bear the greatest risk of this -- of any oil spill. which we are all -- which we all have known have already occurred in the past in these waters.

as i said, the underlying bill we are considering today not only just authorizes but it mandates lease sales in the vast portions of the outer continental shell, including southern california, which forces, then, the interior department and the states to accept leases in their back yards, regardless, regardless of the opposition from potential mpacts, and it not only does that, it bars citizens from properly participating in the process. this bill lacks meaningful environmental review, and a chance for americans to voice their informed consent by not allowing any, and i repeat that, any consideration of any nonleasing alternative in the nepa process. nstead, what does the bill do? it dictates to the public, it

dictates to the states, it dictates to the interior department without any of their input where oil and gas leases will be held. this would occur regardless of whether the public has legitimate concerns or not. too bad. they are going to drill in our back beyond a reasonable doubt. mr. chair, instead of focusing on dead end legislation, this body should be preparing for our energy future which i believe the public will demand more and more. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlelady from california has one minute remaining. mrs. capps: i yield myself the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: this amendment simply ensures the expressed will of my constituents and people of california is respect. -- respected. i find it ironic some of the same people in this body who decry the overarching federal

government seem to have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon a local population directly against its wishes. the american people are tired of these political games, especially those that put our coasts, our communities, our way of life at risk. instead of expanding oil and gas drilling, we should be working together on a responsible, sustainable energy policy for the future. we can't end our dependence on oil overnight, but we can certainly do more to encourage inknow in clean energy technologies like solar, wind, and biofuels. we can enact better efficiency standards to make the resources we do have last longer. and we can end the billions of dollars in give aways for big oil and finally level the playing field for all types of energy technology. a clean energy future is good for jobs. it's good for our environment. it's good for the american people. this bill is just another bad idea designed to go nowhere. doubling down on oil drilling may be good policy for oil

companies. it's terrible policy for the american people. this amendment would help stop -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. capps: i urge my colleagues to respect the will of california. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i yield the balance of my time. mr. chairman, i just want to make this opponent, the fundamental reason for h.r. 2231 is to expand energy production in american waters. this amendment would put a moratorium, go in a different direction. but here's the point i want to make specifically of california that was not made by my two colleagues on the other side of the aisle from california. this legislation directs that any offshore drilling should come from existing rigs

onshore. that is possible to do, mr. chairman, because of the new technologies, horizontal drilling, that the oil industry has done for several years. it works. as a matter of fact, mr. chairman, the governor of the state of california, jerry brown, has proposed precisely that for state waters. now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from california didn't mention that. i don't know why they mention it had because their governor is in favor of that process. and what this bill does is simply mirror that by saying we will do that on federal waters. i think my colleague from california, mr. mcclintock, put it in a very good way. california, like the united states, needs a jump-start in the economy. the best way to do that is through energy production, providing a certainty of energy for our -- for a growing economy in the future. with that i urge rejection of the amendment and i yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. capps: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in farther b of house report 113-131 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 8 by mr. defazio of oregon, amendment number 9 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment number 10 by mr. grayson of florida, amendment number 11 by mrs. capps of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 113-131

by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazzyorks on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes vote.led by voice the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 113-131 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183. the nays are 235. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 113-131 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 113-131 offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 217. the nays are 202. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 113-131 by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, as modified, on which fwurt proceedings were postponed -- further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10

printed in part b of house report 113-131 offered by mr. grayson of florida, as modified. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 209. the nays are 210. he amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 11, printed in part b of house report 113-131 by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in part b of house report number 113-131, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176. the nays are 241. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on

the state of the union has hadnd consideration h.r. 2231 and pursuant to house resolution 274, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2231, and pursuant to the house resolution 274, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported for the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to increase energy exploration and production on the outer continental shelf, provide for the equitable revenue sharing for all coastal states, implement reorganization of the functions of the former minerals management service into separate agent sits and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the secretary: the clerk will

report will report the motion. the clerk: mr. schneider of illinois moves to recommit the bill to to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following, title, miscellaneous provisions. section prohibition on drilling for the oil and gas -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas -- >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. he house will come to order. the house will come to order. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. schneider: thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. this is a final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

i rise to offer this motion to recommit to ensure first that one of our nation's most important natural resources, our great lakes basin, is protected from untenable energy exploitation risk. and second, that as we explore additional ways to boost domestic energy production, we do so with an appropriate emphasis on creating jobs here in america. our great lakes are truly unique. 95% of hese lakes sit the united states surface water and 20% of the world's surface water. straddling the united states and can in a dark -- canada, the lakes have more than 10,000 miles of coastline touching eight states -- minnesota, wisconsin, illinois, indiana, michigan, pennsylvania, and new york. not only a critical source of drinking water, the legs are integral to the country for transportation, power generation, and recreational

opportunity. over 30 million americans in cities, towns, and rural communities depend on the great lakes for their lives and lively hoods. in fact, according to great lakes restoration initiative plan, taken as a whole, the great lakes region economy would be the second largest economy in the world, second only to that of the united states. the great lakes support an incredible biodiversity, including almost 200 species of native fish and source of species found nowhere else in the world. in short, as one of our nation's greatest treasures, we cannot put the great lakes at risk from oil and gas drilling of any kind. my amendment is quite simple and straightforward. with it i only seek to ensure that the great lakes will remain protected and off limits from unjustifiable environmental risk. it safeguards lake michigan, lake huron, lake superior, and

lake ontario from irreversible harm and provides necessary protections against potentially and irresponsible exploitation of our natural resource. in my own state, the great lakes annually contribute over $200 billion in economic activity for illinois. lake michigan alone provides drinking water for seven million illinois residents, brings 20 million visitors annually to illinois. supports 33,000 jobs, and generates 3.2 billion -- $3.2 billion in economic activity. as we explore ways for the united states to become more energy independent, we cannot lose sight of the importance of protecting our environment and establishing commonsense rules of where and how we can effectively, safely utilize our natural resources. preserving the prohibition on drilling in the great lakes provides economic security that thousands of businesses, large and small, that depend on the lakes every day for trade, recreation, and tourism. it also protects the health of

our communities and the health of our wildlife. let me be clear, the underlying legislation while focusing on drilling in the outer continental shelf has other provision that is relate to domestic energy production and may, when implemented, have implications for the great lakes. the bill specifically restricts oil and gas leasing in the eastern gulf of mexico and should also include a restriction on new oil and gas leasing in the great lakes basin. this clarifying amendment is therefore necessary to ensure that our energy policy does not compromise our great lakes ecosystem, does not threaten our single greatest fresh water supply, and does not unduly put our great lakes basin economy at unwarranted risk. in addition to protecting the great lakes, the amendment i am proposing today would also encourage companies seeking leases to drill for oil and gas found in america to use materials and products made in america. the additional provision will ensure that u.s. oil and gas

resources will benefit american workers, as well as provide new business opportunities for american manufacturers. as we pursue a diversified energy portfolio, we must continue to ensure that america's natural resources benefit the american people and are not unfairly diverted to the benefit of foreign suppliers and workers. mr. speaker, this will improve the underlying bill while protecting american jobs and our environment. i strongly urge my colleagues to support these commonsense changes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. will come to order. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this motion. this motion epitomizes what's wrong with washington's democrats, energy and economic

plan. let's start with the obvious. the obvious is the great lakes are not part of the outer continental shelf. the second thing is current law already provides for offshore drilling to be done using america's goods and services wherever practical so their m.t.r. doesn't make any sense at all. more importantly, mr. speaker, this week offers a two contrast for thousand to fuel our economy and to build manufacturing jobs. one vision was laid out by the president earlier this week. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman may continue. the gentleman may continue. >> while we are currently in the midst -- in a transformation in the way we produce american energy cleanly, affordably, abundantly and responsibly, how does the administration responds? mr. flores: by declaring a war on coal and picking winners and losers both that have been an assault on job creators,

especially for american manufacturing. even as we've been debating this bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have responded by attempting to drown offshore production with more regulations and declarations that make it more difficult to achieve energy independence by 2020, thus, killing tens of thousands of american jobs that could be created. but mr. speaker, there is another vision of how we can energize america through the responsible production of our resources and create american jobs. that vision does not capitol hill ill-advised regulations that ignore the effects -- mr. speaker, the how is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. the gentleman may continue. mr. flores: that vision does not include the ill-advised regulations that ignore the effects of the pocketbooks of hardworking american families. it does not include programs where bureaucrats can decide who can and cannot produce energy at the expense of

hardworking taxpayer dollars. and most importantly, it does not include administrative attempts to implement a back door cap and trade regime to fulfill the president's original goal where electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. this new vision, our vision ilds off of what the private sector has done and revolutionizing how oil and gas can be produced. of what laws congress has passed and the regulations this administration has promulgated. and then we ask ourselves -- what can we do to make america truly energy independent? and what can we do to make it easier for job creators to actually create jobs and grow healthy american families? this house is working to achieve this vision now, offering solutions to take advantage of the innovative, job-creating and cost-reducing energy resurgence that's going across our america to full the next generation of american manufacturing. we have passed hydropower bills out of this house. we have passed the popular keystone x.l. bill.

and today we'll pass a bill for responsible energy production offshore, and this is just the beginning. this house, through the leadership of my good friend from washington, chairman doc hastings, will continue to bring bills through committee and to the house floor that will embrace american resources and that will get the government out of the way of producing them. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will come to order. the gentleman may continue. mr. flores: by producing american energy, we're just starting. we must harness these same technological advances to achieve greater economic opportunity and job creation through the distribution of this energy and most importantly creating an environment where we can start making things in america again. we know that the cost of energy is one of the most important factors to determine where plants are built and if jobs are created. so we know that cheaper energy means higher paying american

jobs. i often see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this floor with a big sign that says, "make it in america." we agree. so instead of standing next to a slogan or getting behind the same rhetoric as the president, i urge my colleagues to work toward a vision, a vision of jobs and energy security and a greater standard of living that all americans are desperately seeking. this is how we really take action for our kids as compared to the empty rhetoric of the white house. the american people want us to create a result-oriented solution, what america can do. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will come to order. the gentleman may continue. mr. flores: the american people want us to create a results-oriented solution of what we can do, not the rhetoric of what america can't do. we will not set idly by as the president sets down new regulations producing uncertainty for american energy workers and american families

that would put back our energy and economic revolution. remember the results of the president's last energy plan. number one, greatly reduced offshore areas of public lands. number two, programs like solyndra where reinvested $26 billion of hardworking taxpayers to produce only 2,300 cost at a cost of $11.5 million a job, the shutdown of 20% of our coal-fired electricity generation and the loss of paychecks for thousands of american families. his latest energy plan is more of the same type of action that he wants to destroy the futures of our kids and grandkids. mr. speaker, i worked -- we will work toward energy security, and i urge the no vote on the m.t.r. and a yes vote on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it.

the motion fails. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this will be followed by a passage of the bill, if ordered and approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this ote, the yeas are 195. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 195rk the nays are 225, one voting present, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed, the gentleman from oregon is ecognized.

mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a record vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235, the nays are 186, the bill is passed, without objection, the motion to recommit -- to reconsider is tabled. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill h.r. 2 31, the

clerk -- 2231, the clerk is authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek to be recognized? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. student loan rates are set to double on monday. it's been a month since the house passed the smarter solutions for students act that would stop this doubling of rates. at a time when we need to restore people's faith in government, the senate adjourned and failed to prevent this happening. this is extremely harmful to students from illinois and across the nation. student loan rates should not be held hostage by members of

congress to advance their own political agendas. the house solution takes the congress out of the equation and moves the student loans to the market-based interest rate. speaking to students in my district, i have heard their concerns about the rising cost of education. jenny a student, said she'd like to expand on the education she received at northern illinois university but is already concerned about loan payments when she graduates. mr. hultgren: she is not alone. this is a crisis that will further cripple our economy's recovery. i call on the president to step up and provide leadership needed. let's urge the senate to act. take washington politics out of students' wallets and stand up for tomorrow's recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker -- michael: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: i haven directed by the senate to inform the house they passed h.r. 324 to

grant the congressional gold medal to the first special service force in recognition of its superior service in world war ii. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am so pleased today to recognize a remarkable high school student who was recently named the young entrepreneur of the year by the national federation of independent business. at age 14, she made a cheesecake that caused a sensation in her neighborhood. ms. frankel: one cheesecake led to another and shea's bakery was born in delray, florida. today, shea is a successful small business owner and a standout student balancing

calculus and chemistry at spanish river high school with measuring cups and mixing bowls at her bakery. she heads to college at washington university this fall. we cannot wait to see the next great step nor young entrepreneur's career. congratulations, shea, on your well-deserved recognition. you made your family and community proud. we wish you the very best. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks unanimous consent to -- -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to welcome the newest move the womack family. the birth -- the newest member of the womack family.

he's at 5 pounds 10 ounces, kaden entered this world oblivious to the difficult, complex issues facing this nation and indeed the world. like every newborn in america, kaden should have a path to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, instead, he inherits $50,000 worth of debt he had nothing to do with its creeeags. that's a challenge we must overcome. it's simply unacceptable, down right irresponsible, for these innocent babies to face growing up in a country not responsible for its extravagance. this grandpa is grateful kaden is born to good personal health, and this grandpa will do his part to -- here in congress to sustain a bright future for my grandson. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. waters: -- ms. lee: i rise to call for urgent congressional action on climate change. president obama released a climate action plan and while it makes important steps toward reducing the trend on pollution, congressional action is necessary to get the job done. climate change continues to effect our communities through -- to affect our communities through heats, floods and superstorms. the impact of climate change is real and present thafle bear the brunt of the effects of pollution, toxic dump sites and greenhouse gas emissions leading to higher rates of asthma and a greater vulnerability to natural disasters. yet instead of working with democrats to address climate change and promote job creation, republicans voted on a bill to expand unsafe drilling and make

big oil even bigger that is exactly the wrong approach. domestic energy production is already booming. the american people are waiting for real action on climate issues. we owe it to our children and future generations to act now on climate change. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, emily whitehead is a young girl from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: she wants to be a veterinarian when she grows up. she loves riding and her dog lieu se. she was diagnosed with leukemia, she was treated but unfortunately relapsed. she received chemotherapy for month and was scheduled for a bone marrow transplant but relapsed two weeks before the transplant date. unable to get back in remission,

doctors told her parents there were no options left. the family decided to take a chance, they traveled across the state and enrolled her in a clinical trial at children's hospital. she would be the first child in he world to receive modified t-cells to fight her cancer. by may of 2012, she was in remission. i want to thank emily and her family for making toyota capitol hill last week. this body needed to hear her story and about the medical research and innovation that saved emily's life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ithout objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on tuesday the supreme court struck down a critical part of the voting rights act.

mrs. beatty: some would say the heart of that act. i would remind us that it was almost 50 years ago that president johnson he canowed across this congress and this nation for us to open our polling places to all people, to allow all men and women, regardless of their skin color, to be able to vote, to extend the rights to vote to every citizen in this land. because as he so eloquently stated that this was not a constitutional issue. so i ask this congress this year to express our discontentment with what the civil -- what has happened to the voting rights act through the supreme court. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, there were 56 of them. they pledged their lives, their for turns, their sacred honor in the signing of the document -- their fortunes, their sacred honor in the signing of the document that all people were endowed by their creator with certain absolute rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and governments preserve those rights. it was philadelphia, it was uly 4, 1776, it was the deck peculiar -- declaration of independence. en after eight years of war, they defeated king george iii. we went our own way. independence, i like the sound of that word, means that we the people have rule over government and government will be our servant rather than us being government's servant. liberty, freedom, independence, these three noble words are reality in this the greatest of all nations.

as a son of the american revolution, i thank the patriots that gave us independence. so mr. speaker, next week on this special day fly the flag, listen to the band play "stars and stripes forever" and thank the good lord for shedding his grace on the united states of america, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: mr. speaker, none of us get to where we are by ourselves. i was very proud to see former chairperson of the financial services committee, chairperson frank, who is no longer with congress, not only address doma but he also addressed section 5 of the voting rights act by way of section 4, an important subject. human rights are birth rightsrights, they are rights that courts recognize they shouldn't deny. what the court did with doma was correct.

i support the dignity of human beings to have equal opportunities in the greatest country in the world. i thank chairman frank and i want him to know that he stands with us and i stand with him and i stand with all persons who are being discriminated against in an invidious way. human rights cannot be denied because they are birthrights. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, this sunday marks the fourth year since sergeant paul was reported missing in action in action, it's on this sober occasion that veterans, concerned citizens across the united states will appeal to their government asking those that have the means to find every unaccounted soldier, airmen, sailor, marine and guardsman and bring them home. mr. nugent: currently less than

1% of the u.s. population serves in the armed forces at any time. through their sacrifices, great many americans are not touched by this on a personal level because so few of our members serve. the men and women between us and those who harm us are young, but they're brave and they are strong. so it's easy to forget they are so young, filled with ambition, passion, honor, a full life ahead of them with unrestrained potential. our troops are children of concerned parents, many of them are also parents of scared children. d that collective fears is endured by every family left behind. when a war fighter does not come home, when they are held captives our their whereabouts are unknown, the strain on loved ones is unbearable. all three of my sons are highly capable and well-trained soldiers, but every time they

deploy, i worry about when they are away. mr. speaker, i ask that those here remember sergeant argon. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, in two days at midnight by law the interest rates for the subsidized stafford student loan program will double from 3.4% to 6.8%, raising interest rates for 7 1/2 million college students at exactly the time they are taking out loans for next fall's semester. what a terrible statement about this congress that we failed to move forward with legislation to protect those rates. my legislation, h.r. 1595, which had 195 discharged signatures, would have protected that rate. again, the leadership of this house turned a deaf ear and insisted their bill, passed on may 23, somehow protected those college students. well, the congressional budget

office looked at that bill that passed that day and they concluded that that bill was worse than doing nothing and allowing the rates to double to 6.8%. it is again a bill which will put kids into a variable rate system, that over time we know will be higher than 6.8%. the disgust that america will feel on july 1 when they see that a critical need higher education was overlooked and ignored on top of failure to turn off sequester, pass the farm bill, it's time for congress to act, protect the lower interest rates for america's college students. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my dear friend from texas, mr. flores. mr. flores: i thank mr. gohmert for yielding to me a few minutes to me for a very special few minutes. mr. speaker, on june -- excuse me -- on june 8, america lost army lieutenant colonel todd clark in the war on terror. lieutenant colonel clark was killed at an army base in afghanistan. lieutenant colonel todd clark was a native of new york. he attended college in texas, and his father, jack, was also an army colonel. todd was in junior rotc while in high school and upon graduation he attended texas a&m university where he joined company b-2 of the corps of cadets. at the time of his death, he was part of the 10th mountain

division. during his army career, he would serve on five separate deployments in support of freedom. enduring during his 17 years of service to our country, lieutenant colonel clark earned many awards and declarations, including the following -- three bronze star medals, the purple heart, two meritorious service medals, the army commendation with combat distinguishing device b, four army commendation medals, three army achievement medals, the army reserve components achievement medal, the national fense service medal with bronze service star, the armed forces expeditionary medal, the kosovo campaign medal with bronze service star, two afghanistan campaign medals with bronze service star, four iraq campaign medals with bronze service star, the global war on terrorism expeditionary medal, the global war on terrorism service medal, the

korean defense service medal, the army service ribbon, three overseas service ribbons, the nato medal kosovo, the nato medal combat action badge, and the basic parachutist badge. at the conclusion of his current tour, lieutenant colonel clark's next assignment was to come back to texas. he was thrilled to be chosen to be the executive officer or essentially the second in command of the corps of cadet's rotc program at his alma mater, texas a&m university. on friday, june 21, lieutenant colonel todd clark was laid to rest at the fort sam houston national cemetery in san antonio, texas. our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of lieutenant colonel clark. he will be forever remembered as an outstanding soldier, husband and father. we thank him and his family for their service and sacrifice for our country.

his sacrifice reflects the 13.s of jesus in john 15: i ask that everyone remember to pray often for our country during these difficult times. please pray for our military men and women who protect us from threats abroad and please pray for our first responders who protect us from threats here at home. god bless our military men and women and god bless america. and thank you. i yield back to my good friend from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. flores. colonel clark was a great american. he was a great agee. he was just -- he was a great aggie. he was a great man. appreciate that tribute to him. my friend from texas, houston area, wish to do a one-minute, but i yield to my friend from texas, ms. jackson lee, for such time as -- such time as she may consume.

ms. jackson lee: i want to thank my colleague from texas, and i want to thank him publicly for his commitment to the united states military and certainly for work that we collaborated on to work with a young soldier. we are always interested in making sure that our soldiers and their families have justice and access to justice. so thank you, congressman, for your leadership on that issue. let me thank you for the brief time that i will utilize today and to indicate that i am so proud to be an american, and i wish america as we celebrate our birth-day that we become even -- birthday that we become even more unified, more grateful of the red, white and blue and to take that day even to acknowledge our public servants, first responders, to

acknowledge the men and women who serve in government, local governments, to those who serve in the united states government and to particularly take every day and have an opportunity to celebrate those who are in uniform on this soil or places beyond. let us congratulate them. and that causes me to indicate that the voter rights act was a part of america. many people are not aware that this congress with 398 votes-plus in the house and 98 votes in the senate re-authorized a bill that really means the right to vote for everyone. we take our instruction from the supreme court seriously and what we will intend to do is seek a bipartisan effort to strengthen and to ensure that no vote is denied. i do express great

disappointment in the immediacy of the implementation of the texas voter i.d. law and pray for the spiritual community to come together and pray for this congress which we will do on this coming sunday, june 30. we will pray for the congress in houston, and i ask that we pray across america, that we'll have the opportunity to do this very challenging effort together for the question of voting rights is not one of color. it is one of the freedom of this nation. i also want to add the recognition that all marriages are equal and free and we ask that those who have been so positively impacted by the decision that the supreme court issued on doma, likewise, will recognize their freedom to find that marriage is a respect of all. let me conclude by raising this question so that you can see

the reality of what the voting rights act stands for. a casualty, an immediate casualty of the elimination of the voting rights act of 1965 -- and when i say that it's enforcement provision 4 -- was the closing of the last african-american majority-minority school district, 50 years of history, teachers and workers and police officers and students who graduated and came back to trigget the north forest independent school district on the very day that the supreme court decision was rendered, they had been in court ready to be protected by the voting rights act but now seven trustees of which this community voted for, cherished were eliminated on that tuesday because of the undermining of the voting rights act. as a human rights factor,

teachers who love students, teachers fired, doors locked, administrators thrown out through no fault of their own. progress. they had as many of us had years of some unfortunate history but look at them now. because of the unfortunate history, the whole district, the community, the homes, the people who invested in this school district now as i leave this podium to my good friend, i have to face school teachers and others who are cut off from any form of health care, individuals who are on dialysis, kidney issues, of course, that they have, diabetes, they are shut off, doors locked, papers thrown out, no ability to give recommendations for teachers. what a dastardly circumstance. i'm prayerful that i can go to the commissioner of education to ask for a pause so that these individuals can continue their health insurance so that mothers and fathers can get their students in regular order into another school system and so that we can find common

ground just out of our own humanity. i want to thank my colleague for yielding and i'm prayerful as i leave this podium that, one, america will commemorate this great holiday together on july 4 and when we come back this congress will expeditiously restore the anchor in the name of john lewis who shed his blood on the edmond pettis bridge, who continues to be a peacemaker in this congress, that we re-authorize this wonderful legislative initiative so that incidents like north forest independent school district and others who have fallen victim to this nonenforceability of the voting rights act can be restoorned we come together as a great -- restored and we come together as a great and wonderful nation. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from texas. impressker, i was quite

and pleased to work with ms. jackson lee to help one of our servicemen. people around the country say, why can't people get along on beeth sides of the aisle, when we disagree on issues we say that. but when we work together buzz of our common goal to make the country better and help those who have been unfairly treated, we work together and it's a pleasure to do so. i thank my friend from texas, ms. jackson lee and i would like commend today on the good that the voting rights act did. back in the 1960's, there was racial disparity, there was far too many african-americans who percentage wise who were not voting when compared with majority white americans and something needed to be done.

and the supreme court said because there has been such impropriety, then we will allow this punitive measure to try to force things into being right where there's not racial disparity, racial discrimination in people -- in preventing people of minority races from being able to get to the polls and vote. nearly 50 years later, over 45 years later, it has worked. it has worked. the -- as the supreme court pointed out, the original six states, five of those states have less racial disparity in voting than the whole rest of the country. that's great progress. over those four to five decades at times, things change. and the voting rights act as i

pointed out to my friend and fellow republican, chairman of the judiciary committee at the time, mr. sensenbrenner who had work sod hard to have it extended previously and was working on the re-authorization or the re-extension and to my friend across the aisle that i have great respect for, we have wonderful conversations, mr. john conyers. as i pointed out. if you have a problem with equal protection in this extension, you are punishing states who have cleaned up their act. now i don't know of anybody, anybody, in any of those states, who were forced under the 40-plus-year-old formula, to be punished who had anybody in their government who was there when racial inequality and

discrimination was going on who are still there. so this act that had done great good, refused to acknowledge that good had been done and even though things had changed and we had gone from southern states having racial discrimination to now having those southern states that had less racial disparity in numerous cases, had more african-american turnout than they had white turnout, percentage wise. so things had corrected themselves, i would submit, it won't -- they won't totally be corrected until we have a much higher percentage of all americans that are eligible to vote coming out and voting. that's what's supposed to happen. but anyway, things had changed

and now the most discriminatory state in the union, ironically, has become massachusetts. and even wisconsin has a district with significant racial disparity indicating potential for discrimination in that area and that perhaps massachusetts should be an area that we focus on for trying to eliminate the racial discrimination there. let's look at the numbers, see where racial disparity exists, determine what the reason is, and if there's racial discrimination, we need to address that. because as we've seen, the voting rights act had actually done a greet dood -- a great good. so it's a work in progress and i don't know how many of the two senators and representatives from massachusetts would be willing to join with me to put -- to agree to put massachusetts under the punitive section five

but i'm certainly willing to go along and do that so that massachusetts can benefit and get rid of racial discrimination and work toward the day when their racial dispearity is back in line with where it should be. it's normally been a forward-thinking state and so it's very sad that it's regressed in that regard. certainly we can work together on helping improve massachusetts to the point that, say, texas is now. i know they would like to be. i know people in massachusetts that do not want to be the most racially discriminating state, so i'm sure it shouldn't be that difficult of a thing to accomplish. so there should be a tribute to the voting rights act and i happen to represent east texas, knack goaches paper after the nacadoches gde --

paper said i was a throwback to because of the 1950's hey hadn't bothered to read my paper that said i wanted it to apply to every where across the country. i would have voted for the amendment if we'd gotten the gohmert amendment in but it was ot accepted. so i knew the act would have to go down. anyway, the great thing about being in east texas, most people there are quite fair. en it was pointed out to the nacogdoches paper back then, they did a retraction and corrected themselves. that's the great thing about america. i'm not expecting the a.p. to do

a correction on the misrepresentation of things i said this week, in fact, i'm quite tickled that after the .p. experienced the full force of the executive branch coming after them, grack their records, grabbing phone records from up here in the area in which the reporters work and make calls to congressmen and other things, what a violation, what an atrocious violation of the a.p.'s rights, and i'm glad that the a.p. doesn't feel like they owe me any obligation of being more accurate in their reporting of me, this is america. the a.p. is totally free to mess up stories as they wish, totally free to slant stories as they want to, that's their prerogative. the great thing about america. but i hope that they'll start

being a little more vigilant about the abuses by this administration since now they have been the victim of such abuses. we'll see. but hopefully they won't continue to be such -- so defensive for the administration and be a little more objective in the reporting. the want to address windsor decision regarding the defense of marriage act because as a former prosecutor, a former judge, been a litigator, and a former chief justice, i read these opinions with interest. and look for the reasoning, look for the consistency in the citation of the facts, the prior on to prior law,

precedent, and the reasoning of the court. and as i read through this windsor decision regarding defense of marriage act, i was very concerned as i read through they go through here and the majority opinion, justice kennedy wrote, they got about 12 pages here where they're talking about most of the discussion is about standing because under this case, the administration refused to do their job, they refused to have the department of justice defend the law, and it shouldn't be any surprise. we got the president goes out including here recently and says, i don't like the law that congress passed and prior

presidents have signed so here's the new law. recently as the last few days, he didn't like the law, as it as s on carbon issues, so any good monarch would do, he came up with a new law. and espoused that. unfortunately, it's not appropriate. and the constitution has the wherewithal to stop this kind of overreach and unconstitutional activity by a president. it just refuses to enforce laws -- that just refuses to enforce laws, creates new laws out of whole cloth while ignoring the laws that are in place. the founders recognize that it's possible some day, some administration could do that and if they do, then the congress the purse and they can step up and say, you're abusing the constitution, you're

abusing people's rights, and therefore we as a house and senate refuse to fund any department that is acting extra constitutionally. e have the power to do that. i have people here in my party, the majority party in the house, saying we've got no leverage. are you kidding? in this no body -- entire government, in the whole executive branch that can get paid, that can have any money to do their job unless we vote to allow them to have money from the treasury. they can't get it. we have that authority. and if we wanted to take a hard line when the justice department is refusing to investigate matters properly, they're covering up matters, they come to congress and misrepresent things, we have the power to stop them.

from continuing such abuses. when they potentially commit a fraud on the court and say somebody is a criminal like james rosen and they swear to that before a judge and swear to he's a flight risk when apparently they knew all along he wasn't and now they say, no, no, no, they were never going to prosecute. we have the power to stop that kind of stuff, we have the power to stop the abuses of going after the a.p. or rosen or any reporters inappropriately and abusing and breaching the freedom of the press. so my friend -- i saw my friend, mr. nadler, walk across the back of the hall. we have disagreed on so many things but i have come to appreciate very much his position on the need to hold every administration accountable and i'm hoping that we're going to be able to work out some legislation that reins in the

abuses. yes, i know that an administration needs to monitor some things but i'm quite concerned about the extent to which this administration has moved even farther than the prior administration in monitoring people. i mean, basically in such an incredibly orwellian fashion that it's a little scary to those of us who have watched this happen. so i'm hoping we'll be able to work together. when you look at this opinion and you see, well, gee, the administration is refusing to defend a law that was duly passed, signed into law by president clinton, it's a problem. somebody has to defend the law. and i was grateful that the supreme court after they analyzed this and get over around page 12 or so, and say, that similarly with respect to

legislative power, this is on page 12 of the majority opinion, when congress has passed a statute and a president has signed it, it poses grave challenges to the separation of powers for the executive at a particular moment to be able to nullify congress' enactment solely on its own initiative and without any determination from a court. . then they go through and say on painl 13 they refer to the bilateral legislative group that decided to defend the defense of marriage act when the administration refused to do the job that was required actually, they refused to defend it. and as they have other laws that have been duly passed and signed . part -- ourt says in

which is one of immediate importance to the federal government and to hundreds of thousands of persons, there is no basis in fact to make that reference, but as we have seen --particularly in recent years, the court has strayed off into areas where they do not have facts to justify their opinions and they make bad decisions as they did in the horrendous dred scott case. it happens when the court comes the fact-finder, basically the judge, jury, and executioner. they just seem to want to do it all. and make references to facts that are not before the court, d in fact they say these circumstances support the court decision proceeds on merit. the court is saying, ok, the administration refuses to do their constitutional job to defend duly passed and signed legislation, so the members of

congress that passed this law that pushed it through and voted for it in essence they will have standing to defend it. so it took them a long time to get here, clear over to 13, but they eventually say, ok, we will recognize since these people passed the law, they pushed through, it's their group that got it passed and made it into a law, we'll recognize that they have a legitimate standing to come before this court and efend the law. now the court says now that we found that the people that passed this law have a right to defend it, significant enough that they have standing, that gives us jurisdiction as a supreme court and so now we'll proceed on the merits. i had trouble with some of the

representations, king solomon, many, including me, believe was the wisest man who ever lived. then he had too many wives and that always messes up anybody's wisdom, but he was wise at the time he said there is nothing new under the sun. well, the supreme court apparently at least the new holy quintet believes they are wiser than solomon, even though they showed some ignorance, they say on page 13, for marriage between a man and a woman, no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. parenthetically i'd like to insert that shows some wisdom if they would make that comment. and throughout the history of

mankind though many won't acknowledge it, marriage between a man and a woman coming together, or as the bible says a man will leave his mother and woman leave her home and the two ill come together and be one person, one flesh. that's been recognized as a good healthy building block for society. and that's been recognized throughout the history of the united states as a good healthy building block. and what some seem to not recognize, even though they acknowledge they believe in evolution, and how a species evolves by having better and more adaptable offspring, and the strongest produce more and better offspring that evolve the species to a higher level, interestingly throughout the history of mankind it apparently

was not the joinder of a man and a man or a woman and a woman that was able to produce a better and more evolved species. from best we can tell until you still need a sperm from a man and egg from a woman, even if you say, well, yeah, we can clone, if you don't have something that was created by the joinder of something from a man and something from a woman, then you have nothing to clone. so as smart as we think we are, it still comes back to what the bible says as the two people becoming one person, one flesh. quote, court says, and i that belief for many who long have held it became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. for others, however, came the beginings of -- beginnings of a

new perspective, a new insight. there is nothing new under the sun. this kind of assertion has been made and it's often found toward the end of great civilizations, it doesn't bring about the end of the civilization, but it's often found at the end of a great civilization as basically a mile marker that a civilization passes on the way to the dust bin of history. no nation lasts forever. none does. but it's my hope and prayer we can at least double the length of this short time that this untry has existed since 1775 when the wars started, the declaration of independence in 1776, the treaty of paris in 1783. so the supreme court says, talks about this new perspective and new insight, and then they say

this, the limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in new york and certain other states as an unjust exclusion. it and they go on and they mention, there are 11 states that had adopted this. there are not 11 states that have had the entire state vote to recognize marriage between two men or two women, but once you move marriage beyond the scope of a man and a woman, you really don't end up with a good place to put a limit. because now that the court has pushed this boundary out there nd eliminated it, then i think polygamy is wrong, big mi is ong, and it's a crime -- bigomy is wrong, and it's a

crime. i believe it's wrong, how will that be justifiable now that the court has removed this? there's some believe polygamy is the way to go. i do not think it's healthy overall for a society. and i certainly don't think it helped solomon. i don't think it helped him lose his wisdom. but the court goes on and says its operation is directed to a class of persons with the laws new york and 11 states it sought to protect. and again that's not 11 or 12 states that have -- had the entire state vote on what marriage is. it's that many states that have he -- most of those have been legislatures, and in some states where legislatures have said one thing, the people came back and said you're not representing our interest and we are government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and

therefore we are correcting you nd fixing the law. the court said page 17, the definition of marriage is the foundation of the state's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of our -- offspring, property interests, and enforcement of marital responsibilities. the states at the time of the adoption of the constitution possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce, and the constitution delegated no authority to the government of the us united states -- of the united states on the subject of marriage and divorce. if you read, page 17, you realize this court is about to do what for many of us is wholly le, become a quintet, the five justices, and basically try to rewrite the laws of nature. and nature is god as most of the

founders believed. as i rode that, and i have not read the proposition 8 case from the supreme court regarding california's law, i thought, well, i don't like where this is going, but based on this reasoning i know the supreme court will have to be intellectually honest and consistent enough that members of congress that passed a law have standing to defend that law when attorney general and executive branch doesn't, they'll have to uphold the standing of the group in california who pushed through and voted for and passed just as congress does the laws here, through referendum, the law in california saying that marriage was between a man and a woman. when i read this, this doesn't sound good for the defense of marriage act by the federal

congress, because they are saying it's only the states that can decide what marriage is. and these 11, 12 states have decided for themselves what it is. so the federal government doesn't have any power to say what it is. i still contend the federal government does have a nexus and power to say what it is for purposes of certain federal nefits, but the court is new holy quintet saw otherwise, and they go on to say in this pinion what shows the holy quintet was either totally dishonest or totally inconsistent, totally ignorant actually, when they make this statement. nd i quote, page 22, the principle purpose, talking about the defense of marriage act, is to impose inequality not for governmental like

efficiency. and that's a lie. and anybody who will be intellectually honest will have to understand that is a lie by the new holy quintet at the supreme court. the principle purpose was to protect the greatest foundational building block of any society since the dawn of mankind. the home where a mother and father are there. home where these species have offspring and they are nurtured by a mother and father. now, certainly i saw it in the soviet union, back in the 1970's when i was there as an exchange student, i was shocked, i was mortified because at these

daycare centers, they were saying, yes, the government, the children are the government's, they are the state's. seems like i saw that on msnbc recently. they are saying they are the states, and the parents are only the brief caregivers so long as the state allows them to take care of the state's children. but if they say anything inappropriate, they crank the child out and put it with someone more the serving. i was mortified because even in the 1970's, arealized as a young person that wow, the family is so important. some of our greatest people have come from single parent homes. and that will also continue. thank god since we've now passed over 40%, heading toward 50% of individuals being born today to a single parent home. but that's not statistically the

most secure and the best home in which, statistically, generally speaking, for a child to grow up. obviously there are exceptions. you have abusive parents, you have parents that i sent to prison. who were an aberration. that you have in anybody's home. so i sent them to prison for committing crimes. well obviously, a two-parent home where one of them is committing crimes is not healthy to a child. but overall, for the history of this country, the states, members of congress, the original founders, they would never have dreamed we would get judiciary, here the the unelected branch, the only unelected branch, would say we're going to rewrite the laws of nature and nature's god.

but that's in essence what they say. page 25, the court says the federal statute is invalid. for no legitimate purpose. overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity. that's a tragic decision. and it's heartbreaking that it will help the general -- help degenerate this society as we move forward, fewer and fewer people paying income tax as this society becomes more and more narcissistic, more focused on ourselves, how else can you explain one generation saying, this generation is so valuable that we are going to force future generations, some of whom have not even been born, to pay

for our narcissism and to our engorging ourselveses on the future of -- on the money of future generations? we're the first in american history that's ever been so self-absorbed. and it's heartbreaking. we've got to change this. all the generations before had before the majority of that generation that we will sacrifice whatever we have to so that our children will have a better nation than we have. i've been the beneficiary of that. and i will work until i take my dying breath to try to change the direction we're headed toward national bankruptcy both financially and morally. but this is a disingenuous opinion and either the court realizes it, which makes it

dishonest or they don't realize it and it makes them very ignorant. so nonetheless, when i finish reading that majority opinion, i knew, well, surely as bad as that opinion is, incorporating things that simply aren't true, disingenuous, when i take up the proposition 8 case from california, number one, they'll have to say that the people that pushed through the law and passed it have standing to defend the law that they pushed through and passed and voted for themselves by referendum just as e members of congress were allowed to have standing to defend the bill. in california's case, the executive branch, their attorney general, refused to defend the law that was passed by a majority of the californians. so i thought, ok, that'll be an easy one for the supreme court they can just reference the windsor says -- case as these

people have the right, they have standing, therefore we have jurisdiction to take up the merits of the case and they can cite windsor, the doma case, for the proposition as they say in the doma case, that the states have a right to determine what marriage will be in their state. and here's the amazing part for people who have educations from ivy league, many of them, ivy league institutions, not sure they may all come from ivy league institutions, sounds like we need some diversity on the court, though, if that's the case. they find out they hold, rather, that the people that passed the law in california voted for the law in california, do not have standing to defend the law so we're not even going to take up the issue that we said clearly in the case we just decided on

doma that only the states have a right to decide what marriage is within their states. so they kick it back to a lower court to dismiss. it is tragic when people who are supposed to be our best educated ave such false reasoning based on a fiction. that the law saying marriage is a man and a woman has no other at ose, the primary purpose least being to create inequality. that is tragic. it does not bode well for this nation when the only unelected branch decides that they will rewrite the laws of nature and nature's god. why do i mention that? because those are terms that the founders used.

nd when my pastor, david dykes was up here with his wifesen di, it was the first time i'd gone over to the state department, i majored in history, loved i enjoyed history and majored in it. i knew all about the revolution, the treaty of paris, but i had never actually looked at the treaty of paris or a copy of it. and over under glass in the state department building they have an incredible copy of the original treaty of paris of 1783. and i was shocked by the big bold letters that start the treaty of paris. and i had to think about, why would they start with those words. and then you put yourself back in the place of the founders, those who were negotiating with the brit herb government in

paris to force them to recognize that the united states of america was a free and independence -- independent country, totally free of great britain, and totally independent to do what it wished as its own sovereign nation. so they had to get representatives from great britain to sign that. what would keep them from just breaking their oath, i mean, we see it here among politicians, they'll swear one thing and then go do something else. what would keep the representatives of great britain from doning the very same thing? and the founders wanted something so profound under which they would make the great britain diplomats sign that they would be afraid to ever break that oath. i thought about it, what in the world would i put in the

document to make them sign under , i don't think having a notary is going to quite do the trick, especially if it's an american notary, they can say, it wasn't a brit herb notary. so what would you do? what would you put in the document to make them swear under? and that's where they came up with the first words of the treaty of paris, that for the fers time truly recognized the infence of the united states by great britain. france had recognized us buts the one we've been in revolt with and war with. so the first words, the biggest, boldest words in all of the treaty of paris were these -- in he name of the most holy and undivided trinity. now they knew, both the british and the americans, that the trinity represented the father, son, and holy ghost. and they put that as the biggest

words in there. in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. they figured if the british will sign this document with those in big, bold letters, they will not want to face their judge someday if they break that oath. the very reason that john quincy adams, the great advocate for abolition, the only man in american history who had been elected president, 1824, defeated in 1828, he decides god's calling him to bring an end to slavery like william wilber force was trying to do in england. so he did the unthinkable. after he was president, he ran to be a representative in the house of representatives of the u.s. congress. and was elected.

and it indicated to -- and he indicated to someone he was prouder of being elected to congress after being president elected was being president that means after he was elected president, his neighbors still liked him. that was a big deal. but over and over, he preached sermons on the evils of slavery, just down the hall here, but in the amista case that came before the supreme court in the old supreme court chamber downstairs, he argued before the spoirt, you can find his whole argument online. fortunately, they didn't put two-plus days of oral argument n the mue "amistad," anthony hopkins, a good longview, texas, guy named matthew mcconaughey, and you find at the end of his argument, but basically he goes

to asking, where's justice so and so and chief justice john marshall, and where is the solicitor who last argued the case against me then i was here before. even the judge that started this case, he had died one night during oral arguments. i mean during the days of oral arguments. and he ends up concluded -- concluding, basically, they've gone to meet their judge and the most important question we can ask is, or that they were asked, is will they hear, well done, good and faithful servant? now if i'd had a lawyer argue that before me in the court of appeals or in the district bench , i got the message, you got a lawyer there saying if you don't decide for me, you're going to have to face god almighty someday and he's going to judge you and he's going to come down on you if you don't do the right thing in this case.

and i might not have appreciated it but the court found, appropriately, for john quincy adams' side of the case and those free africans were allowed to leave as free africans, as they should have been. so back then, the lead abolitionist, he knew, he believed with all his heart, someday people are going to meet their maker, he's going to be their judge and i might have enjoyed with john quincy adams were able to come become as lazarus did when jesus raised him, and go before the supreme court and say, let me tell you, i've been there. you are going to go before your judge someday and you better not pretend to be god himself because you're going to meet god himself someday. but the -- this supreme court , the have that benefit

holy quintet decided to rewrite the law. i want to touch on briefly law down the ust passed senate, really appreciate it mitigating circumstance good friend senator ted cruz's statement down the hall, quoting from his statement, unfortunately all of the concerns that have been repeatedly raised about this bill remain. it repeats the mistakes of the 1986 immigration by, it grants amnesty first, it won't secure the border and it doesn't fix our broken legal immigration system. this bill doesn't solve the problems because the process it went through was fatally flawed. it was written behind closed doors with special interests. and the judiciary committee, the gang of eight and democrats, blocked all substantive amendments because of a previously cooked deal and on the senate floor, the majority blocked any attempts to fix the bill. further, in conjunction with obamacare, the gang of eight

bill creates a tax penalty on employers effectively up to $5,000 for hiring u.s. citizens or legal immigrants but that penalty does not apply to those with r.p.i., which is registered provisional immigrant status. giving a powerful incentive for job creators to hire illegal immigrants instead of u.s. citizens or legal imfwrapts. that's indefensible. . i filed an amendment to fix this defect but was blocked by senate democrats for a vote on that solution. this will only encourage more immigration and and suffering. senator cruz explains it well. . tom coburn, good friend, from oklahoma, senator tomko burn, said this -- tom coburn,

said this, i won't read the whole statement, but a wonderful statement. he summarizes very well, he said it is a $48 billion border stimulus package that grants amnesty to politicians who want to say they are securing the border when in fact they are not. further, he quotes reagan. reagan said it was a tall, proud city built on rock stronger than oceans, windswept, god blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and activity. be city had to be a -- walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were opened to anyone with the will and heart to get here. walls with doors is an immigration policy that can unite our nation. but today democrats sound like they want only doors.

republicans want only walls. the truth is we have neither. we have chaos. well said. ut the republicans i know want doors. we want immigration. we want the fresh water flowing into this incredible lake. it's a healthy good thing. and i love the fact that generally speaking most hispanics i know have a faith in god, a devotion to their family, and a hard work ethic. that's what i think made america great. it's a great thing. we need more of that. that's a good thing. but, it has to be done legally. and it's heartbreaking that this got pushed through the senate to what many of us believe will be the detriment of this country. in the "weekly standard," john mccormack wrote an article, five senators who support the immigration bill don't know the answer to key question about it.

great article there in the -- "weekly ard" standard." there are plenty of good articles if our friends down the all had bothered to read them. great newsletter on the gang of eight and what they have done to america. what my friend, ted cruz was pointing out, under obamacare there is a penalty that could be $3,000 per employee for those over 50. you deduct 30. it's a formula. but basically most cases it's $2,000 penalty for any employer that has over 50 employees that does not provide the level of health care that is required under obamacare.

so ted cruz makes a point i heard nobody else make, an excellent point, that under obamacare if you are an employer and you got 1,000 people working for you, certainly you are under obamacare so you are either oing to pay a tax on -- $2,000 per person on your employees if you don't give them the price level required of health insurance, and so they will end up being under obamacare. well, this is his compete to stay in business. if someone else has a lower overhead, then they have to try to get down to that level of overhead. well, under the senate bill that create these registered provisional immigrants, and the -- by that law the registered provisional immigrants are not under obamacare. so if an employer that has, say, 000 employees, wants to save

$200,000 or so, that employer can fire all of the american citizens and all the legal immigrants that he has working in that manufacturing plant, and hire the r.p.i.'s, registered provisional immigrants. then that employer doesn't have to provide them health care and he doesn't have to pay the $2,000 fine for employee. save a couple hundred thousand. if you got 10,000 employees, then you would save a couple million dollars. really profound the detrimental effect it will have to legal immigrants and american citizens, and i see that my dear friend from minnesota, mrs. bachmann is here. how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. gohmert: i yield the two minutes to the gentlewoman from

minnesota. mrs. bachmann: i was moved so profoundly because this week changed history with the definition of america and the united states, but it also changed our constitutional republic. when the supreme court of the united states denied equal protection of rights to every american by taking away our ability to elect our representatives, have them give voice to what our opinion is, and then the supreme court decides to substitute their morality for that of the people -- duly elected people as they did also in california. now we are looking at a supreme betrayal. not only does the supreme court betray us on the issue of marriage, we have been betrayed by the senate and also by republicans in the senate. we have a faith border security bill that's about to give amnesty to millions and millions of illegal immigrants and we are about to see that bill now come to the house of representatives. people are very worried about

what they have seen happen this week. one woman was crying to me this morning saying that, michele, our country is falling down around our eyes. what i told her what we need to do is we need to pray. we need to pray. we need to confess our sins as a nation and we need to pray and ask god for his holy intervention and for his forgiveness. we are not over as a nation. there is a future. there is a hope. but we need to recognize that this week was historic, and your words, mr. speaker, the words of mr. gohmert, were exactly right. this is a very, very important decision. it went kicking out the fundamental building block of this nation which is the family and the hub of the family is the marriage between a mom and dad. that was hurt this week by the supreme court and now we are looking at violating the fundamental rule of law by

legalizing millions of illegal immigrants with this fake border security bill that will never, ever come into play. the gentleman has said it well. he said it very well. but i want to come up and thank him and congratulate him for his remarks. let the american people know there is a future. there is a hope and we are going to continue to fight here in the house of representatives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. on behalf of the majority and minority leadership the chair announces the official objectors for the private calendar for the spth congress are as follows. the clerk: for the majority, mr. goodlatte of virginia. mr. sensenbrenner of wisconsin. mr. gowdy of south carolina. for the minority, mr. soar rano of new york. mr. nadler of new york. ms. bass of california. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gomert: pursuant to

concurrent resolution 19, 113th congress, i move that the house do now hereby adjourn. may god save the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. pursuant to the senate concurrent resolution 19, 113th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on

third for the day that the battle of gettysburg occurred. probably the defining event in the history of this country. it is especially important this year because it is the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, and what i would like to do is share just a few moments about one particular aspect of that battle, that it does indeed involve maine and alabama, and it involves a man from maine named joshua chamberlain, who in 1862, was a professor of modern languages at bowdoin college. was not a soldier, did not have history in the military, but decided he had a vision of america and wanted to serve his country. he joined a volunteer regiment organized in may of '86 to to call the 20th name regiment. they came down the east coast to washington and were immediately deployed to antietam in

september 1862, the bloodiest day in american history. ,ortunately for the 25th maine they were held in reserve that day. they saw action over the course of the fall and early winter in the battle of fredericksburg, and then along with two great armies, headed north into the state of pennsylvania. mr. president, you are going to have to bear with my skills here, but it is helpful if we can see what happened. it is easy to drop virginia because it is a big triangle. here is virginia. here is the maryland- pennsylvania border. twohe summer of 1863, armies snaked north out of virginia. lee's army of northern virginia came up the west side of the

appalachians into pennsylvania, army of themeade's potomac. lee was leading the way into pennsylvania without a particular destination but a desire to engage the federal army and one climactic battle which he thought, correctly, the civil war.d nobody knows exactly why on july 1, 1863 those two armies collided in the little town of gettysburg. there is a rumor and there was a shoe factory there and that the southern army was going to requisition those shoes, but for whatever reason, the two armies met in this little town of gettysburg, pennsylvania. one of the interesting things collided in the little town of about the battle was, lee's army had already gotten to harrisburg. the union army was coming up the road from washington and from the south, and they came in in this direction.

gettysburg, the southern army came in from the south, and the northern army came from the north. it was a standoff. they met almost by accident in this town. there was fierce fighting in the streets of gettysburg and in the south of town. it was essentially a drop. at the end of the day on july 1 -- and the word came back to both armies that this was it. this was the confrontation. reinforcements came in from both lines to meet at this little town. what happened on the second day was, on the morning and the second day, the union troops -- and this is the town appear -- ended up on a hill called copps hill, and then in a long line to an south, an area that was old area that they buried people.

of course, that is seminary ridge. on the other side, the confederates, interestingly, through history, red and markers representing the confederates, blue, a federal. the confederates were about a mile apart. over here was where they train people to be preachers. that, of course, is cemetery ridge. six raidersns of have been seminary ridge, cemetery ridge, generations of sixth graders have been confused by this. about the middle of the second day of battle, a union general noticed there was a small hill at the bottom of the entire line of the union troops, and occupied by either side. he also immediately realized this could be the most important piece of property in the entire

battlefield because it had an elevation that looked up the entire federal line and anchored the federal line. the union general grab the nearest officer next to him and said we have to occupy that he'll immediately. the fellow's name was strong vinson from new york. he grabbed two other regiments from new york and the 20th name regiment, and went to the top of the hill. joshua chamberlain had only been the colonel for a month. andas in charge of 358 men vincent took him to the extreme left flank of the union army of this little hill which is called little round top. we had pennsylvania, new york, and maine. vincent took joshua chamberlain to this point, and here were his orders.

this is the extreme left flank of the entire union army. you are to hold this ground at all hazards, at all hazards. that means to the death. upon gettingately to the top of the hill, up came the 15th alabama, one of the crack regiments in lee's army. up the hill to try to dislodge the 20th maine. if you have not been to gettysburg, if god was going to build a fortress, it would look like little round top. steep, rocky, lots of places to be behind, and indeed, chamberlain took massive -- maximum advantage of that. as the charge came, they were able to repel it. half an hour or so, the alabama and scheme again. there were pushed back. they came again and were pushed

back. each time they got closer and closer to the top of the hill, because of the nature of guns in in civil war, a good shooter the civil war could get off four shots a minute. so i want you to think of yourself, mr. president, the top of the hill with the 15th alabama coming up, and you take aim with your rifle and shoot. bang. you are now prepared to shoot a second time. seconds.5 that is how long it would take to get another shot. that is why, in this situation, the charge came closer and closer. by the third and fourth charge, it became hand-to-hand combat. i should say, joshua lawrence

chamberlain was not a soldier by trade, he was a professor at a little college. he spoke 10 languages but he had a deep vision for the meaning of america, and a deep concern about the issue of slavery. when he was a student at bowdoin college in the early 1850's the young professor's wife was writing a book, and he sat in mr. presseroom of and listen to her read excerpts from this book. the book turned out to probably be the most influential book ever published in america. it was called "uncle tom's cabin." and described for people in america the evils of slavery. it had lit the fuse that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. charges,se, four, five

each time the 15th alabama was repulsed. then they were gathering at the bottom of the hill for the final assault. late in the day, hot afternoon, july 2, 1863. the problem was, for chamberlain, his men were out of ammunition. they had it been issued 60 cartridges at the beginning of the battle, and they had all been fired. he then had a choice to make as a leader. he had three options. one was to retreat, a perfectly honorable thing to do in a military situation, but his orders were to hold the ground at all hazards. because if he had not, if the confederates had gotten around little round top, the entire rear of the union army was exposed. his other option was to stand and fight until overwhelmed. that would not have worked well. because it would have only

delayed them for a few minutes. instead, he chose an extraordinary option that was unusual, even at the time, and he uttered one word, and the word was bayonets. there is a dispute in history whether he also said charge and what his order was, but everyone agrees he uttered the word bayonets, and his soldiers knew what that meant, and down the hill into the face of the final 200ederate charge came crazy guys from maine. the 15th alabama for the first and only time in the civil war was so shocked by the technique that they turned around. the 200 boys from maine -- i say to hundred because at the beginning there were over 300. they had lost 100 to casualties and death. captured 400 to 500 confederates

with no bullets in their guns. chamberlain tried to call on their men back. they said, hell no, general, we are on our way to richmond. i tell the story because it is a great story of bravery. chamberlain received the medal bravery and his creativity that afternoon. i tell the story because it is a story of our country, a story of how a single person's actions and bravery can have enormous impact. historians argue about whether this was really the key turning point, was there something else, another regiment somewhere else? the argument could be made at this college professor fromthe r country was that hot afternoon in pennsylvania, july 2, 1863. i believe it is one of the great

stories in american history, and in fact, the story of chamberlain and little round top is being taught in our late -- army manuals today as a story of leadership, creativity, courage, perseverance, and of devotion to god and country. mr. president, i hope all americans will think about these moments and thousands more like them as we celebrate not only the birth of our country next week, but also the rebirth of our country in the three days july 4. thank you, mr. president. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. maine saved the united states. later at 5:30, we will take your calls and tweets. clock, the

commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris goodwin, followed by a candlelight procession to the national cemetery. we will end the day with peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. >> the house oversight committee voted today along party lines to pass a resolution to say irs official los lerner waived her right to stay silent. she was in charge of the irs tax exempt organizations office and is now on administrative leave. at the hearing in question, she testified she had done nothing wrong and then invoke her fifth amendment rights. the house amendment committee chairs said that by doing so, she waived her right. >> having now consider the facts and arguments, i believe, lois lerner waived her fifth

amendment privileges. she did so when she chose to make a voluntary open statement -- opening statement. ms. lerner's opening statement referenced the treasury ig report and the department of justice investigation and it assertions she previously had provided -- the assertion that she had previously provided false information to the committee. she made four specific denials. those denials are at the core of the committee's investigation in this matter. she stated she had not done anything wrong, not broken any laws, not violated any irs rules or regulations, and not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee regarding areas about which committee members would have liked as for questions.

indeed, committee members are still interested in hearing from her. her statement covers almost the entire range of questions we wanted to ask when the hearing began on may 22. >> you can wash the committee's entire meeting in about one hour, here on c-span. a day after the senate passed their version of an immigration the house gangf of seven representatives discuss the process of an immigration bill passing the house. this week, john boehner indicated the house will not take up whenever the senate passes on immigration, but would take up legislation that reflects the will of the majority. the two members spoke with morning at an event held by bloomberg treatment. it is just over one hour. >> thank you. i am peter cope with bloomberg

television. thank you all for being here, media representatives, c-span, bloomberg television covering this event. we appreciate your interest. it gives you a sense of how important this is. this is an issue of the incredible importance to the country, business community, bloomberg, to the nation as a whole, and we are lucky to have two people right at the heart of the debate in congress and house of representatives, two members of the gang of seven who have been negotiating a bipartisan compromise for the last few years up on capitol hill, behind closed doors most of the time. at a time when reporters are racing all over the hill to find members of the gang of seven, we are lucky enough to have them here on stage. for me as a reporter, it is great for me to find out your sense of where things go from here. california,man from she is on the judiciary committee, ranking member on the

immigration subcommittee. she represents silicon valley, of course, which has a big stake in the outcome of these debates. and we have a republican of florida, a critical player in these issues, someone that the leadership has put to an immigration. we are happy to have both of you here. i went to begin by letting you all know that at about 9:00 time, we will turn it over to the audience for questions. we ask you to step to the microphones here, identify yourself, and we will turn it over to you for some good questions for our panelists. you.esswoman, i begin with your immediate reaction to what happened in the senate yesterday and how that changes the debate about to play out in the house of representatives? >> first, thank you for the introduction and point out that we do not consider ourselves a gang. we are a working group. we have been working for the

past several years to try to reach consensus in the house on a bipartisan bill. i was happy for the senate that they were able to have such a large vote for reform measures. i know it took a tremendous effort, compromise to reach that point. theink it really cheered up country in a way to see that the senate could get something done, pass a bill out. there are many good things in that bill. certainly, if it were put up for a vote in the house, i could vote for that bill. i am sure, will talk into greater depth, i do not get into the republican conference meetings, but i have heard for some time from my colleagues across the aisle, the intent to have a different approach in the house, not merely to take up the senate bill. that has given us added

incentive in our working group to try to come up with the product from the house that the conservatives in the house could and that would let us move forward. ,o i am cautiously optimistic but obviously there are many challenges that we continue to face. luckily, we have the strength to meet those challenges in the house. >> i think it is a very important step in the right direction. it is no secret that for many years, both republican and democratic leadership have used immigration of the political tool. there've been ample opportunities where republicans had a strong that could have solved the issue and could not do it, democrats could have solved the issue and did not do it. so it is great to see a real, serious effort in a bipartisan effort because the only way we are going to sell something that is so controversial, so difficult is if it is done in a bipartisan way.

and zoe is right, we are more encouraged than ever, realizing in the house, we are going to have some serious challenges. .t is a more complicated place it is bigger, more individuals. but i ultimately think the american people demand to fix what everybody recognizes is a system that is broken. it is broken for national security, economic interests. we have millions of people here who we don't know who they are who are in the shadows. everybody recognizes that. in action, doing nothing is always easy. but the good news is that there is a group of people that we have seen in the senate and also in the house, and we know that, we have been working with them, that want to come up with real solutions that will fix the problem. and it has to be done in a bipartisan way. >> wendy wall roll out your plan in response to what came out in the, and does this vote but more pressure on you all to produce a bipartisan package in

the house i can be considered on the floor? >> the bill is back from ledger council. it is not as long as the senate bill, but it is long. the members are in the process of going through, word by word, line by line, to assure ourselves that it matches up with the agreements that we made. it is a tedious process, but it is a necessary process. we are meeting again today. that is not to say we will be finished with it today, but it will be done when it is done. it is more important to get it right, then to be getting it done by a particular deadline. it is backt because from the council, it tells you something -- we are at the end of the process. deadline for set a ourselves. it is clear that the -- we are not going to have a vote in the house next week or in recess,

the week after. there is time for this product .o be part of the process i am on the judiciary committee, as you mentioned. we have taken up a series of that are inan bills some cases these are -- bizarre. we have not touched the whole issue of how you get 11 million people right with the law. how are you going to get those people to comply and move forward? that is something that we hope will be able to add value in our working group. >> you cannot deal with what is evidently a broken immigration system without dealing with the reality, again, whether you like it or not. whether you care to admit it or not, there are millions of people in this country who are here, who in many cases have been here for many, many years. we have to deal with that reality. knowing that reality does not make it go away. so i agree with what zoe said.

that is one of the things that we have to do with. -- to deal with. >> let me jump -- does that mean, congressman,, that republicans in the house are going to have to consider some days of legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for those 11 million? ofis there something short that back and clear the house and satisfy the senate? >> first we need to recognize that the folks are here. i think if we do not get into some general policy areas of discussion, i think it would be very counterproductive for our future as a country to have a group of people who are here, who are here for ever, in essence permanently, and potentially even legally -- those who might want to, you know, really put their hands on their heart, pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states and everything that that symbolizes. to have a group of people here permanently who could never do that i think is

counterproductive to our future. now, having said that, you have got to balance that with making sure that we do not violate something which is sacred -- the rule of law. can you reach that balance? i think we have in our discussions. it is doable. if you wonder if i am not specifically answering your question, i am not. but i think it is very important to understand what the policy ramifications are, and can we reach a good, medium point that satisfies the role of law, making sure we don't violate the rights of folks who have been doing everything legally or will be doing things legally in the future with making sure that we don't have a group of people who are always in the shadows and who can never aspire -- those who really want to -- aspire to be part of this great country. >> speaker boehner yesterday was

asked about your efforts. with the encouraging of those efforts, and he said yes. you should continue your work, it will be part of the discussion going forward. , when will he get that kind of consideration from the leadership? >> speaker boehner was very clear that this is an issue that ,as to be fixed this year hopefully. i think when push comes to shove, i hate to sound -- look, when push comes to shove, i think something very similar to one -- to what we have been working on is the only thing that has a shot at passing the house, of getting bipartisan support, and having a shot to go to the president's desk. the the speaker clearly wants to solve the issue, and i think we will have a viable option. >> i would just add, obviously i

did not vote for john boehner to be speaker -- >> there's still time, though. [laughter] >> he is able conservative republican, i am not, but he is also the speaker of the whole house. with me and encourage me, which i thought was very he met with all democrats last week to encourage their efforts. bestthink he is doing his to reach out to both sides of the aisle. his is not an enviable position. there are very strong opinions, pro and con, in the house. i think that we as a country need to -- need a path forward on this. no one is satisfied with the status quo. we are all going to go home next this evening, and meet with our constituents. i do not think anybody is going to say just keep it the weight

is coming it is so darn great great, no, we need to fix this. >> after the conclusion of the senate vote, he said at the end of the day, he is going to have to adopt new what -- what the senate has passed. what you make of that, zoe balance,this fragile why isn't that the solution? >> as i said in my opening remarks, i could go for the senate bill. but that does not mean that every other member of the house could vote for the senate bill. i think the republican members have been clear for some time that they want their nations on that. we are trying our best to work in a bipartisan way to come up with an alternative plan that is also sound great -- sound.

i think we will succeed. this is the day after legislation. the senate in the end likely will not get everything that they want, and the house will not get everything that they want. that is the way things work in the legislative process. but if we do our jobs diligently. withll be able to come up a measure that secures the border, that provides for enforcement of a workable law, that meets the needs of the , that meetsnomy the needs of american families, and also do something about the 11 million people who need to get right with the law and move on with their lives. i think we can do that. >> congressman, if that senate bill came to the house floor, would you be able to support it? >> you know, one of the things that i have not done and won't do because understanding that this is a very sensitive issue, is draw lines in the sand of

whether i will support something or i will not support something. i think that there are parts of the senate bill that i really like. there are parts of the senate bill that make me take a step back. for extremely grateful those in the senate, knowing how difficult it is. knowing how much criticism you get when you take on an issue that is this controversial. so i'm very grateful that they have done that. there are in our efforts, and we assume that any any senate efforts, there are genuine policy disagreements. and they are genuine. they are not evil people. there are serious policy implications. so i think the way that we're going to pass legislation in the house is by what we're doing, which is talking to everybody, making sure that we try to deal with those legitimate policy concerns. there are always people who are in the extremes that want to

stir things up and not pass everything. we have to deal with the genuine policy concerns. i think the senate bill is a very good first effort. is it perfect? no. we think our bill is a lot better. is it perfect? no. i think ultimately we will reach a conclusion. hopefully we can go to conference, hopefully we can deal with these differences, and we can come up with a bill, and so we stated what i said as well, some of the key issues that have to be' soft, and i think there are people of goodwill from both parties that want to find a genuine solution that is enforceable, that helps our economy, that protect the rule of law, that protects our border, and it deals with the folks. >> you all have been very careful throughout this process not to share too many details along the way. so i'm going to try and press you on that. [laughter] can you at least give us a sense, if you compare what has cleared the senate with what you are working on, where the areas

of biggest agreement? as detailed as you can become a broad brush strokes, but where are the areas of tension between what you all are working on and what the senate has passed? >> you're right, we have not shared a lot. [laughter] to reveal it is best the details when the bill is introduced. an interesting process that we have been through. it is the only process like this and my many years in the house where we have had members themselves sitting around a hour after hour, we have hundreds of member hours in this process going through several years and discreetly. we met for three years, and nobody in the press even knew we were meeting. we had 25 people going in two or three times a week. and we did that -- >> i want to find that room. >> sam johnson would bring the

food one week a month i would bring food the next week, and we did it because we wanted to understanding policy details, and we wanted to be older do that in a discreet way. one the things we pledge to each other was that we would be confidential until it was time to reveal it. we've all been faithful to that pledge, to each other, and that if held by the trust that we held with each other. we are trying to sort through the difference is so that we can have a solid plan so that we can defend. if you overlaid my voting record with that of judge carter, you would not find a lot, he is a very conservative guy from texas, who i have learned is a very solid person, who i don't agree with on everything, but that does not mean that we could not craft something together. so if you disagree on nine things, it should work on the

10th if you can. that is what we are trying to do. >> we purposely, one of the reasons we have been so careful as we purposely wanted to keep the politics out of it. we do not want folks out there to start using an issue that may or may not be in the bill to start stirring things up. so we said look, let's see if we can agree among ourselves, and if we can, then we have for me to talk about. if we cannot, first, we do not know if we were going to be able to agree on anything because it is a very diverse group. low and behold, it has been a very honorable process, the fact that you have people who disagree, who frankly have campaigned against each other in many cases, yet nothing has come out, nothing has been used against anybody involved in this -- in this for political reasons, so it has been an interesting process. >> let's talk to a couple of specifics. to get to resolve use on hot button issues in the senate and if you think you could tell us

what you think about -- let's talk about border security. do we need 40,000 more order patrol agents to make sure the southern border of the united states is in fact at solid at the canby? -- as it can be? >> we need what we need. we need to enforce the borders. we need to secure the borders. we need to do it in a way that israel, that is enforceable, and we have to have mechanism to make sure that it is done. is that the ideal way to do that? ,re there other ways to do that that is up for debate. but there is a consensus around the country that the united states cannot be the only country on the planet that cannot determine who comes in and who leaves. and that there are ways to do that and ways that people will understand that are real, that are enforceable. ,he specifics of what that is

i don't think we need to get into right now, but i think there is a consensus that whatever we have to do to make sure that the united states is secure, that our borders are as secure as possible, and that includes interior security. part of that is having a visa system that works. without those aspects, you can do all you want on the border, but if you do not have a visa system that works, or an interior system that works, and will not work. >> it is interesting because this bipartisan group -- we've got luis gutierrez and happier by sarah -- javier bacera, there is agreement that if you craft an immigration system that actually works for the country, you need to enforce it. there is no disagreement between the parties on a point. >> $46 billion for border

enforcement. >> we're not going to get into the specifics on that. but certainly 40% of the people who are here without proper documents did not sneak across the border. they came in with a visa and overstayed. i think you need to take a look at the whole picture. we're not going to to get into details of the amount of money or criticize our senate colleagues because they worked so hard to get a bipartisan bill. but you need to have robust enforcement if you are going to have an enforceable -- >> if i may add to that, pretty soon you understand that in order to secure the borders, you have to have a visa system that works. you have to have an interior system, called it an employment verification system that works, you have to deal with border security. you have to realize that all of these are interlinked. that is why it is such a complex issue because it is not that we like it or that we don't like it, a lot of these issues are

clearly interlinked. if you do not fix one, you are not fixing any of them. that as to the complexity. >> i remember when i was chairing the immigration subcommittee, we had dr. richard from the southern cap this was one of our witnesses, and i would mention, i quote him because i thought it was such a is testimonybut h was that from any years, the united states had two sides of the southern border, one said no trespassing, and the other said help wanted. people said, you should do this the right way, and we all agree 1.7 that, but we have about million undocumented migrant farm workers in the country. and with 5000 visas a year for -- obviously, we did not set this up so he could work. we need to make it work, and then we need to enforce it. >> i want to ask you at the visas in just a second. one quick question on the price tag -- how surprised were you

with the cbo's score on the senate bill? you have an end product that reduces the deficit. was not actually surprised that it was a positive score. effort, in the prior for immigration reform, we have positive scores as well. it is our hope that we will have a great score. your bills tod cbo until it is done. so that would be happening as soon as we finalize the final portions of it. but i expect that we will have a good score because immigration is great for america. we get to build the economy. siliconust show you -- valley, my home, half the startups in silicon valley were founded by somebody born in another country. that is a job generator, and it helps create wealth in america. it is a great thing for us. >> it is also -- one of the things we have to remember is it was not a surprise for me, either, by the way. >> is it a good selling point to

your members of congress? though he and i have said it every year, and we continue to say it, without having a bill we are sure will help the economy, there is nothing to talk about. so that is always a big part of it. whatthe negative aspect, people always harp upon, is the fact that we have these people who are here and they will say whatever they want to say, unskilled, they are already here. those folks are here. we are not talking about bringing in 1011 -- 10 million or 11 million people. those people are already here. if you can then bring them out of the shadows, make sure that they are doing everything legally, have an earned process, make sure they are paying their taxes, make sure that they have to pay fines, etc., they are already here. part of the thing that escapes

in all of the rhetoric out there when you hear people -- again, i am not being critical because they are important policy decisions, but one of the things that is kind of forgotten in a lot of debate is that the status quo, when you hear people say we have to enforce laws because we have people here who are illegal, we have to enforce it because we have poor borders -- that is from the current law. all of the negatives that you always hear about, about the economy, etc., those we already have. whatever they may be. what we don't have is a system that works for our economy, for our national security, and so i don't think any of us were surprised that the scoring because the so-called negatives we already had. the positives that you get is having an organized system that works, borders that are secure, you know who comes in and who leaves, those are the positive things. the fact that people are going to be paying taxes and we know how much they will be paying. all of those things are

positives. the negatives? we have under the current system. the current system is in shambles. the easy thing is to do nothing. but we are not content with that. >> a couple more specifics here verify.- e- if i run a restaurant, and i will beemployees, what my obligation, what should be e-obligation in terms of the verify system and verifying the workers are indeed legal, and how satisfied are you that the technology can be emplaced by imposing this. it is a big leap to go across the country. >> we're not going to talk about the bill, but i can play what i think. the deploymentd of e-verify for many years.

i would say successfully. bill to keep the e-verify off the house floor. my position was that e-verify, the ag workforce will find out something we already know, which is two thirds of them do not have their documents, and if you find that out and they all leave, american agriculture collapses, see you have not really solve a good problem there. however, if we come up with a workable system to meet the economic needs of america, i think e-verify will be part of the enforcement system. it's to bey contingent on a workable system. we have made some strides, any technology, you cannot do e- verify with a self -- you can now do e-verify with a cell phone. it has to be something that is doable for american businesses.

for every -- about 94% of the people who are -- who come in our authoress, six percent who inged were actually americans, able to work. that is an error rate that if you transpose it across the entire workforce, that is a lot of americans. so not only do we need to work to get the database better, but we need to make sure that if an american is dinged, they have some right, they'll lose their jobs. so we're working through that. i think that we can work through that. i sort of reached the conclusion personally that if we come up with this workable system, we have got to accept that it is going to be in force, and e-verify will likely be ordered. >> i converts then, any

different,? >> no, we have an agreement that that has to be enforceable and in force, which is why you difficult.how the easy thing is to talk about, criticize, the difficult thing is to come up with solutions that work for businesses, work for our economy, secure our order -- our border. that is why it has been a very lengthy, difficult process. h1b, high skilled, foreign workers? people are saying they are missing him it would be hell. more foreign workers do those jobs and allow some of those folks to stay here and create jobs of their own. iaz, i will let you go first. this means americans will not get those jobs. >> i think people recognize that they or the fact that we are now -- go through our finest

universities, tech universities, high-tech engineering schools. a lot of foreign nationals that are coming here -- we are in essence educating them, and then sending them abroad to compete against the united states. i think everybody recognizes that is not a workable system. it is in our best interest to have a lot of those folks stay here, create jobs here, create businesses here, and it pretty evident that that is also another aspect that is broken. i think on that one, we have pretty much reached a consensus as to how to fix it, what the right policy is, and how to fix it. i think most americans understand that unfortunately not a lot of americans are going into visionary, but a lot of americans are going to those -- not a lot of americans are going into those professions. here's issue in some cases. we either have folks to fill those jobs in the united states, or we are going to export those jobs to other countries.

to compete against the united states. so we have to have a workable system. i think we pretty much reached a consensus. >> i would add that the technology sector -- it is not just one answer. you have got people, stanford university had their graduation two weekends ago. half of the people getting their phd in computer science were foreign students. they're going to go out and create companies and create tremendous -- i mean, how much wealth is going to be created by that group. we want that wealth to be created here. for that group and others like them, we want to give them start up fees, you want to make sure that they have an easy way, path forward to become americans if they want to do that. i think the answer is more to legal permanent residents then these temporary visa, which is what the h-1b program in spirit

i'm not opposed to having an h- 1b program, will buoy need to reform. sometimes year from engineers that the h-1b program allows for engineers to undercut the wages of american workers. it is important to look at and look. it could be true. and structural. a computer scientist in silicon at the the median income last bureau of labor statistics survey, was about $133,000 a year. for the survey, it was $86,000 a year. we need tosee that reform that program. we have worked hard to do that. nothave got good people

undercutting the american workforce. in from the buy- technology companies. there are some bad actors in the field, but they are not the companies we are talking to. the other thing that we were pursuing is a proposal that microsoft made in a white paper last year, which is to add a feed to the applications, and use the proceeds to help american students go into stem fields, to help for scholarships. college is expensive. if we help students go into engineering and colleges, that would be a good thing for america. that is not a fight with the industry, it is a reform package that we have worked on very hard. i think it is really a very good work product that we put together. >> i want to encourage everyone come if you have questions, to please step to the microphones. i will call on you, alternate each side. say your name and where you are from. i will throw a quick question to you as this gentleman comes

up to the microphone. you mentioned that the tech industry -- to what extent do you think the business communities lobbying and support for conference of immigration reform -- comprehensive immigration reform will make a difference? >> i think it is important for everyone, including the high- tech industry, to come forward. the restaurant industry, everyone, to come forward and make sure that everybody understands what the problems are, what the needs are, and i group hasook, this been meeting quietly for a long time, working for a long time. it is not mean we have done in a vacuum. we have reached out to different groups, members of congress, what we have not been able to do is keep it confidential to avoid premature criticism. we know that that is coming. size.l get hit by ball that is not been done in a vacuum. we have been listening. that has been one of the most important things that this group has done good we have done a lot of listening. a lot of learning before we

started putting anything on a per. >> we will do a little memoir and listening. the sentiment here, say your name and where you're from. >> the morning. -- good morning. many thanks for doing this. i would like to ask, now that the committee is moving full steam ahead in passing this, i , built, is four already would it be too late for the bipartisan group to show their version of it there is a very inisan -- a very partisan the committee here you g? and another question -- is there any concern that what happened last week with the farm bill, that we can see with immigration reform in the house? >> let me talk about the judiciary committee because the gentleman is correct. we have had now several partisan bills reported out of the judiciary committee on partyline votes. i think that has been very unfortunate.

in fact, some of the bills are just absurd. i will give you an example. all of the farmers and the farmworkers union got together. boy, did they have a knockdown drag out, but at the end of that, they came up with an agreement to deal with americans needs for foreign farm workers. we have accepted that. that is probably the best we're going to get. in contrast, the judiciary committee reported out this plan. 1.7 million migrant farm workers without their documents, require them to step forward and identify themselves, and leave the country, and then they are eligible to maybe be able to 18-month visa.n if anybody think that is going to work, it is absurd. none of the farmers are for it. why was reported out i do not know know. i do think that we have the capacity to greatly impact the

path forward. we have not dealt with the issue of how to get 11 million people right with the law. -- chairman yesterday said and i thought a little bit of a snarky way -- where is your bill? so we hope to be able to answer that question in the near future. part't see, and mario is of the republican majority, can give us maybe more of the -- more inside. i am not in a rush forward of the republican house leadership. i do think we have time to come up with a thoughtful approach. >> i agree, we do have time. i think we have time, and the second part of his question the farm bill show that something -- it shows that it is very difficult to get things done in the house. it is a very diverse group. which is why i am convinced that when push comes to shove,

at the end of this long process, which look, it's not pretty, will not be pretty, if we are going to get something done, it is going to have to be a bipartisan effort. >> we will switch over here. what is a focus on liberalizing low skilled visas? it seemed like it could really help fix the problem of border security and compromise for the 11 million undocumented antinational restaurant association gap, help their dishwashers and allow them to pursue the american dream. fix this in order to issue, we're going to have to deal with all of that. it is not work for low skilled. the system for low skilled is not working. for high skilled, for anything, frankly. an reaching a solution, enforceable, viable, commonsense solution including those skills is essential if we are going to -- by the way, you cannot enforce the borders without dealing with that issue.

>> i remember years ago when i chaired the subcommittee, we had at our first hearing, a witness who was the head of the border patrol. his testimony was if we could get a legalization program that would allow, in his words, the mates in the busboys to come over legally, it would help him deals identify human traffickers and drug smugglers on the border, which is who he wanted to focus on. that is still our challenge. 'am?ver here, mamie ech >> "huffington post," this is for congress woman lofgren. you mentioned the judiciary has , as he said,up absurd, piecemeal bills. he said there has been working with you. -- you said boehner has been working with you. have you convinced them to take up a comprehensive bill once

you put it forward given that he said the smell is the way he wants to go? >> let me clarify -- the speaker was very courteous and met with me. i would not say that he is working with me on an ongoing basis, he was as gracious enough to reach out. in the case of mr. goodlatte, we have a professional relationship. there are many cases when he and i have worked together on built him a immigration has not turned out to be that type of issue. >> he has said he would hold a hearing on your bill, hasn't he ?ou g >> not exactly. fornnot make the decision the republican leaders. i can ask rest my hope on what they are going to decide, but it is in laps because the majority decides what bills are heard and the like. so i am hopeful that we will have a better approach than we

have had so far in the house judiciary committee. i will say this -- although we had, i think there was obviously an effort to have poison pills or matters that democrats could never support the cause, i mean, to make every undocumented person a federal criminal, i mean, that is unwarranted. we were not screaming at each other. we disagreed in a professional way, and we have an opportunity if the republican party decides to do so in ad professional manner. >> i think you have seen a very dramatic change in just attitudes and rhetoric and everybody calming down. i think there is always going to be some who have a moment of -- an emotional moment. i think you are saying a focus on the issue. if we can focus on the issue and solutions to those issues, i

think ultimately we will get to a bill that we can -- that will become law. >> mike nelson, i write about technology and technology policy ror guest: government -- fou bloomberg government. it is nice to see bipartisan moving forward. my question is about technology and immigration, particularly about online politics. a lot of groups are out there to overcome inertia. what is most interesting is the virtual march for innovation. bipartisan groups, carnies -- condoleezza rice, ardenold soure and anger, -- arnold schwarzenegger, mayor bloomberg. is there more about how to get a message that is not just about technology, it is about every person? >> every discussion i've had with opponents of the stop online piracy act, at the end of

the last congress, i remember doing a conference call in november to forge the markup, and telling all of these young, technologically-savvy people, don't do these online petitions because take a look at the demographics of the house of representatives. i don't even know what is going on. what you need to do is flood phone calls in to the capital. not the district office. that gets noticed. i am sorry to report that, but we have some younger members who et, but it is basically invisible to way too many members. the way to get attention is for individuals to either e-mail or call their own representative in the house. we work for the whole country, but we are employed by the voters of our district. and we go back to a hiring decision to our voters every other year. so that is the most powerful

message, is when people call their own representative. that is so true. the other thing is that even then, it is not helpful if you just call and say hey, you know, if you don't do this, i hate again, focus on specific issues. focus on -- you have a what your, talk about issues are with that restaurant. what sort of things would help you, what sort of things are hurting you. veryfics like that are constructive. but it is important that a company member's district. >> another question here. >> i am jerry hagstrom from the "hagstrom report." i cover agriculture. you spoke positively about agreement and the senate bill. would i be in the building you are working on, and i'm wondering what mr. diaz-balart thinks about the agricultural several -- section of the bill

in the guestworker proposal. >> we are not going to reveal what is in our bill, but let me just say that when you can have 70 farm organizations, i mean, it is everything from the sheepherders to the tobacco growers and the vegetable people -- i mean, everybody. come to an agreement with eu united farm workers union, that is a pretty amazing thing. i think it is worthy of great deference. in fact, the senate did give it great deference. when you try to do a better job, and then it is easy to say this could be different or that could be different, but it is all put together in a way that is hard to undo. i think it is far superior to what was reported out of the judiciary committee that is basically not even a plan, it is completely dysfunctional. youne of the things that know but i did not until we started getting involved is how

complex and how diverse the needs are of our cultural. regional, by industry, byproduct, by whatever. all of thoseith different players. i think because of the -- clearly having. he industry and labor getting great.r is if not that we like every -- it does not mean that we like every aspect or agree with every aspect, but we have to have the opportunity to meet, to ,alk, to see if it is workable so i think it is a great for what they put together. >> one less question over here, and i will work -- i will wrap it up your >> -- wrap it up. >> erica warner with ap. there is public pressure on congress to ask, is something that mccain said after the vote

last night. i'm wondering if you could address given that many conservatives in our district with minimal numbers of latino voters come a how would that pressure really be felt by them? that being the case, given that speaker boehner would not act without a majority of the majority, why is there any realistic excitation or hope that the house -- expectation or hope that the house will do anything? >> the assumption that because there is a senate bill the house will feel threatened, pressured to support a bill, frankly is not accurate. i think the row pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system that is broken. zero pressure is dealing with the fact that estimates are we have 10 or 11 million undocumented folks that are here today. tomorrow it could be 30 million. we do not control it. the pressure to deal with a broken border security system, pressure with fixing a system

that is not helping our economy but hurting our economy. that is the pressure that needs to come to bear. if anybody thinks that because there is a senate bill that the house number's willful pressured, that is just not true. i think, however, in the house, there are people who understand, that got elected to fix what is broken. i think it is very evident that very few things are as broken and are as detrimental to our national security, to our economic, stability, security, to our future, then what is -- van with this -- thank with this broken immigration center. i hope they feel pressure because women broken system that i think we can show there are fixes that are enforceable that make sense, that protect the rule of law, and help our

economy. that is the pressure i think will hopefully come to bear. >> can i just add -- one of the question was not directed to me, but this is not just a latino issue. it is, not just that. asian-take a look at the american community, take a look at the southern baptists, who have really stepped up to the to in a big-time way support comprehensive immigration reform, the evangelicals who are calling into offices, the conservative ranch of evangelicals, who have become very active in supporting reform of the system, the business community that has stepped up to the back, and odyssey chamber of comments -- to bat, and not just the chamber of commerce. we do not know where this is going to end up, that there is a broad group across america saying we have got a problem here, and we need to fix it.

i know because i have heard members, very conservative members, that are paying attention. they have not reach a conclusion yet, but they have not ruled out being part of the reform effort your >. >> if you're concerned about amnesty, we have to pass legislation. if you're concerned about a broken border system because people are here unlawfully and we do not control that, we have got to pass legislation that deals with that. if you are concerned about the fact that we are exploiting high-tech people that compete against us, we have to pass legislation to fix that. that is where i think the pressure points are. if we can focus on the problem and solutions as opposed to rhetoric, i think we're halfway there. >> just to wrap up, speaker boehner said july 10, house members will vote, they will hear from their constituents, they will meet on july 10 two decided on the path forward. when he looks over to you, congressman diaz-balart, and he

says i need to step up and tell us what is going on with this bipartisan proposal, what is your message going to be to your fellow members of your conference and speaker boehner about whether you all can deliver something by the august date? >> again, i am not speaking for her, but we have not been fixated on deadlines. we have been fixated on getting a bill that we think can get bipartisan support, that is real, that a healthy economy, all of the things that we have already talked about, that is what we have focus on. what i keep hearing is total get -- total discontent with a broken immigration system. there are disagreements as to how to fix it. it is our challenge, i think, and it is our challenge to be able to present to our colleagues an approach that is reasonable, that faces what is broken, that helps our economy,, that protect the rule of law, that forces -- that enforces the border, that is our challenge, and i think we can

get there. the important thing is to make sure that people recognize. clearly is not going to be purpose -- perfect, but it deals with them, fixes a way that is enforceable, that is our challenge and our concern, to get it right. >> the final question to both of you -- it is alternately going to come down to a decision for speaker boehner with his speaker's gavel that could alternately help the republican party, healthy country, in the future? -- help the country, in the future? >> i don't know, mario may have a greater insight, but i have always believed it would be necessary to have a good chunk of republican support to pass a bill. that is why we work so long to thatnd grow a solid bill not only democrats but republicans can support. that is still my hope and goal. i have to do for the rest of the question to mario.

>> i do not see it that way. our challenge is to build to come up with legislation that the majority of our colleagues will support. that the majority of our colleagues will understand is -- does what we claim it do. that is our challenge. i've said it multiple times. i think to get this done, we need it to be bipartisan, not bipartisan like week and a nod it is bipartisan, it cannot pretend to be bipartisan. it has to be bipartisan. the country has to understand that it is real, serious, permanent, enforceable. i think there are less -- it are a lot of people in the house that want to fix this. i know that speaker boehner once a solution. -- wants a solution. our challenge is to give a proposal that meets that criteria. >> thank you both very much for sharing your thoughts on this controversial and important topic. you have given me a lot of an initiative. i'm going to go on the hill and

interview congress and the good life for my show, "capitol gains," thank you very much. thank you for coming. [applause] we'll have another event here soon on bloomberg government. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] c-span's: 30 eastern, -- at 6:30 eastern, c-span's wrote to the white house 2016 will continue. senator rand paul will be speaking at a republican party dinner and west columbia. after that, remarks wednesday from former florida governor jeb bush who gave his keynote address at a fundraiser for the conservative party of new york. watch it all tonight beginning at 6:30 eastern with life remarks from senator rand paul here on c-span. live tomorrow morning, chief justice john roberts sits down judgeourth circuit

harvie wilkinson to talk about the constitution. before that, former solicitor olson and former "new york times supreme court reporter linda rate house well speak about the court's recent decision on same- sex marriage in the voting rights act. again live tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. , american history tv commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the 73rd and four other regiments were recruited by general sickles early in the war. this particular regiments, the 73rd, was recruited in the firewalls of new york city. the firemen of new york city answered the call, injured the army s union soldiers. they will be about 350 of them out here on july 2.

they will suffer 46% casualties. at the evocation ceremony, the honorable robert b noon he says there aree says times in the lives of nation havethe energetic actions courage of even a small number of men, will arouse and others the highest sentiments and spur them on forces of their duty in a greater degree than the chivalrous eloquence of even the gifted orator. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. love coverage sunday began that night: 30 eastern. -- live coverage sunday begins at 9:30. we will take your calls and tweets for the author of "gods and generals." -- the, the khmer red of commemorative ceremony followed

by the soldiers national ceremony. we in the day at 9:15 with peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. questions att facebook.com/c-spanhistory. is criminal to me that i had to authorize my budget people, my financial people to write a check for 454 million dollars a little bit more than a month ago to extend our contract with the russians to continue to carry our cruise to the international space station for 2016 and 2070 because we have not yet read about the american capability to come to our commercial crew program. the president's call for 821 million dollars for commercial crew appeared we are not halfway there. the congress -- my job is to try to persuade the congress that the plan is good and that we are going to be efficient users of the taxpayers' money.

i have not been successful in that yet, but i am working on it. we're to $525 million. as i have told everyone, $821 million is vital if we are to make the 2017 date so that what newt gingrich said is true, that americans are transported to space again on american spacecraft peer >> more with nasa in a straighter and retired marine corps general charles bolden sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> the house oversight committee today voted along party lines to pass a resolution saying that irs official lois lorne are -- lois lerner waived her right to remain silent. ms. lerner was in charge of the irs tax exempt organization office and is now on administrative leave. the committee's meeting this morning was about 90 minutes. >> the committee will come to order.

the committee meets today to consider a resolution to determine whether lois lerner fifth amendment privilege against self- incrimination when she made a voluntary opening statement during the committee's hearing that began on may 22 2013. the clerk will designate the resolution. the resolution on the committee on oversight and government reform. >> without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for a minute at any point. the text has been distributed. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. we are here today to resolve something the united states has. did lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination during the committee hearing that began may 22, 2013? during the hearing that began on may 22, more than five weeks

ago, i tried to be exceedingly cautious. i did not make a quick or uninformed decision on the waiver. is one thatdecision does not often get made, and it is extremely important both to anddiscovery of congress its duties, and quite candidly, toward the real question of whether or not people would come and give one side of a story and not allow themselves be cross examined. as chairman, it is my obligation to be fair and impartial and to lead this committee not on one side or the other, but to the greatest extent possible to make my decisions in concert with the parliamentarian, with house counsel, and consistent with what we would want to have if

and when the gavel moves to the other side of the aisle. -- as as treatment chairman is to bring the question to a vote so the committee could make a determination. theost know, when congressman made his assertion during the hearing, i could have ruled just that, that she had waived. i felt it inappropriate to do it, recessed the committee hearing, and informed ms. lerner that she was subject to recall after a decision was made. we have consulted and gotten advice with house console. their determination is impartial. they have delivered to us both their opinion and the case law.

having now considered the facts and arguments, i believe lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privileges. she did so when she chose to make a voluntary opening statement. ms. lerner's opening statement referenced the treasury ig report and the department of justice investigation. the assertion she previously had -- sorry, and the assertions that she previously provided false information to the committee. she made four specific denials appeared those denials are at the core of the committee investigation in this matter. she stated that she had not done anything wrong, not broken any laws, not violated any irs rules or regulations, and not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee regarding areas about which committee members would

have liked to ask her questions. indeed, committee members are still interested in hearing from her, her statement covers almost the entire range of questions we wanted to ask when the hearing began on may 22. today marks the 37th day since ms. lerner appeared. since that time, i have considered the matter deliver early. i have received letters from lerner's lawyers that presented her arguments clearly and completely. her letter 10 be entered in the record without -- her letter will now be entered into the record without objection, so ordered. we considered and sought appropriate counsel to reach our decision. counsel had her attorney's letters and made their determination and recommendation. and now it is time to put it to a vote. with that, i recognize the

ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to date, this investigation has been characterized by a series of unsubstantiated accusations by members of congress with no evidence to support their claims. today's preceding is the latest unfortunate example. i often say that i would like our committee to operate more like a courtroom by gathering evidence in a responsible and impartial way. before drawing conclusions or making judgments. if this were a courtroom, the first question to ms. lerner would have been -- how do you plead? ms. lerner would have been able to state her innocence, and she never would have been forced to take the stand, swear an oath

you.