left them understanding the other side better, understanding that maybe the other side doesn't necessarily have horribly nefarious motives but just that there's a lot of frustration and senator mccain was saying just a few moments ago that this fight over nominees for the nuclear option, it really is about the larger frustration, at least on the democratic side new york his opinion, democrats have felt over filibusters on legislation and judicial nominees and everything else and republicans told me that they're frustrated because often harry reid uses the parliamentary tactic if their point of view where he closes off amendments but that also requires the filing of a cloture motion and then he calls that a filibuster and blames the republicans and therefore the view is, if you wouldn't do that so often, allow us our amendments, we didn't create that filibuster and we didn't

want it. so why are you blaming us for it? there were some times that things were explained to each side and maybe they felt better and that they -- a lot of people do run for the senate particularly house members, at some point, harry reid was a house member, so was john mccain way back, because they wanted to be in a chamber that afforded them more pow for the negotiation and wasn't just run on 218 votes. and they, i think, apparently a group of members that are trying o maintain a vision of the senate that they had when they ran for the office. >> david drucker who is joining us on capitol hill. he's a washington correspondent for the "washington examiner." thanks for being with us. >> the house is coming back in to debate a few bills easing regulations on small airplanes and oil pipeline standards. s an nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20.

record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move so suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 1848. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 109, h.r. 1848, a bill to ensure that the federal aviation administration advances the afety of small airplanes and

the continued development of the general aviation industry and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to call up that bill as reported? as amended? >> i wish to call up the report. the speaker pro tempore: as amended. >> as amended. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, and the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1848. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1848, the small airplane revitalization act of 2013. i'd like to commend my colleague, congressman mike pompeo, for introducing this bill, along with congressman dan lipinski, sam graves, richard

nolan and todd rokita. i also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of support for h.r. 1848, from the aircraft owners and pilots association, experimental aircraft association, general manufacturers association, national airport transportation association and national business association as well as a separate letter of support from the national air traffic controllers association. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: thank you, mr. speaker. we're considering h.r. 1848 today because general aviation is vital to our country. the general aviation industry includes nearly 600,000 pilots, employs 1.3 million people and contributes approximately $150 billion annually to the u.s. economy. in fact, the general aviation industry is one of the few remaining u.s. manufacturing industries that provide a trade surplus for the u.s. and it has a presence in every one of our

435 congressional districts. however, the last several decades, the general aviation industry has experienced unique challenges, including a steady decline in new pilots, flight activity and the sale of new aircraft. in part, these challenges are due to overly prescriptive and outdated sertsfication processes greatly increase -- certification processes which greatly increase the cost of bringing new products to market and increase the cost to curems. the bill before us is supposed to streamline the certification process for small airplanes, and it more efficient effective, while also protecting the important safety oversight function of the f.a.a. the goal is to improve safety at a fraction of the cost. for example, the leading cause of fatalities in general aviation is due to loss of control. there are several existing technologies available to mitigate loss of control such as angle of attack and angle of attack indicator. owever, in an f.a.a. certified

airplane, this equipment is about $5,000. whereas the exact same piece of equipment in a noncertified experimental airplane is about $800. so right now the f.a.a.'s complicated and costly small airplane certification process provides a disincentive to certify new airplanes and safety equipment. just one example of how the small airplane revitalization act will improve safety at a fraction of the cost. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1848, the small airplane revitalization act of 2013. h.r. 1848 would require the federal aviation administration to update its part 23, small airplane design regulations, by december 31, 2015.

last week the transportation and infrastructure committee ordered h.r. 1848 reported favorably to the house by a voice vote. in june an f.a.a.-chartered part 23 aviation rulemaking committee or a.r.c., a.r.c., submitted its comprehensive report with recommendations for rewriting and reorganizing part 23 to the agency. representatives from the f.a.a., international regulatory agencies, aircraft manufacturers, general aviation pilot groups and labor unions all participated in the a.r.c. its work followed a 2009 f.a.a. report on the small airplanes certification process and in illed requirements section 312 of the f.a.a. authorization bill. mr. speaker, prior to the part 23 a.r.c., the agency's most recent comprehensive review of part 23 was almost 30 years ago,

in 1984. part 23 has not kept up with the times. these regulations are prescriptive in nature, often written to address out of date d technologies -- out of-of date technologies. as a result they're creating certifying newor airplanes and retrofitting older aircraft with new safety-enhancing modifications. the need to improve the process for retrofitting older aircraft is particularly urgent, given the 40-year-old average age of the u.s. general aviation fleet. small airplane manufacturers and part suppliers across the country are limited in their ability to innovate with new technology because of these outdated regulations. this bill will allow these manufacturers to innovate more quickly and bring more safety technology online. h.r. 1848 will fasttrack the part 23 a.r.c.'s work by requiring the f.a.a. to draft a new regulation that emphasizes

performance-based safety objectives. these new regulations make the retrofit of new technology more straightforward and also remove barriers to bringing new, safer airplane designs to market. it will help small business and i urge support. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: i yield as much time the may consume to gentleman from kansas. >> this is a commonsense, bipartisan, broadly bipartisan bill that will spur economic growth, improve aviation safety and strengthen the health of the industry. mr. speaker, there is no better reason to support this legislation than it saves lives and improves lives. think about that. we can do both in one fell

swoop. let's first talk about how the bill improves lives. i represent wichita, kansas. mr. pompeo: it is home to dozens and dozens and dozens of suppliers to great aviation businesses with such great aviation histories. it's the home of the national institute for aviation research and the national center for aviation training. they're engineers, machinists, researchers, flight instructors, operators, among others, that ale all depend on a healthy aviation industry. and then there are the operators in the in general aviation. this vital productivity tool for both small and large companies all across the country is critically important. 16 years ago i joined the kansas general aviation industry, building a business with three of my colleagues, founding a company called fair aerospace, a machine shop in wichita, kansas. we made parts for the thriving aircraft industry but the downturn in 2008 was a tremendous blow to wichita in tick and general aviation more

generally. we experienced thousands and thousands of layoffs and dramatic downsizing all across the region. the downturn exacerbated the unique challenges that the lighter entry-level segment of general aviation had, has been experiencing over the past several decades. today the average general aviation airplane's 40 years old that. means most of the new aircraft were built in the 1960's and 1970's, with designs that are vintage. current general aviation production represents less than 2% of the existing fleet. and we've had over 10,000 person-per-year decline in active pilots over the last decade. the study declines sale activity that result from that are indicators of significant problems in the industry. to tackle this problem, this bill, the small aircraft revitalization act, requires the f.a.a. to implement f.a.a.'s part 23 certification process and modernize it no later than 2015. f.a.a. part 23

aviation review committee, a.r.c., composed of aviation authorities, industry representatives from around the world, has worked over the last 18 months to create a regulatory environment that will contribute to revitalizing the health and safety of new and existing airplanes. these changes will remove lots and lots of barriers. it will improve lives. let me tell you how it will save lives. the gentleman from wisconsin talked about safety and innovation being retarded by the absence of a streamlined regulatory process. he spoke of this example, of loss of control. that creates more than three times the cost of aviation accidents than any other single cause. since the dawn of aviation we've taught pilots how to avoid that but because they remain a significant safety problem, there's tremendous interest in technology and interventions to resolve it. yet today's 23 makes that more difficult. by putting these technologies into the existing fleet, it's widely believed that the safety of light general aviation aircraft could see dramatic

improvements. when we -- we need to cut this red tape. will create savings for sure but it will save lives. this is a commonsense and important reform. america's generation yaveg -- aviation industry is not asking for one subsidy. it's simply asking for a streamlined set of regulations that permit them to get their airplanes and designs to market more quickly and safely. i want to thank chairman shuster and lobiondo for their support and my original co-sponsors, mr. nolan, mr. lipinski, mr. graves and mr. rokita and all the folks at the transportation transportation infrastructure committee. i urge support of all of my colleagues this evening and hope we'll have a unanimous vote on behalf of this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: mr. speaker, i would yield three minutes now to the entleman from minnesota. >> mr. speaker, i ask to revise

and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. knollenberg: first i'd like to thank our -- mr. nolan: first i'd like it thank representative pompeo for sponsoring this legislation and thanks to our chairman shuster and rahall and to both my democratic and republican colleagues. on the committee, for bringing this small aircraft revitalization act to the floor of the congress in such an expedition and -- expeditious and bipartisan manner. mr. speaker, by streamlining and modernizing the rules and regulations that govern our small aircraft industry, we'll be encouraging the investment necessary to generate thousands of new american jobs. and what this legislation does in effect is put together a regulatory regime that will be specifically tailored for small aircraft industry, that will

allow the industry to develop performance and outcome-based ways of achieving important safety standards. it allows them to put together a consensus regulations that are developed by industry, by the government regulators, by private-profit, nonprofit associations and enables the industry to really unleash technologies of the future, creating jobs. i'm so proud of syrus manufacturing up in duluth, minnesota. they've developed a parachute that is attached to the airplane and, like a sky diver, in this case the airplane, if it falls in the sky, it can pull a rip cord and a par -- and parachute the plane down to safety. and these are the kind of technologies that have the potential to be released through

this legislation. what it does in short is enable the designers, the engineers, the manufacturers, the creators, the skilled workers to release all their brilliance, creating the best, safest airplane technologies going forward into the future. . i applaud my colleagues of the congress of bringing this forward in the expeditious manner and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: i yield as much time he may consume to representative from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. williams: there are dozens of smaller regional airports. passing h.r. 1848 is not important to those in general aviation, it's vital. this industry includes nearly 00,000 pilots, employees three million people and gives billions to the u.s. economy. because regulations are strict and overly dated, our work force is struggling. it fosters a robust work force of manufacturers, maintenance professionals and pilots and it is within the f.a.a.'s power to ensure the success and sustainibility of this important industry. they can do this by modernizing e regulatory requirements to improve safety, decrease costs and set new standards for compliance and testing, just as h.r. 1848 requires. mr. speaker, i'm a small business man. i can tell you this is good for jobs, it's good for the economy and most importantly it's good for america. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, mr. speaker. i would yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the lady for the time. i rise in support of h.r. 1848, the small airplane revitalization act of 2013. this lowers costs and stimulates private sector innovation all while cutting red tape. we need to do everything we can to keep our economy growing. for the last year and a half, representatives from the federal aviation association and industry helps us keep us safe in the sky and this bill adopts those recommendations. i'm proud to stand with the bipartisan group of congressmen who helped bring this bill to the floor today including mr. pompeo, mr. lipinski, mr. nolan, my co-chair of the general aviation task force, mr. graves. this bill follows in the tradition of the general aviation caucus in the house to work together in a bipartisan

fashion. that's the way things should be done around here, and this bill is proof that good things can happen when republicans and democrats work together. i encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: does the gentlelady have additional speakers? ms. titus: i don't. i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. petri: mr. speaker, in closing i'd like to reiterate this bill is about good governance, a regulatory environment that improves safety at the fraction of the cost and ultimately about helping to revitalize an american industry. i strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1848 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker, i ask for the

yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. petri: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2611. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 42. h.r. 2611, a bill to designate the headquarters building of the coast guard on the campus located at 2701 martin luther king jr. avenue southeast in the district of columbia as the douglas a. munro coast guard headquarters building and for . her purposes

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill before us, h.r. 2611. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: mr. speaker, the bill before us, h.r. 2611, would designate the united states coast guard headquarters in washington, d.c., as the douglas a. munro coast guard headquarters building. douglas munro was born in vancouver, canada, of american parents on october 11, 1911, and grew up in washington state. he attended the central washington college of education for a year and left to enlist in the united states coast guard in 1939.

he served the country during world war ii, rising to the rank of signalman first class. douglas munro was killed in action on september 27, 1942, shielding 500 united states marines from enemy fire during an evacuation. he volunteered to head the boats for the evacuation and he placed himself and his boats as cover for the last marine to leave. during this time, douglas munro was fatally wounded. reportedly he remained conscious long enough to say four words -- did they get off? douglas munro was awarded the medal of honor and the purple heart. the bravery and sacrifice of douglas munro saved hundreds of marines and should be honored and remembered. i think it's appropriate to ensure that he will always be remembered by naming the united states coast guard headquarters in his honor. therefore, i support the passage of this legislation,

and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his remarks. the timing on this bill could not be more appropriate. later this month, we will cut the ribbon for the new coast guard building, the first building the coast guard has ever owned. next month the coast guard employees will begin moving into the building located on the old st. elizabeth hospital campus in southeast washington. it is only fitting that the coast guard should be moving into a building named for one of their own, signalman first class douglas albert munro. signalman first class is the -- signalman rd's

first class munro is the u.s. coast guard's only medal of honor recipient. the coast guard specifically requested that i write this bill in time for the opening of the coast guard, and i want to express my appreciation to my good friends on the other side for promptly passing this bill in committee last week and then seeing to it that it got fought the floor on -- for the first set of bills for the week. munro died heroically on point uise gatacanal after evacuating a detachment of marines that had been overwhelmed by the enemies.

signalman first class munro had an outstanding record as an enlisted man and was promoted rapidly to signalman first class. in addition to being a medal of honor recipient, signalman first class munro was also posthumously awarded the purple heart medal and eligible for the service defense medal, the aveatic pacific campaign medal and the world war ii victory medal. he was indeed a hero. signalman first class munro is the example of the commitment of the service and bravery that our men and women of the coast guard still provide today, much of it here at home. it is an honor to be the lead sponsor of this bill to name the building in honor of a true american hero. the new coast guard headquarters building that would be named for signalman first class douglas a. munro will be a 1.1 million square

foot building and will house up to 3,700 members of the u.s. coast guard and civilian employees. this building, which will be the first office building completed for the department of homeland security headquarters consolidation will mark the first time that a federal agency will be located east of the anacostia river. i believe that signalman first class douglas a. munro outstanding service to his country and unique status as the only member of the u.s. coast guard to win the medal of honor ensures that it is particularly fitting to name the new u.s. coast guard headquarters to douglas a. munro coast guard headquarters building. to support lleagues this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. norton: i don't yield back.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. r. petri: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: we honor signalman munro by naming a first class extraordinary state-of-the-art building after him but in honoring signalman munro, i think we also honor members of the coast guard. these are, to coin a cliche, real unsung heroes in our society. they are the men and women who save men and women and children every year right here in our country as part of their duties here so that in a real sense when we name this building for the only medal of honor winner, i think it will make americans also understand that there are

many heroes of the coast guard who also serve them every day of every year. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2611. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. petri: mr. speaker, on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek

recognition? mr. petri: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2576. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 110. h.r. 2576, a bill to amend title 49, united states code, to modify requirements relating to the availability of pipeline safety regulatory documents and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, and the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 2576. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that an exchange of letters with the energy and commerce committee be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: i rise in support of

the bill before us, h.r. 2576. this bill is a correction of an unintended consequence of the bipartisan pipeline safety regulatory certainty and job creation act of 2011. 's sponsored by chairman denham along with full committee chairman shuster, ranking member rahall and subcommittee ranking member broun. this included a good faith provision intended to make the pipeline safety regulations and guidance of the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration, or fimsa, more transparent. . it required any document or portion thereof incorporated by reference into the new regulations and guidance be made available free of charge on the internet. in so doing, however, an

unintended consequence of this , that was created contrary to the intent of congress has adversely impacted the ability of them to move forward with its regulatory agenda by placing practical barriers on the ability to rely on the state-of-the-art technical standards written by standards-developing organizations. referred to as s.d.o.'s. this bill simply corrects this unintended outcome and preserves the intellectual property rights of these organizations while still meeting the goals of a transparent government with free access to standards for noncommercial purposes. specifically, the bill allows for standards to be made free of charge but strikes, quote, on an internet website, end quote, which allows fimsa and s.d.o.'s more leeway to comply with the law. it also gives industry and fimsa

extra time to comply by making it effective three years from enactment instead of one year. finally the bill limits the applicability of the provision to only pipeline safety organizations. i believe that this bipartisan technical correction will provide fimsa with the flexibility needed to fully leverage its partnership with standards developing organizations and save the government money by not requiring fimsa to require its own rulemaking and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. titus: thank you. on january 3, 2012, president obama signed into law the pipeline safety regulatory certainty and job creation act of 2012. section 24 of that act states that effective january 3, 2013, the secretary of transportation may not issue, and i quote,

guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any document or persons thereof unless the documents or persons thereof are made available to the public, free of charge or on an internet website. in the last congress the subcommittee on rare roads, pipelines and hazardous materials held a number of hearings on pipeline safety. one of which highlighted a current regulation that required pipeline operators to develop and implement public education and awareness programs. the regulation did not explain what should be contained in the education programs, however. instead, it pointed readers to an industry-developed standard, but in order to read the standard you had to pay the drafters more than $1,000. if you're a small community, $1,000 is a lot of money for access to just one of many pipeline safety standards. i and many of my colleagues have concerns about the federal government issuing a regulation

that requires whoever wants to read it, particularly local communities, first responders and private citizens, to have to purchase it from a private association. fortunately the 2011 act resolved this situation. following enact ofment of section 24, d.o.t. held a public more op and web cast with than -- webcast with more than 70 industry, safety and government representatives present to discuss options for implementing the new law. nearly 200 other entities participated in the webcast. additional comments were provided through the federal register notice, including the mall business administration which noted many concerns that small businesses, with a continued oose of incorps ration by reference. since the workshop, several standards development organizations have agreed in writing to electronically post on the internet all of the consensus standards that the pipeline and hazardous materials

safety administration incorporates by reference into the federal pipeline safety regulations. those include astm international, the manufacturers standardization society, the gas technology institute, nace international, the national fire protection association, the american petroleum institute, the american gas association and others. so i ask unanimous consent to include their letters in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. titus: i also ask that the letters from the pipeline safety trust, dakota rural action and columbia law professor piecer strauss expressing the need for public vaste of the standards also be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. titus: thank you. unfortunately some organizations have expressed concerns about posting their standards on the internet. this has in turn held up progress of several important safety rulemakings that were mandated in the 2011 pipeline

law. so in the spirit of bipartisanship and not wanting to hold up the rulemaking process, i believe the law should be modified to provide d.o.t. with additional time to implement it and with additional flexibility to determine how best to make the standards widely available to the public. i believe that even with these changes that are in the law, the law will continue to address the transparency and openness concerns of the safety community. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: i have no further requests for time and reserve the balance of my time. ms. titus: we have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. titus: i do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house intend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2576.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12 ha of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.

mr. boehner: i -- the speaker: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the speaker: we are working to simplify the tax code, expand energy production and hold the administration accountable for abuses at agencies like the i.r.s. that's why the senate democrats have done nothing while the house has passed a bipartisan plan to make college more affordable. that's why we will vote tomorrow to make sure the families and individuals get the same break from obamacare that the president wants for big businesses. over the weekend, the democrat leader in the senate said the president's health care law has, quote, been wonderful for our country. are you kidding me? if obamacare is so wonderful,

why are health care prices exploding? why are millions of americans getting kicked out of their plans? why are so many workers losing jobs or getting hours cut? the law isn't wonderful, it's a train wreck. you know it, i know it and the american people know it. even the president knows it. that's why he proposed delaying his mandate on employers. but it's unfair to protect big businesses without giving the same relief to american families and small businesses. the bills by congressman griffin and young will address this problem by delaying the employer mandate and the individual mandate. i hope democrats and republicans alike will vote

so this is not a democratic idea, it's not a republican idea. it is a good idea that meets the needs of the victims, creates transparency and accountability and creates the needed objecttivity that this issue deserves. so i want to now turn it over to others and i will speak at the conclusion of my colleagues' remarks. we are now going to turn it ver to senator grassley. >> thank you. i'm glad to be a part of this effort to build support for military justice improvement act. the status quo is not working and we need to shake it up. if we don't crack down on the corrosive culture that this sexual assault represents, if we don't crack down on the individuals who use sexual

violence as a means of personal power and personal gain, then we'll create lingering institutional problems that will jeopardize morale and impact recruitment and retention of troops. the bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleague, senator gill grand, will give members of the armed services more confidence in the military system of justice. the reform will do justice to of honor ilitary code which is based on integrity, and if i dealt to the rule of law -- and if i dealt to the rule of law -- and fidelity to the rule of law. when young adults make the commitment to serve their country in uniform and put themselves in harm's way to defend and protect america's freedoms, they deserve to know that their rights will be protected, including access to justice and not have that access to justice intervened by

somebody who for reasons unknown may short circuit and not see that justice is delivered. thank you, senator gilibrand. >> thank you. senator boxer. > yes. >> well, if we have one. i think it's better if you can see me. thank you, thank you so much, senator. i am proud to be part of this bipartisan coalition for change. that's what we represent -- change. change that has been coming for 21 years. and i'm here to say i've been in the senate for that long ime and we know and we've seen every secretary of defense call for zero tolerance on sexual assaults in the military and every time nothing happens. i want to tell you a story, i

could tell you many, each of us could, that reflects why we have to do this. stacy robinson at 19 joined the marines for every right reason. how much she loved her country and wanted to put her life on the line for her country. she was attacked by a sergeant. he took her to a bar, he drugged her at that bar, he took her back to the barracks and he raped her. he dropped her on the ground in front of the bar at 4:00 a.m.. none of those facts are in dispute. i want to tell you what happened to stacy robinson and what happened to her perpetrator. what happened to her perpetrator.

the chain of command suggested to the perpetrators that he get is butt out of the military. and stacy, she was investigated for drug use from that night. she after 10 years or more she's coming out to talk about this story which has scarred her forever. so do we need change? yes. and what happened in the armed services committee was some good, good small tweaks of the system, which we strongly support, but the main change that was supported in that committee by senator gillibrand and her other co-sponsors here didn't happen. so i'm going to close just showing you quickly a couple

charts. in no particular order. it doesn't matter. zero tolerance for sexual assault by u.s. defense secretaries over the last two decades. statements by secretary hagel. it's not good enough to say we have a zero tolerance policy. we do. but what does that mean? how does that translate? well, he should be supporting you. secretary leon panetta. we've absolutely no tolerance for any form of sexual assault. secretary gates. first of all, i have a zero tolerance. let's go to the next one. this really gets old very quickly. secretary rumsfeld. sexual assault will not be tolerated. sk william cohen, this goes to 1997. i intend to enforce strict policy of zero tolerance of hazing, sexual assault and racism.

secretary william perry. this goes back to 1994. and for all of these reasons, therefore, we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. secretary cheney, march, 1989, we have a major effort under way to try to educate everybody to let them know that we have a zero tolerance policy where sexual harassment is nvolved. it's enough with the words. it's enough with the empty promises. it's time for some real change and senator gillibrand is leading us toward that change to more -- much quicker charts. 90%. i want you to remember that. 90% of sexual assaults are not -- underline -- not reported because they tell us, and as senator gillibrand said eloquently, we don't listen. they tell us they don't report it because they don't want to see it in the chain of command. and very last.

look. this is not something the senator pulled out of the air. look at our allies. in israel since 1955 outside the chain of command. canada 1998. outside the chain of command. australia, 2005, outside the chain of command. united kingdom, 2006. so don't let anyone tell us this is some idea that is so out of the mainstream. we are in the main streel. the status quo is -- we are in the mainstream. the status quo is out of the mainstream. i am proud as i can be to be with a coalition like this to stand with the victims who are waiting for justice and to our colleagues who are looking at us and deciding. please, please put your faith in change. thank you. > senator rand paul.

>> you know, i try not to look at issues from a partisan view. i'm sure i do sometimes. i try not to. as a physician i look at problems and i try to find solutions. i'm concerned, you know, about justice, and i wanted to -- want it to occur in the military for the victims just. justice is very important to me. both for the accused and the victim. i'm concerned that victims of assault, though, may be deterred from reporting their assault if they have to report it to their boss. i'm also concerned, though, about interposing too many lawyers in the everyday life of the military and them getting in the way of the military mission. the vast majority of our soldiers are honorable and upstanding soldiers. we're talking about a very small percentage. but if they commit crimes they should be punished. in finding justice for the victims, we must make sure, though, there's due process for all. some say which have no bipartisan cooperation around

here, and i disagree. i think this is a great example of how people from both sides come together and are willing to work on a problem and look at what the problem is. so when i heard about this my first impression was a positive one. as i looked at the bill i asked and senator gillibrand asked to come and talk to me. i thought there were one or two things that were included in this that we should exclude from this. she was very open to the discussion. and it makes my support even stronger for this. there were a couple things we removed that weren't sexual assault, weren't murder. these were disobeying orders and some other things. we'll still leave that in the line of command. we'll keep serious crimes, murder, rape, sexual assault, in here. and i think it's made the bill even stronger. i always thought the motive was good for the bill. but i think the bill's even stronger. i see no reason why conservatives should not support this. what's standing in the lane is the status quo. senator boxer was right.

if it appears as if there is some deterrence to victims reporting the crime, why don't we fix it? so i see no reason not to fix it. i'm glad to be part of the process if i can. >> senator ted cruz. >> thank you. sexual assault is a grave iolation of the trust and duty that we owe our service men and service women. when our sons and daughters sign up to defend our nation, they willingly anticipate facing hostile fire from enemy forces, but they don't sign up to be potentially sexually assaulted from their colleagues. the supreme court describes rape short of murder, the ultimate violation of self. now, every senator is opposed to rape, opposed to sexual assault and wants to act to

prevent it. i tell you having spoken with a number of our commanders, i'm convinced that our commanders in the military want to see this problem go away. that they understand, they have heard the message and they are working to make it go away. but unfortunately this problem has persisted despite good faith repeated efforts, this has persisted. i have to say the process whereby this amendment has gone forward really jond scores the way the delend -- underscores the way the delib are a tif process of the senate goes forward. i went in this undecided. i thought there were good reasonable arguments by the chairman of the committee and by others about preserving the chain of command, about keeping responsibility in the chain of command that i think have real force. i have to tell you, entering the committee hearing undecided, i was persuaded by senator gillibrand's exceptionally passionate and abled advocacy.

and in particular there are two points senator gillibrand made in a moved me and convinced me this was the right and responsible thing to do. first of all was the point the most persistent problem we've een is an unwillingness and an nability to report the crimes, that the victims of sexual assault for whatever reason have consistently remained reluctant, afraid to come forward and report the crimes and there can be no prosecution, there can be no deterrence if we don't have reporting of crimes. and despite all of the efforts that have been made in the past, senator gillibrand, i believe, made a persuasive case, keeping the reporting in the chain of command, as rand said, having to go to your boss and raise the problem, the crime of sexual assault with your boss has proven in fact to be deterring victims from reporting their crimes. and secondly was the point that a number of our allies,

ncluding great britain and israel and germany, had implemented policies similar to this and the results in practice have been the reporting rates increased. i believe in following the data where they lead, and the fact that other professional militaries had been able to maintain discipline, maintain the chain of command, maintain effectiveness, maintain readiness and at the same time improve reporting and improve deterrence to me was persuasive. so i'm proud to stand with senator gillibrand, with all of the senators up here. i appreciate their eadership. and i'm proud to see the senate working to fix this problem, to make sure that we protect every young man and every young woman who signs up to defend our nation, defend our liberties and make sure they have a safe, secure environment where they can trust their fellow soldiers

and be secure from any threat of sexual assault. >> senator. senator hirono. >> you definitely see the political spectrum of support epresented right here. i'm proud to stand here with not just the colleagues here but there are others who are ery much concerned and want to take some specific action relating to sexual trauma in the military. yes, this has been going on far too long. there's no magic bullet answer. one of the responses is to remove the chain of command from making the decision to investigate and go forward. on the other hand, there are plenty of other things we need to do because we're dealing with a culture in the military that has allowed this to occur for decades and decades. so the commander has a responsibility to change that culture. there's a whole huge prevention aspect that the commanders

should take hold of. there are education opportunities. there are all of these other things that can happen. the navy is doing some of this starting in a small way where they address the incidents and the use of alcohol, which is very much a part of these kinds of crimes. so there are so many ways we can address this, but this is one very specific way that we believe will result in more of these crimes being reported, and we think that's one of the first things that we have to address. so i thank all my colleagues. and of course kristen's leadership. thank you. >> i'm very grateful for the leadership of everyone here and the several other co-sponsors. i think we have close to 30 co-sponsors on this bill who've provided leadership. we all know that our military's home to the best and the brightest in the world. and there is such a small number of criminals within our

military that are undermining good order and discipline, undermining command climate and destroying lives. those are the individuals we have to find. these cases must be prosecuted. and they must be held accountable. so i believe that when we look at this issue we have to look at it from the eyes of the victims. that's what matters most, their stories. now, for 62% of those who reported of the crimes of the 3,300 that reported last year, 62% said they were retaliated against because they reported the crimes. of the 23,000 that didn't report, more than half -- about half said they didn't report because they didn't think anything would be done. close to half said they didn't report because they saw someone else be retaliated against. close to half said they didn't report because they feared retaliation. and that's why this kind of reform is so important. to be able to have that objective trained military prosecutor be the decision

maker. there may be less fear of retaliation. more hope of accountability. a greater belief that justice can be done. that's what this change is trying to accomplish. i'm just going to read the story of one survivor to leave you with. because you have to imagine these crimes happening to your son or to your daughter. . . until you begin to picture it, you won't understand the destruction that is taking place. one mother said and she didn't want to divulge her daughter's name, she said, i supported my daughter going into the army. fearing that she may be a casualty victim in combat overseas by a foreign enemy. i never imagined she would be a victim on u.s. soil from the with to she partnered

protect the u.s. and our rights. the case is still pending. she's lost her loss of life and become dependent on drugs and now being pushed out of the army because the captain is deer electricity in his responsibilities and failed to respond to her plight. he has revictimized her by exposing her to unsafe conditions and total disregard for her as a woman. help me, please. >> senator. senator levin said his proposal to move the decisions further up the chain of command to colonel level will take care of the problem of retaliation, what is your response? >> i disagree with his

assessment. i think senator levin cares about this issue and putting forward his best efforts. it doesn't do enough is because of this. right now the commanders are putting forward cases that are reported and that their attorneys are suggesting they should be prosecuted. the commanders will say let's go forward, but that's only about 300 cases. you are starting with 26,000 and only 300 are going to trial. if that commander's decision is being appealed and he says no, that's not the problem. in fact, the commander and his lawyer always disagree 1% of the time. so that's 1% of 300 cases. that's a handful. that's not our problem. the problem is not the disagreement between a lawyer and commander. the problem is, they don't trust us. they don't trust the chain of command. if the victim do not trust the

chain of command, they will not report these cases. if they report or witness other people being shoved out of the military because they reported these crimes, they will not trust the system that the chain of command has put into place. making hope is that by the system more objective and not dependent on that decision by the commander, they will have hope and confidence that the trained military prosecutor -- and the training is essential. these are trained for sexual assaults in the military, sexual assaults and rape within the military. they know what the crime is like and who the perpetrators are and how they are retaliated against. they are very knowledgeable. they know the law and whether they can win those cases. i want that trained military prosecutor. not all commanders will have the determination that we saw the military brass have in the last

hearing. not every military commander is going to understand that rape is a serious violent crime of domination, often not even related to dating or romance but and minance and violence power. so you need who is trained and knowledgeable about whether these cases should go to trial. create a system of objectivity and victims have a chance to see justice will be done. >> i agree with senator levin and they tweaked the system and done some good things which we support and keep in the bill. i want to make a point because people get confused. they sometimes think as we do is take the whole thing outside the military. there are some people that want that. we don't go that route at all. we keep these crimes in the military, but with people who

know exactly what they're doing. they are trained prosecutors. and they are objective. i think it's an important point to make. >> i would like to invite blumenthal. >> let me just thank your leadership on this issue. i have been working on it for some time with proposals such as mandatory punitive discharge, victims' bill of rights, other measures that will greatly enhance the credibility and trust in the system which is critical to reporting and none is more important than the one she has been championing for, separating the prosecutorial decision, the convening authority from the command chain. and i am very, very encouraged by the support that we are amassing. i see it in the response among my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, as is demonstrated

today. and i think that we are making inroads all across the senate including on the armed services committee where i serve and she does, along with senator hirono and i think that success is within sight, whatever the threshold of votes that are required, i think a majority and 60 votes are within our grasp. thank you for your leadership, senator. [inaudible question] >> was it meetings or testimony? >> what's law so many times up here, senator gillibrand came over to me on the floor and i saw the news reports about it

and my first impressions were to be favorably inclined and i needed to read about it and i wanted a few things to modify and she was receptive to that and it wasn't like a big deal to try to get the bill even better. and i think the changes made should bring more conservatives on board to this. but i don't know. i really don't see things in partisan purpose. i'm willing to go against my party any time or against the other time. we should go for what is right. this is an issue that is right and sounds like we are trying to get to a more just situation. >> i'll mention, i was per swayeded by the arguments that senator gillibrand presented. when i said at the hearing and cast my votes supporting this afterwards, i visited with a reporter who was astonished and

said, you mean every vote isn't decided beforehand and arguments can persuade? i can say here that, you know, look, i think all of us, republicans, democrats and i think also the commanders in the military want to solve this problem and the question is what's the right solution that will fix it, that will prevent sexual assault, but also maintain good order and discipline, maintain the integrity of the chain of command. senator gillibrand has worked hard with a number of others. the suggestion that rand made made the bill stronger and i think this is a commonsense approach to fixing a problem to making our military stronger and protect every service man and service woman. >> some changes that were made to this bill, the military crimes were an exception --

>> correct. >> have there been changes made since then? >> senator rand noticed two additional crimes that he felt were better dealt by commanders and i agreed with him. the changes were smart and make the bill stronger. specifically, dress order that for whatever reason was overlooked. if you are given a direct order, to call a oing lawyer. that is not the appropriate response. he was very smart to recognize that and said that should be included in the 36 specific crimes that we all believe because we wrote the bill this way are military in nature -- there is no parallel in the civilian system. going awol is the most clear example. if you go awol and don't show up for duty, he will decide. he knows what's going on and what is the appropriate response

to either keep you in the military or respond appropriately. he found two additional crimes that i depode would be better determined by a military commander. they were serious, but military in nature. >> the defense department yesterday, the i.g. put out a report with serious problems with sexual assault and rape and there were zep and cyst like not collecting clothing or interview witnesses. you look at the prosecution, but they seem to have bigger problems. >> as senator boxer said, this -- this challenge is pervasive. it is a cultural top-to-bottom issue and needs to be looked at every step of the way. what we were able to do in the armed services committee, we have a number of bills offered by many members of the committee and people outside the committee that would strengthen the process and help victims. so, for example, one bill that

senator murray would assure that every victim would have a victim's advocate. we included that in our markup, straight to the base bill. there are a number of reforms we can look at and can summarize them for you. there are a dozen strong reforms that will help victims and also accountability in terms of what better punishments and recordkeeping. if someone doesn't report, we still have a record of the crime being committed. there are a lot of reforms. >> that's a very important question and it speaks to the need for a trained, experienced prosecutor. i was a federal prosecutor. i served as state attorney general. ultimately, the prosecutor can insist on standards and excellence in investigations.

he is ultimately in charge. he is the one who has to present the case to a jury and make the case. so this proposal is integral to the entire justice system. and i might just go ba back to the question how can people who normally disagree come together on this issue. criminal justice has never been a partisan issue under any administration at any time. it units all of us. justice and particularly criminal justice, effective prosecution should not be about republican or democrat and certainly not about ideological differences on other issues. there is nothing surprising about thoughtful people coming together who may disagree on other issues. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by ational captioning institute]

>> the house will be back in in little more than 15 minutes from now on votes on measures for measures debated earlier. the chamber debates a couple of bills. the house rules committee continues to meet this hour about those bills dealing with the employer mandate and the individual mandate in health care law. the committee will decide how long the bills will be debated and which amendments, if any, will be allowed. that meeting happening live right now on c-span 3. rights activists and church leaders have filed a lawsuit against the federal government to hold a national security agency electronics surveillance program. it was filed today by san francisco's frontier foundation -- injunchings. the suit comes after former

n.s.a. contractor leaked details of the surveillance programs. mr. snowden submitted a request for temporary asylum in russia claiming he faces persecution and could face torture or death. this morning, we talked with a reporter about the organization wikileaks. > we are back with josh meyer, a global security correspondent. he is also the director of education and outreach for a national security journal initiative. host: we are talking about wikileaks and it's relationship to the n.s.a. leaker snowden. what is wikileaks and how has it changed since it first made headlines? guest: it was started in 2006

under sort of a sunshine coalition. it was created -- their motto is we open governments everywhere and it was a portal through which people could leak confidential information and open that up to the sunshine laws of the world and get the information out there to the public. in the recent -- in the past year or two, julian, now that he is on the run in london, i think he has become much more of a figure and lobbying against government tyranny everywhere. host: who beyond wikileaks -- are they journalists that work for them? >> there are a couple of people, journalists or researchers, uman rights lawyers, there's one assistant in particular,

sarah harrison, who accompanied snowden on the flight from hong kong to moscow. ut is five people at the center. but he has described himself as the ader, the founder, chief coder in terms of computer stuff. host: what are their ethics? guest: that's a good question. julian has said they hold themselves up to the highest ethics. a lot of major media outlets were supporters. i used their documents very carefully but provided a true public service and they said they are careful about not publishing that was against the national security of the united states or other governments that could undermine the intelligence community. they consider themselves to be of the highest ethical standard.

host: are they journalists or whistleblowers? guest: a little bit of both. he has taken on the mantle as protector of those who can't fight for themselves, whether it is the edward snowdens of the world, but people in countries like kenya. they published a lot of documents showing the government was taking profits out of the country and corruption. he believes he is a robin hood of the internet age. hood host: what impakistan can he have and cannot leave? guest: he wrote an article in a major london publication in talking about his mission. i think he is clearly doing a lot. he is helping with the legal case of snowden. issuing a lot of statements. they let him work freely. one thing he can't do is leave and he is trying to figure out

what his next step is going to be. security s the glolve correspondent and take your questions about wikileaks and national security and the world they are playing with edward snowden. we will take your tweets if you go to twitter.com and we will read some of those on air as well. what is the connection between wikileaks and edward snowden? guest: sarah harrison is the chief connection. but julian calls the shots and she has been with wikileaks. fairly young, probably in her early 30's and she accompanied him to the airport in moscow.

it is not clear whether she is there or not. in the beginning it looked like wikileaks was helping with the legal strategy, but now they have taken on much more of a role and maybe helping control ing the documents and protecting them in case something happens to snowden. host: we have seen in the news today snowden asking russia for asealium. russia has said if you give it to you if you stop political activity. has he said what is coming next from him and will he stop this? guest: he says he has more coming out. they said they are touching the surface of what these disclosures are going to be and more going to come out there. and president putin said he wants him to leave just at the same time snowden says he is asking for temporary asylum. this is a fascinating case and

watching closely to see what happens next. host: michael, democratic caller from new york. caller: i just wanted to ask you about the situation where the president of ecuador's plane was denied flying privileges on the assumption that snowden was on the plane and of course they did allow them to search it and found he wasn't there and still obviously in moscow. but the point is, snowden's releases about the united states and who the united states was spying on. didn't they include some of those european countries that denied the transport and would have sent snowden back to the united states? doesn't that seem strange and doesn't it sort of indicate that

the c.i.a. is working with the other internal intelligence of other countries in such a way that say, for example, we aren't allowed to spy upon our citizens and they aren't allowed to spy upon their citizens but they can spy on our citizens and we can spy on their citizens. maybe they are exchanging this information. guest: that's been the case. there is program called echelon for decades and the united states, great britain, australia, new zealand and canada have all been closely sharing information. if i can't spy it on my own citizens, you can spy on them and give me the information. the police commissioner from casablanca who says he is shocked there is gambling going on and at the same time someone

hands him his winnings. everyone knows that intelligence gathering is going on. they aren't shocked that u.s. was gathering the intelligence. they are more concerned about defending the united states on a case of this importance and if this is what happened, they agreed to down the plane and search it at the request of the united states. caller.diana republican caller: i thought wikileaks was a great thing in bringing up some of these truths they didn't want people to know about, just like the war on drugs. a much murder rate than the prohibition of alcohol, waste no money, waste no lives. and an buy illegal prisons get them from the guards.

38 guards come up in the illegal drug system. some of those guards make more money than they do on their paychecks. guest: what's the connection here to wikileaks? the goal of wikileaks when it was created to we open governments everywhere is a noble goal and that is something that can be supported by the media and the public almost everywhere. the question is whether the means to the end that they have done has striletted the laws of certain -- violated the laws of certain countries. they have credibility. it's hard to separate the actions of julian's to the organization's. host: how have the antics of them distracted from the real debate of spying and robert simpson says we talk about spying but not the violation of

the government. guest: that is very much up for debate here partially because we don't know what they're doing. but i think that's true. the globe-trotting antics is a good way of doing it of snowden obscuring a larger issue. one is domestic surveillance. and i wrote a story about this a week or so ago. it's important to look at what the n.s.a. is doing overseas. far less of what the u.s. can do overseas whether it's foreign governments or foreign citizens. and there needs to be a airing and that is being obscured. and the work of wikileaks itself and what they're doing. if you look at the iraq had, the that they documents, the afghan documents and for me, the state department cables that they released, those

are fascinating documents and i think it is a true public service to open those up. host: "washington post" front page, classified programs will be challenged in court, five ases have been filed in court. guest: well, i mean my guess on this and i wrote about this when i was at the "l.a. times" is that these cases will be long, expensive and fruitless. i could be wrong but basically the courts whether it's the ninth circuit which is a fairly liberal court in california or the much more conservative courts, tend to side with the government. the government will claim state secrets and can't disclose the information. i'm waiting to see what happens, but i don't think you will get a lot of disclosure for years. host: there was a piece in the "new york times" this morning out the general going to the

supreme court. on october 29, about seven months before the recent revelations, the solicitor general made a commitment to the supreme court on the day of hurricane sandy and the rest of washington was shut down but the justices made it to court and they seem to be paying particular attention when the top appellate lawyer argued that a challenge to the surveillance law should be dismissed. host: what do you think happens given the solicitor general made this argument to the justices and they had no assumption to believe and the justices, one justice asked them, is there anybody who has standing to bring a case like this before our court or any other court.

guest: i think you you have to prove damages in a case like this and prove standing and prove that something happened to you as a result of this. and if you can't find out what it is your's doing, you don't have enough detail to do that. it has been described as a catch-22. in order to have a case that would be successful in a situation like this, you have to prove with some level of detail the kind of things you can't prove until you get the information you are seeking through the lawsuit. it's pretty tough to do. one thing we have seen in this, government lawyers and administrators are very good at using verbal words to get around the truth. you had general clapper testify before congress and denying that this activity was happening and it seems clear that he was lying at the time, according to critics. it appears he was, but he said

he gave the less untruthful answer he could because of the classified nature that was involved. host: vera, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i just want to say it's going to be short and sweet. i think snowden is a traitor to the united states and i wish that russia would send him back. he wants to go to these other countries that don't have as much freedom as we do. maybe he is going to be sent there and maybe they'll do with him what i'd like to. that's all i have to say. host: thank you, vera. guest: i'm not going to get in the middle of that one, but i think what you are saying reflects a lot of opinions of people in the united states. there was a poll recently that said a lot of people feel quite differently. i don't know if they are calling him a hero but clearly saying he

is not a traitor and doing a valuable public service and exposing important information that needs to be discussed in creating a topic of discussion and debate that's important. that's up to individuals to decide which way they fall on that. i think a lot of people fall in the middle. i teach a class on national security and i ask my students what do they think and they are split about 50-50. host: this poll asked the americans that they surveyed is he a traitor or whistleblower and majority called him a whistleblower, not a traitor. guest: i don't think he is a whistleblower in the traditional sense of the word. there are legal definitions. and a whistleblower who like thomas drake from the n.s.a. tries to exhaust internal mechanisms. you go to the supervisor, inspector general or even to congress. i think snowden skipped all of

those steps and wept directly to the public. host: in your role, do you think he is a journalist and should he be protected as a journalist? guest: i don't think he is a journalist. i think he was acting in his capacity -- back in se is coming now on votes on measures debated earlier. 2576, a bill to amend title 49, united states code, to modify requirements relating to the availability of pipeline safety

regulatory documents and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative,

the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1848 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 109, h.r. 1848, a bill to ensure that the federal aviation administration advances the safety of small airplanes and its continued development to the general aviation industry and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. 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 411, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2611, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 42, h.r. 2611, a bill to designate the headquarters building of the coast guard on 2701 pus located at

martin luther king jr. avenue southeast in the district of columbia as the douglas a. munro coast guard headquarters building and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. 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 411, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from wisconsin, sean duffy, from h.r. 1962. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have the name of mr. bishop of utah removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2359. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a co-sponsor to h.r. 2319. the speaker pro tempore: without bjection, ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of a marine who desperately needs our help,

corporal armando torres was kidnapped in mexico more than two months ago. minimal attention here in the u.s. and in mexico has allowed armando's kidnappers to think we've given up. they are wrong. the united states does not give up and does not leave one of our own behind. the kidnapping of a united states citizen and a marine will not be tolerated. armando served our country honorably and now it is our duty to serve him well now. mr. speaker, as you know, the bond between marines can never be broken. in the coming days, marines here in the house will come together on this floor for their brother. i invite all members to join us and show that we will not rest until we bring armando home. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the arsenal which celebrated its 200th anniversary on july 14. . tonko: water releaf is the oldest manufacturer of arsenal. for 200 years they have produced critical parts and materials that have been indispensable to the nation's defense. earlier this year, the secretary of the army recognized their high quality and essential work by designating it as a center of excellence. it's renowned for its research nd development and work with materials is also at the low keags. arsenal employees, despite

furloughs, continue to provide quality ring and control for our cannons and mortars. many come from family who was worked for generations at the plant, pouring their talent into this successful story. they are the lifeblood of their community and the greater upstate new york. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: this week hoe house will debate h.r. 2667 that will delay enforcement of the obamacare mandate for employees with 50 full-time employees who to not provide coverage must pay $2,000 per employee fine.

the administration announced the delay and while their authority to do that is questionable, the bill continues to be a problem. an employer would opt to close one day a week rather than pay the compliance costs. ,100 companies responded to a house ways and means survey, they'll save billions by eliminating coverage for millions of employees, opting to simply pay the fine. the administration begins to understand that the employer man tate provides a perverse ensentiv for employers to drop their employees from health plans that are otherwise working. i urge my colleagues to adopt h.r. 2667 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the house will come to ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for

one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: at a house judiciary committee meeting, eric withholder, the attorney general, admitted more people would die because of fast and furious, the scheme to send hundreds of u.s. automatic weapons to criminal drug cartels in mexico. recently, mexican police chief rosales was ambushed and gunned down by assassins as he was driving his son to school. his wife and two bodyguards were also shot. the automatic weapon used to shoot him was fast and furious gun smuggled to mexico by the u.s. government resm portedly over 200 mexican nationals have been killed by fast and furious weapons. american guns are at the side of these puddles of blood. the chief's son will be fatherless buzz of this government's recklessness.

meanwhile, attorney general eric withholder keeps stone walling justice and hiding information on this gun running scheme. mr. speaker, somebody needs to go to jail. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to extend my sincerest congratulations and happy birthday wishes to mrs. violate celebrating ill be her 100th birthday on july if born in los angeles on july 23, 913, to albert wagoski and ella, she's the oldest daughter of nine children, she married william hanna on august 6 of 1936. she lovingly raised a family of two chern, has seven grandchildren and six great grandchildren. mr. royce: she has enjoyed

wonderful health all her life, she was raised on a farm, a straight a student, so devoted to family that after graduating from high school she gave up a full scholarship to occidental college to start working in l.a. to support the rest of her family in imperial valley. violate has witnessed momentous changes in our nation's history. our life reflects a crecks to that history, i hakem: her century of memories brings much pride and joy to herself and family members. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating violate on this remarkable milestone. i wish her a special day, shared in the company of her family and friends and all the best in the years ahead. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyre. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week in history we

celebrate the achievement of neil armstrong's moon landing in 1969. a shining example of american inknow veags and perseverance. in conquering space, america sent a message to the world that we can achieve any task we set our mind to. today, 40 years later, we as americans feas similar challenges, not on the surface of the moon but around our nation. our generation is tasked with recapturing the american spirit that put a man on the moon by saying yes to american ingenuity in the 21st century. mr. fitzpatrick: in that veen, mr. speaker, we as lawmakers must enact legislation that makes that goal a reality, like enacting commonsense laws like the made in america act which protects american jobs. or wubs and for all declaring energy independence for our nation. now is our moment to honor the accomplishments and the legacy of the moon landing by ensuring the continued success and

independence of america for generations to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there further requests for one-minute speechs? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. jackson lee: as a mother and an american, i am well aware that this nation is a nation of law. our system of justice speak and the reason we are a democracy is because we adhere to that. but i'm proud of my constituents and others in houston, texas, who saw the need to petition and to be able to join the family of tre'von martin in praying to petition their federal government. that is america, mr. speaker. that all persons have a right to come and petition their government. thank you for being peaceful. thank you for being prayerful.

thank you for being ready to speak in tones seeking justice. but doing it in a way that is respectful of our system and ready to be table achieve what your desires are through continuing to pray and be peaceful. in houston, texas, that is what occurred and i want to say thank you for that peace and that respect of the dignity and democracy that america is and the respect for trey von martin's family. -- for tre'von martin's family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the rise? ady from florida without objection, the gentlewoman's request is granted. ms. brown: tre'von martin a

young constituent -- >> mr. speaker, tre'von martin a young constituent of mine, was brutally murdered in sanford, florida. i know within my heart and will always know that things should have been different. but i accept the law. i was one of the loudest voices calling for a fair trial for tre'von. mr. wilson: after he was profiled -- mrs. wilson: after he was profiled, racially, he was followed, he was harassed, and he was shot in the heart. nd so on sunday in miami david county -- in miami-dade county, all the churches held prayer services. all the churches prayed for the martin and fulton families.

all of us are so saddened ecause we have lost our son, our son tre'von -- tre'von who was only 16 years old. he had only been 17 for two weeks. god bless our justice system that they will see that it should not end here. we must make sure that justice prevails for tre'von martin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker.

i am a mother of five biological children and of 23 wonderful foster children. and my heart is broken as my colleague's heart is broken over any teenager whose life is taken away from them. but i believe without a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't matter the color of a person's skin in the united states when it comes to justice. lady justice has the blindfold over her eyes because justice is color blind. justice shouldn't look at the color of our skin or our ethnicity or our financial background. fact has to be recognized as fact. law has to be recognized as law. no matter if we are white, or black, or hispanic, or asian, whatever our background, justice must be served. and that's why we need to stand up and stand up for justice in this country. not have justice that is

separate for blacks or separate for hispanics or separate for whites. we all need to be one under our law. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlewoman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. horsford of nevada 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 ma jordan lead -- of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we're here to talk about something that is rather important -- that is a rather important subject. immigration has helped make us the greatest nation in the world and we want that to

continue. we do not ever want our borders closed. we want them secured. but here to help in this conversation i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, mr. barletta from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: thank you. i believe the problem is simple. we need to secure our borders first. you wouldn't replace your carpet at home if you still had a hole in the roof. when you take that position, the question you're usually asked by people who support open borders is, well, what do you want to do? what do you want to do about the 11 million people who are here illegally? i usually answer that question with another question -- what do you want to do with the 22 million americans who couldn't find work this morning when they woke up? what do you want to do about the legal immigrant wloss came to america for -- immigrants who came to america for the

opportunity, for the opportunity that america promises for those who come here for a better life? what do you want to do about the high school dropout who has to wash dishes and may lose their job? where do they go? what do you want to do about the single mom who works three jobs just to put food on the table so they can feed her family? what happens to her? why when we talk about immigration reform is it always about the 11 million illegal immigrants who came here knowingly breaking america's laws? what about the legal americans? what about the american workers ? where is their voice in this debate? who's speaking for them? when it comes about immigration reform, i believe the answer is simple. let's secure america's borders first and protect america's

workers. i yield back. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my friend from pennsylvania's comments. and it is interesting and it really is heartbreaking. when you see so many people, like all of the masses that were here in washington to protest over the obamacare bill , anyway, it's rather dramatic. the unions now coming out, of course union leaders were all for obamacare and many of us said back at the time that, you know what? when the union members find out what the union leaders have done to them in supporting obamacare, they are going to be exceedingly upset. and now when you look at the results of obamacare, forcing so many people to part-time work, as my friend from pennsylvania was alluding to, people now have been relegated

to part-time work, they may lose that. when you combine this devastation of obamacare and people that are losing their jobs, are being forced to part-time work, and now having to do more than one part-time job with less benefits, and then you add on it the senate bill, especially for african-americans here, it is absolutely devastating. it is a devastating one-two punch to the gut of america when you look at the senate bill and how many americans will be really troubled to find employment. now, we have other people that are here that also wish to be heard and i want to recognize my friend, dr. fleming from louisiana, for such time as he may consume. mr. fleming: i want to thank my iend, louie gohmert, judge gohmert, for having this hour together, speaking on this

important subject. my friend also is my neighbor, ur district's -- our districts neighbor one another. and we have constituents who see this issue, i think, very consistently. and that is that when we poll them when we talk to our constituents, they are very clear on the issue of immigration. they say, first and foremost, congressman fleming, whatever you do, do what congress and the presidents have not been willing to do and that is to secure the border and to put internal security in that will prevent the visa overstays that are 40% of those. now, we have two lingering questions on the whole issue of immigration. one is, is immigration good for america? and i would suggest to you that immigration has been good for america. all of our forefathers, they were immigrants. they came here with the idea that they would receive

religious liberty, twhee receive opportunity when it comes to the economy, and they were quite willing and happy to contribute to that. but, you know what? there was no safety net. you had to dig it out of the land yourself. but over the years, particularly by the mid 1960's this nation began to develop a very, very steep safety net program, now 80 different welfare programs, and this has been looked at very closely by the heritage foundation and what they tell us is that by having open borders such as what we have now and will have in the future if we were to pass something like the senate amnesty bill, that the cost to americans would go up. one study i recently read said that for every household that receives amnesty, it's going to cost hardworking taxpayers of america $12,433. so i would suggest to you that

while immigration can be a good thing for the economy, not open-border immigration, not illegal immigration, but legal immigration. and what do i mean by that? that means that we allow a guest worker program where people can come in and work our farms, work our trees, i have a lot of that in my district. but also the high end, the stem workers, the scientists, technology people, engineering, math, where they can contribute so much to our country. physicians coming from asia, so many of those can do many good things. the other thing is trust. we have a trust deficit in this country. and i've spoken about it before. we have the dodd-frank act which is barely implemented, even after three years, much of it probably will never be implemented. we have obamacare which is about three years -- 3 years old. much of it can't be implemented. we have a president who couldn't get cap and trade passed so he's trying to pass

regulations to do that. a president who couldn't get the dream act passed so he rolled out a regulation to make it occur as an end run around congress. we have a president who has tried to convert the nlrb from a very violent sport to really manage labor unions and their relationship with management to a very prounion political tool for government. so when we have a situation like that, what we really have is a president that picks and chooses the laws that he wants to enforce and he wants to obey and he wants to acknowledge and ignore the rest. by passing all of these massive comprehensive bills that senators and members of congress don't even read before they're passed, all we're doing is offering a smorg he is board to the president that he can pluck. just the parts that he wants. and he could add some more if

he chooses to do that. well, that makes him no longer a president, that makes him a ruler. and that is not the kind of government we have. we have a balance between three branches of government. that's the way our founding fathers determined it to be and that's the way it should be today. so i think that -- i join my colleagues i think in this understanding and that is that such legislation that passes from this house or from the senate for that matter, if in fact it createance open border, -- it creates an open border or in any way creates amnesty or a pathway to citizenship, and we have not dealt with and certified, made verifiable borders that are under secure control by our government, a sovereign government, and that we handle the visa overstay problems that we monitor and protect from that, if we have

not done that, and we have not done our constitutional duties as members of the house of representatives. so i thank my friend so much and my other friends. we're filled with members here who are ready to talk on this i think ionately and you're going to hear a lot more from this group that's here tonight. as we talk more about this issue. and i would just say lastly that we need to decide what is important for america first. we should determine what is good for the american citizens and the taxpayers and we certainly want to handle anybody who's here illegally in a humane way, but on the other hand, our first and most important responsibility are to the american citizens who are hardworking taxpayers. thank you and i will be happy to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members are reminded that it is not in order to engage in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from texas.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. and at this time i appreciate very much my friend from louisiana. we do border at our state lines there and that's -- we can be just the best of friends and never worry about somebody being moved into the other person's district for redistricting purposes. but i appreciate so much the perspective and as a person who spent his professional life and his training all geared toward helping others, administering to others and addressing their needs, appreciate that perspective of an excellent physician here. at this time i'd also like to yield time to my friend from iowa, mr. king, for any such time as he may use. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from texas for pulling this together. and for yielding. and recognize the admonishment from the speaker.

i don't think, though, that we are constrained from raising objection when the president of the united states willfully violates his oath of office. and it's not a personality issue it's a constitutional issue. i would direct, mr. speaker, the attention to article 2, section 3 in the united states constitution that says that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. and i have pointed out to folks of less education than anybody in this room that that doesn't mean you execute the law in a -- in the fashion you give it the dealt penalty, instead it means you carry it out, you enforce the law. and i know the president has taken an oath to do, that he understands it, he gave a speech at a high school here in washington, d.c., march 28, 2011 when they asked him, why don't you enact the dream act order? tive

he said, i know you want me to do that but i don't have the constitutional authority to do that. you've been studying the constitution at the high school and you know this, that the legislature, that's congress, passes the laws. the president's job and executive branch is to enforce the laws and the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. that's pretty clean and concise and it's appropriate to be coming from a former adjunct professor of law at the university of chicago. but he forgot his own lesson. and he forgot his own lesson a number of times. not only with immigration, but with no child left behind, waived it, just a directive from the united states congress, signed by a previous president, he waived no child left behind. how about welfare to work? that long battle that lasted about two years here and resulted in who knows how many have video -- how many vetoes by bill clinton, but he finally signed it. there's no room in there for the president to waive the work side of welfare but he did it anyway. when it came to the imdwration law, the trecktific there is that when law enforcement

encounters people that are unlawfully present in the united states, they are compelled to place them in removal proceedings. they shall be placed -- that's the law, it doesn't say may, and we've had to now mount litigation against the president of the united states in the name now of janet napolitano to compel him by pleading to the court to keep his own oath of office. well, all of this is about expanding the dependency class in america. it's about making the government bigger, it's about higher taxes, it's about borrowing more money from the chinese and the saudis to keep running our government. when the president didn't like his own line -- his own law, obamacare, he announced it in an unusual way, the website of the second in command at the treasury said we're going to

the employer mandate. it says it shall be enacted in each month after december 1, 2013. it opportunity say may, it says shall. the only way the president gets any of this authority that i mentioned is to come back to congress and ask us to i prove it. when you see the rule of law undermined, mr. speaker. when you see the lines between article 1 the legislative branch d article 2, the executive branch are willfully blurred, it brings out a constitutional crisis. in thed my tholve constitutional crisis, we have, according to the people who want to grant amnesty, 11 million people unlawfully present in the united states. the law refers to them as illegal aliens. the president said i will not enforce the law against them unless they've committed a

felony or three mysterious misdemeanors and they have pushed legislation in the united states senate that says that -- it says that other than those exceptions i've mentioned, those who have committed felonies and been caught at it, i suppose if they admit to it that would be another category that would be disqualified, those who committed those three mysterious misdemeanors, everyone who came in is legalized. under the senate fwang of eight bill. then those who would arrive after december 31, 2011, there's an implied promise that they have as much moral standing as the people who would receive the amnesty and the act of the law so the implication powerfully is they also would receive their amnesty in their due time. that is the definition, mr. speaker, of perpetual amnesty.

amnesty that goes on forever if we couldn't restore, we're still working at restoring the rule of law since ronald reagan's 1987 amnesty act, we're working to restore it. if this gang of eight bill is passed or if legalization pass this is congress, what that says is, all of those years of seeking to restore immigration law after the 81986 amnesty act are all wasted. all of that labor, all of that effort, all of that preaching on principle and going back to the constitutional core, all wasted if we legalize people here. and it's also retroactive amnesty. anybody that's here -- not anybody that's here, anybody that ever gets here, other than those exceptions i mentioned, they get the path to citizenship whether you make it one more step or one less step this is the same thing, path to citizenship. amnesty, western understand what it is.

to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their violation. that's amnesty. so those who will say i'll debate anyone, any time, anyone who thinks it's amnesty, i'm ready to do that any time myself. i've defined amnesty for a long time. the american people understand hat it is. even if they don't articulate it the way i suggest. not only is it perpetual amnesty, it's also retroactive amnesty. which means those folks that were deported in the past, the bill actually sends an invitation through the language in the law that says, we didn't really mean it. we really didn't mean it. it's retroactive. why don't you reapply and come to the united states. we'll put you in the same path as those other folks who jumped in the head of the line, committed the crime of crossing the border if they cross it illegally or overstaying their visa, committed a violation of a

civil misdemeanor, which is still serious and those that worked worked here most all of them, if they were unlawfully present in the yeats and couldn't work in the united states, almost all of them committed document fraud in order to pull that off. and the bill grants amnesty for those who committed document fraud and grants amnesty for those who knowingly and willfully hired those who are unlawfully present in the united states and legally can't work. that's the situation we're dealing with. we're dealing with the destruction of the rule of law. at least with regard to immigration law. and if we can't reconstruct respect for the rule of law, in the years since 1986, how in the world would anybody think we could reconstruct the rule of law in the years since 013? and how anybody could think that because they want enforcement in the future, that they have to sacrifice the rule of law today, and how could they think sacrificing the rule of law today doesn't mean you sacrifice the rule of law for the duration

of the life of this nation? at least with regard wo immigration. and if you can make the argument that the rule of law can be set aside forever with rapt to -- with regard to immigration, how then do you make the argument that there isn't some other sector of the law that has as much merit as those folks they're trying to get legalized now. there isn't anybody urn the bill in the senate or under the amnesty provisions that have been proposed here in the house there isn't anybody that isn't going to be put in front of the line of those people that are in a foreign country, politely and respectfully waiting their turn. there are at least five million people in various visa categories that have respected american law, and they're waiting in their home country for the opportunity to come into the united states. we need their respect -- we need to respect them, we need to respect the millions of legal imgrants who have followed the law to come into the united states lawfully and to follow the path of citizenship

lawfully. i will give you an example, mr. speaker, of just last friday, i was invited to speak before the state convention of the american legion. they held it in sioux city, iowa, i was privileged to be there, and i gave a speech and talked about history and patriotism and those things that one would in that scenario. but at the conclusion of the speech, i presented the medals to an american veteran who had not received the medals he had earned and the certifications were not in order and we had put those certifications back in order, acquired all of his medals that he had coming, put them on a framework and i presented them to this man. and the man's name, it's in the press in sioux city, i'm sure, now, raul mesia. he came into the united states at age 22 from mexico, marry an american, naturalized as an

american citizen, joaned the army at age 31, was deployed over into germany as a cold war hero when we were lined up against the soviet union. and at one point he wandered across the board entire east germany and was picked up by those folks wearing those uniforms. thankfully they released him and let him come back. but he served our country, served proudly and honorably, and after all the words he is said on friday -- words he said on friday -- i presented him the microphone and he said three words in his acceptance speech. thank you, america. that's a man that did it the right way. the kind of people we need to respect by the millions in this country that did it the right way an it's no respect to to them if we destroy the rule of law, legalization is destruction of the rule of law and legalization is a path to citizenship and we must preserve prork tect, and defend and

restore and refurbish the rule of law with our immigration policy in the house. we are the last stop. we're the defense. we're the readout for -- redoubt for the rule of law right here. i'm glad to count a lot of people in this corning my friends. i'm glad to count those who stand for the rule of law as my closest friends. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: thank you, i appreciate those observations so much. it brings to mind our colleague from down in central texas, also a former district judge, he and i shared that, he was a district judge twice as long as i was. so many people say, well, you've got to have compassion. and despite the allegations from friends on the other side, we have compassion -- we have compassionate republicans. our heart breaks for people. for one thing, all of those people that are out of work that really want to work now, we have

created an environment through obamacare, through welfare state, through the problems with not respecting and adhearing to the rule of law when it comes to securing the border. the government has the obligation from both a biblical perspective and secular perspective of enforcing the law and making sure the people within its boundaries are protected who are lawfully there. that is the obligation. and judge carter, central texas, during his days on the bench, he -- as i sometimes, defendants would come before me, come before judge carter, they'd know you were christian, they'd bring a big bible, try to play on your senses, you have to have compassion, i've got a big bible here and god's worked in my life so now don't sentence meagher,ly. and judge carter had one gentleman come before him who

said, judge, i know you're a christian and so you've got to have forgiveness and you've got to forgive me. and judge carter replied, sir, individually, i do forgive you, but the state of texas sentences you to 20 years in prison. there's a difference, individually you can have that compassion and should. but when you're acting as the government, people expect you to have respect for the law, adherence to the law, and so that there is a country where people can come and feel safe, at least reasonably so, and understand that the law is going to be applied across the board. and we also have been joined by our friend from alabama, i'm proud to have had him join

congress back two and a half years ago in the great sweep and i yield such time as he may consume to my friend, mr. brooks from alabama. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. gohmert. i have a firm belief that if the people understand the truth, then they'll make the right decision. there have been a number of arguments advanced by the other side on this immigration/illegal alien debate that are misleading at best. i'm going to touch on a couple of them, with your permission. first and foremost, there is the argument advanced that our economy is going to do better and hence americans will do better. half of that is right. bear in mind that the senate gang of eight bill legalizes, at a minimum, 11 million illegal aliens who are now present in the united states of america. also bear in mind that over the next decade, according to the department of homeland security

report, the senate of -- senate gang of eight bill will bring into america, lawfully, roughly 33 million foreigners. who are not here presently. now put those numbers together. 11 million legalized plus 33 million coming in, lawfully, and that totals 44 million lawful workers added to the american work force. that is out of 144 million total number of people who are employed in the united states economy according to the june, last month, of 2013, bureau of labor statistics. if you look at these numbers, you bring in 44 million people of course america's gross national product and gross domestic product are going to increase. but the misleading part of it is this -- that does not necessarily translate into a

higher standard of living for americans and foreigners who are lawfully in america. and let me explain. the key is not total g.n.p. or g.d.p. for our country. the key is total g.n.p. and g.d.p. per capita. if our gross domestic product go ups a little bit but the population goes up a great amount, then we individually, american families individually, are now living under lower economic conditions. stated differently, our standard of living has declined. in that veen, rather than -- in that veen, rather than just making -- in that vein, rather than just making an argument, i want to share some data that put tresses that argument. the congressional budget office, which in my opinion has been rather kind to the senate gang

of eight, issued a report of the economic impact of s-7. this was issued last month in june of 2013. i'm going to quote, for the record, parts of that report. quote, s-744 would lower per capita gross national product by .7% in 2023. over the next 10 year period of time, rather than our g.d.p. growing our g.n.p. growing per capita and america doing better individually, it declines under this big. it's not just stagnant, the kind of stagnation we have suffered the last five or six years so there's a decline in g.n.p. per capita which means that the amount of money each american household has to spend to take care of their daily needs goes down because of the senate gang of eight bill because it is both legalizing and admitting into our country