they should have never done that. they should have allowed them to do everything correctly and do it by the book. not the people should suffer. it's wonderful. we were just going not even a few minutes. host: i will let you go there. the u.s. house is coming in next. thanks for all of your calls this morning. "washington journal" back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we're going to leave it right here as u.s. house is here today. morning hour speeches is up first and noon eastern they begin legislative discussion. we plan to bring you live coverage of benghazi during that reak. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 18, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable doug lamalfa to act as speaker pro tempore on this day.

signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to discuss the sixth leading cause of death in the united states of america and the fifth leading cause of death for those aged 65 years and older. it's a disease more than five million americans are living

with and the only cause of death among the top 10 in the united states without a way to cure it or slow its progression. it's a type of dementia that encompasses various diseases and conditions that damage brain cells. alzheimer's disease. september is alzheimer's month, a time spent by alzheimer's advocates promoting and educating on this life-changing disease. according to the als association, deaths from -- alzheimer's association, deaths . om alzheimer's increased during that same time period, deaths from other major diseases, such as heart disease, decreased. in my home state of pennsylvania in 2010, more than 3,500 individuals died from alzheimer's. my mom, mary thompson, suffered from alzheimer's for 10 years. as the disease slowly stole her

memories, her dignity and eventually her life. in 2010, congress passed legislation to create a national plan to combat alzheimer's disease. it establishes a national alzheimer's project within the department of health and human services to coordinate the country's approach to research and caregiving. this effort supports the amazing work being done through medical research and awareness to improve the lives of those who are living with alzheimer's. while awareness of alzheimer's has grown over the last deck'd, -- decade, we have a long way to go to educate and combat this disease. alzheimer's is a condition that most americans have encountered through a parent, a loved one, a friend or someone close they care about. however, together, through continued advocacy, research and the dedicated work of health professionals, care providers and scientific researchers, we can and will

make a difference. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mbovegove mr. speaker -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, week after week i stood on this floor and talked about hunger in america. i talked about the impacts of hunger in this country, how it affects kids, seniors and how our country is worse off because of hunger. i talked about ways to end hunger and expressed my commitment to end hunger now. the problem, mr. speaker, is that the republican leadership not only willfully ignores the plight of the hungry in america, they are actually moving legislation that will make hunger in america worse. just a few weeks ago, usda released the newest data on hunger in america. rates have essentially stayed

flat. that means statistically hunger hasn't gotten worse since the end of the great recession but it hasn't gotten any better either. the united states has a strong anti-hunger safety net. even though we have 49 million people who don't know where their next meal will come from, we know that nearly 48 million of them are enrolled in snap, formerly known as food stamps. it is a life tyne it provides low-income families access to food. now, let me address a common piece of misinformation. a fabrication that opponents of snap continue to use again and quen. snap is among the most effective and efficient, if not the most effective and efficient federal program in america. snap error rates, overpayments, underpayments, fraud rates are not only at all-time lows for the program, they are the lowest rates among any federal program. a make-believe talking point

designed to take away food from hungry here, yet, the republicans are bringing a bill to the floor tomorrow that if passed will undoubtedly make hunger worse in the country. it will make it worse for working mothers, fathers, for kids and even for our veterans. c.b.o. reports that the bill million people from snap. low-income means poor. on top of that the average -- an average of nearly three million people will be cut from snap each and every year in the coming decade. these are some of the nation's most destitute adults as well as many low-income children, seniors and families that work for low wages. that's right, people who work but don't make enough to feed their families will be cut from this program. the biggest cuts -- the biggest cut affects 1.7 million childless adults in 2014 who live in areas of high unemployment. hees are poor people, many

don't have the skills -- these are poor people, many don't have the skills to have a high-income job. $2,500 a year. and for most, snap is the only government assistance they receive. this bill also cuts an additional 2.1 million people from snap in 2014, mostly low-income working families and low-income seniors, these are people that have gross incomes or assets modestly above the snap limits but whose disposible income, income that a family has available to spend on food and other needs, it is low because of high rent or childcare costs. if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in those families would lose their free school meals. and 170,000 unemployed veterans would lose their snap benefits. and to top it all off, other poor unemployed parents who want to work but cannot find a job or an opening in a training program, along with their

children, other than infants, will be cut from the program. mr. speaker, i remember when combating hunger was a bipartisan issue, when bob dole worked with george mcgovern and bill emerson worked with tony hall. it didn't matter if you were liberal or conservative, ending hunger was a priority. the current republican leadership has blown that all up. we shouldn't do this, mr. speaker. there were no hearings on this bill, no markup, no semblance of regular order. and for what? to stick it to the working poor again? we should be doing everything we can to end hunger now. the republican bill just makes hunger worse and it should be soundly defeated. mr. speaker, i urge and i plead with both democrats and republicans to stand together, to come together in a bipartisan way and demand an end -- a demand to end hunger now. please, please, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, reject this republican leadership bill that is coming to the floor tomorrow. it is cruel, it is immoral, we are much better than this.

reject the leadership bill. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, although this hall is empty, there are a lot of people watching it. i wonder how many of them have actually gone hungry. how many of the people watching this that had to get -- give away meals so their kids could eat or wonder how to get through a summer without subsidized school lunches? it's easy to talk about pulling yourself up by your boot straps when you had designer shoes on your whole life.

tomorrow we'll be voting on whether or not to cut $40 billion from snap. that's the nutrition program for people who do not have access to adequate nutrition. it's a program that helps one out of seven americans to put food on the table. if this seems familiar, it's because it is familiar. republicans tried just exactly this before the august recess couple months ago and not surprisingly, the most unproductive congress in decades, this bill had to be pulled at the last minute because of lack of support. even some of the republicans thought it was too much. anyone who's been paying attention knows that symbolic votes to nowhere are bread and butter for this congress. but the republicans couldn't even get their own support on the bill. $20 billion of cuts that primarily help children and the

elderly wasn't enough for them. they had to hurt people more, so here we are again with a new improved plan that doubles the cuts to $40 billion. on top of making two million people ineligible for benefits, they are also going to take away our states' ability to provide temporary benefits in times of high unemployment. as a result, the c.b.o. predicts that this will add an additional 1.8 million hungry americans to the ineligible list. why are we attempting to inflict another needless round, another needless wound to the working poor? republicans will tell you the program has grown too much over the last few years. although the need for food stamps were unrelated to a dragging economy. they see no connection between the economy and the fact that people don't have food.

well, that's exactly what the program was designed to do quickly when people are in need. when unemployment is high and people can't pay their bills, that's exactly the time they need the snap program. caseloads rose dramatically when the recession hit. we laid off 700,000 people a month in 2007 but that growth has also slowed as the economy has recovered slowly. the c.b.o. projects that in just a few years snap spending will be back down to 1995 levels as a share of the g.d.p., and since it's shrinking on its own, it isn't adding to the long-term deficit problems. the rhetoric is simply empty and stupid. conservatives can try and push this tired welfare abuse narrative. it's a talking point. every time they come out here, welfare abuse, welfare abuse,

people are getting money for food, that's welfare abuse. food assistance has some of the lowest rates of fraud of any benefit program. if you go to one of those food banks and talk to the people who are there, you'll find some surprising people there, people who thought they would never have to go there but they are short on money and can't feed their kids so they're getting some money. so i ask you again, why are we doing this? wasting time to satisfy the right wing of the republican party? we are again catering to a fringe agenda, thought up by partisans obsessed with the deficit boogieman. that boogieman has been roaming around here for four years. we are going to have a terrible collapse. we are going to have inflation. we are going to have terrible things. it's never happened. the president has done a miraculous job in keeping us on an upward trek in spite of the

resistance of the other side. what it does is it makes it harder for four million people to put food on the table. so be it, that's their attitude. i'm in. at least they won't risk facing a primary in the next election. they're all worried about somebody further on the right. we already got one member over here, mr. speaker, who's worried about somebody coming from the right, and he's about the furthest right i can imagine on the floor. senate democrats and republicans appointed conferees to negotiate a farm bill back at the beginning of august. quit worrying about scoring points with the heritage foundation and let's focus on the american family and focus -- and vote this bill down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, for five minutes. ithout objection.

ms. schakowsky: you know, mr. speaker, i think each one of us, 435 has to ask ourselves, is this really what we were sent here to do? to take food out of the mouths of hungry people? nearly half of them children. that's what's at stake this week when we are asked to vote on legislation that would cut $39 billion from one of our nation's most successful and important programs, the slell -- supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, used to be called food stamps. you know, as a jew we just came through the jewish holidays, and we talked about what it means to be a human being in this world, in this country. every major religion, every

religion in this world and represented in this house teaches to feed the hungry. not as charity but as a mandate because that's what it is to be a human being. in our world. all the religions have written letters and implored us not to to this. i participated three times in the congressional food stamp challenge in which we eat on $31.50 for an entire week. and i'm not complaining about it because i knew it was just a week and it would end, but that's the average snap benefit. you know what? you can get the calories, that's easy as you go to the grocery store, if you're lucky enough to live near a grocery ore and not a food desert, but the reality is for 48 million people, you can get the

calories, but it's really hard to get the nutrition. by the time you get to the fruits and vegetables, which are quite expensive, it's hard to do it. that's not comfortable to rely on snap benefits, and many people line up at the end of the month at food pantries that are everywhere in this country, including some of the richest districts. but the snap program, which has a bipartisan history, is the last line of defense between 48 million americans and chronic hunger. you know, the house already voted down a farm bill that included $20 billion in snap cuts, and it would have taken benefits away from a million children, and would have prevented or -- at least up to a million children and would have prevented 200,000 hungry children from getting school lunches that they rely on so much.

and now this bill is back and on steroids. in addition to all of the devastating cuts that have been proposed, the house -- that were rejected earlier, the new bill would prevent any able-bodied adult from getting more than three months of snap benefits during a three-year period, even if they are unable to find work. and many of those people are veterans, up to 170,000 people who served our country would be denied. this is at a time when unemployment among low-income americans is over 20% and the average time of unemployment is about nine months. those numbers don't add up. that means the passage of this bill could nearly starve those looking for work and no one can deny that fact. i know how snap benefits my constituents, and i know what would happen if those benefits were lost. i have attended several events at food pantries and community centers and each time i have

heard resounding support for snap. in just one day i received 242 postcards from my constituents urging me to oppose these dangerous cuts to the snap program. they have my vote and imhe' imploring my -- imploring my colleagues it should have the vote of everyone in this body to reject those cuts. constituent who previously wrote to my office summed up her thoughts about the snap program, here's what we said, hungry thoughts every waking day are my constant companion. here in the supposedly wealthiest country on earth, and it is. please have compassion for your low-income and fixed-income constituents who are loyal, patriotic americans and who are in dire need of nutritious and affordable food, unquote. a former snap beneficiary, a woman described the program as a trampoline rather than safety

net because of snap she was able to make ends meet for her young family during a period of time of great need. her story is similar to most snap beneficiaries who no longer need food assistance within one year of receiving benefits. i'm begging my colleagues to please don't support these cuts. let's be the value-driven country that we are and vote no to the $40 billion cut to snap. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, for five minutes. ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the ongoing republican war on the floor, that's what this is. and their attempt to gut our nation's critical safety net against hunger one more time.

this past june the republican leadership failed millions of farmers and millions of struggling families when they could not pass a farm bill. they allowed the extremist tea party fringe of their party to poison the farm bill with amendment and so-called reforms that in fact would only increase hardship and hunger in america. instead of working across the aisle to find a better solution that would create jobs and protect families, the republican leadership has chosen to bring an even more hurtful, toxic and heartened nutrition bill to the floor. this new bill includes all of the extremist amendments that killed the first farm bill. it also piles on even more restrictions and so-called he reforms that only served to increase hardship or hungry families, children, seniors, and veterans. these false reforms will dramatically reduce access to vital nutrition assistance all across america, rural and

urban. in every single one of our congressional districts. this bill would also end critical flexibilities for our starts and cripple smart and targeted programs that allow states to efficiently deliver nutrition assistance to the neediest. for example, the republican nutrition only bill would end categorical eligibility for all our states. we created this to streamline social service suisse can lower administrative costs and put more of these dollars directly into the hands of needy families. this republican bill would end those positioning, raise costs for our states, and make it harder for families to get the help they need. this bill also claims to create work requirements for abled-bodied adults. let me remind my colleagues that the snap program already has very restrictive work requirements. the current snap program cuts off able-bodied adults after just three months of benefits right now. we only allow states to adopt

waferingse for when unemployment -- waivers for when unemployment in their states rise high enough that this restriction is clearly unream. the new so-called reforms would cut everybody off, no matter what the unemployment rate is in their state. this is just heartless. these cuts would come at a time when the republicans have blocked every single effort to pass a real jobs bill in the house and cut job training and job placement assistance. let me tell you, as a former food stamp recipient myself, i know that people don't want to be on food stamps. they want to work. so if we are going to put work requirements on people, why in the world don't we pass a jobs bill so they can work? at a time when our nation should be creating opportunities for all, the house republican leadership proposed to cut snap by $40 billion, this would surely create a bleaker future for our children, our seniors, and our overall economy. if this bill ever becomes law, and i hope it doesn't, at least

four to six million low-income children, seniors, and families will be cut from this economic lifeline and pushed into poverty. and like about 29 of my colleagues, i have taken the food stamp challenge about three times and ate off of $4.50 a day. it was unhealthy and difficult. yet i knew it would only last a week for me. yet millions of americans see o end in sight and now, mind you, now they have to worry that this meager benefit, this pittance that it's going to be cut even more. instead of gutting snap we need to strengthen it. not only does snap help put food on the table for struggling families, it helps stimulate growth. for every $1 in snap benefits, we generate $1. 5 in economic activity. congressman conyers and i have introduced new legislation that would extend the snap benefits that were increased as part of

the stimulus package. otherwise, many don't know this, on november 1 every single family or individual who receives snap benefits now will see an automatic cut of about $29 per month for a family of three. this will happen regardless of this $40 billion nutrition cut. in 2011, snap lifted 4.7 million americans out of poverty. without snap millions more would fall into poverty. millions of americans would suffer hunger in and our economy would create even fewer jobs and be worse off. i just have to say our values as americans and who we are as a country recognize these despicable cuts are immoral and they are un-american. we need to provide opportunity to help lift families out of poverty, grow the economy, and create economic stability for all. so let's restore our unified farm bill. let's put an end to these

draconian cuts to snap. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey, for five minutes. without objection. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, there's a cruel war being waged on the poor and hungry in america. i stand today as a voice for more than 1.6 million texas households who depend on snap. cuts to snap, our nation's first line of defense against hunger, are immoral. i will not stand by as my republican colleagues continue to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable americans. house republicans unveiled on monday a plan to cut over $40 billion in snap over the next 10 years. this proposed package would eliminate basic food assistance for over four million americans, including poor jobless adults in areas of high unemployment, working poor

families, children, seniors, and even struggling veterans. some might say that the proposal is an attempt to reduce fraud or waste in the program. some say benefits are going to adults who don't want to work. but i have news for people who say that. you try earning minimum wage working hard every day and you will still, after working 40 hours a week he at the end of the year, only make around $15,000. none of these -- all of these claims are misleading to the public. snap fraud has been reduced to about one cent per dollar spent on the program, according to the most recent usda statistics. the cuts will come from benefits that many americans need to survive. these cuts will take food out of our seniors' refrigerators and food from the mouths of our babies. this new legislation unfairly targets millions of unemployed adults who want to find work but due to a bad economy and a sluggish recovery, they cannot

find a job. this includes republicans, too. i worked at a grocery store in texas when i was in high school, and i saw republicans come in from republican strongholds by lake worth, hazel they were on snap. people need to stop stereotyping the program. proponents claim that these cuts represent work requirements. but that is willfully misleading, mr. speaker. the provisions would callously terminate food aid to people who are willing to work but just can't find a job. just a few short weeks ago the republican leadership of this house tried to eliminate the snap benefits entirely when they stripped the nutrition program from the farm bill. this is a cruel fault against the most vulnerable and neediest americans. those afact fekted by the bill's harshest provisions include even low-income veterans, putting their food at risk for 170,000 of

approximately 900,000 veterans who receive snap. mr. speaker, i also participated in the snap challenge this year and lived on a budget of $4.50 a day and can attest it was not easy. i had to make tough decisions and realized firsthand how difficult it is to follow a healthy diet on such a limited budget. i made difficult choices as families do every day. between purchasing nutritious options and what's on sale. as a father of a 7-year-old son i cannot imagine the decisions many texans have to make every day, including skipping a meal to provide nutrition for their kids. when drafting this legislation did anyone take the time to think about how these snap cuts would hurt our kids? nearly half of all snap participants are kids. this represents close to one in three children in the united states without access to nutritious meals, our children are put at risk of developmental delays, poor

physical health, and many other ailments. mr. speaker, we need to do everything that we can to keep the snap program going. the conditions i have talked about are very serious. when you think about affecting a child's ability to learn and perform well in school, these long-range implications have a dire consequence for our entire economy. i ask my -- i ask my friends on the other side of the aisle that support these cuts, what do these kids, as i just talked about, what did these kids do to deserve these cuts? this past year some 49 million americans lacked access to adequate food because they didn't have enough money or other resources to meet their basic food needs. . i represent a constituent in my district who is both elderly

and disabled and she receives about $93 a month in snap benefits but recently those -- but recently those were cut to about $52 a month. that's only $1.73 a day. and if this bill passed she will be cut off the program entirely. i asked proponents of this program, where is she to find assistance for her nutrition needs? i refuse to stand silent as some propose we take foods out of the mouths of the hungry. snap is also a very powerful anti-poverty program that has helped make our economy stronger. in 2011, snap kept 4.7 million people out of poverty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, for five minutes. mr. lujan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, it's

tim for congress to work together on a commonsense solution to address the impacts of climate change. as we begin hispanic heritage month, it's important for us to recognize the impact climate change is disproportionately having upon minority communities across the country. whether it's farmers and ranchers in my home state of new mexico struggling through devastating drought conditions or communities that are being impacted by recent flooding as a result of more severe weather, millions of americans have been impacted by the effects of climate change. released earlier this year, a survey conducted by public policy polling found 74% of latinos believe climate change is a serious problem, a higher level than the 65% among all american adults. 68% of latinos support the president using his authority to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, including 60% of all american adults.

69% of latinos agree with the president's statement that for the sake of our children and our future we must do more to combat climate change compared to 62% of all american adults. combating climate change, preserving our land, water and air is a top priority for many americans, especially those in minority communities. for years a coalition of stakeholders, including hispanic farmers and ranchers, tribal communities, conservation groups, hunting and fishing organizations and local governments came together to lay the foundation that led to president obama establishing the rio grande del norte national monument this year. this is the type of advocacy that can make a real difference in addressing climate change. by establishing this we created economic certainty for farmers and ranchers, increased recreation and tourism opportunities and most importantly, protecting our land, water and air for future

generations. mr. speaker, i've also come to the floor today to express my concern for the house republican's plan to slash funding for the supplemental nutrition assistance program . this program is vital to many new mexicans, especially our children. sadly, new mexico ranks near the bottom when it comes to childhood well-being and ranks worse among childhood hunger. the plan to cut $40 billion to the snap program goes to the most extreme views. they tried to cut $20 billion. so the new plan goes further at a time when many communities are struggling from a slow economy, even including a provision that includes high unemployment areas from receiving additional assistance. today we have 47 million americans living in poverty, and while we should be doing more to address the root causes, we should not turn our backs on those struggling to make ends meet that cut benefits that help put food on the table for working families. i believe we all share a goal

of creating a stronger economy let's not s jobs and make the most vulnerable among us to pay the steepest price. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. enyard, for five minutes. -- mr. enyart, for five minutes. without objection. mr. enyart: mr. speaker, during the 35 years i spent in the military, it was my privilege to lead outstanding men and women in our armed forces. many are still serving today. they served with honor and distinction, yet here we are talking about treating the lowest pay to them like second-class citizens, unworthy of basic assistance during these difficult times. i was elected to congress to represent everyone in the 12th congressional district of illinois. i represent the poorest county

in the state of illinois. 100,000 people in my district, most of them children, or seniors, live below the poverty line. my district has a higher proportion of veterans than any other district in the state. i answered to active duty military and veterans who rely on snap benefits to make ends meet. they exist in my district and in every district represented in this house. mr. speaker, does anyone in this chamber wish to tell them in this hour of need their country is turning their back on them? who among us wants to decide which of these service members, which of these veterans deserve assistance and which do not? i know i don't. according to the census bureau, about 7% of people who report prior military service also report receiving snap benefits. since this data indicates that some 1.5 million households with a veteran are receiving

snap benefits. the base pay of most recent enlistees from corporals on down are at or below the $23,000 poverty rate for a family of four. at military economy sears nationwide, nearly $44 million snap benefits were redeemed. stars and stripes reported in 2011 food stamp purchases at military economy sears tripled -- commisaries tripled. approximately 900,000 veterans currently receive food aid and proposed cuts would impact around 170,000. according to the "hill" newspaper, more than $98 million in snap benefits was redeemed by veterans in 2012. the huffington post reported in 2011 both active duty members and military retirees used more than $100 million in federal

food aid last year. 16% of snap benefits are disabled. many of them veterans. snap benefits are already scheduled to go down. on november 1, families of three will lose $29 a month. now that doesn't sound like very much, but the daily per person per meal benefit will be less than $1.40. recently, one illinois veteran was quoted as saying, i relocated and the job i was supposed to get fell through. i lived off my savings but found myself needing to apply for emergency assistance to sustain until i found a job. i, like many others, was only receiving assistance for a short period of time. but i don't know what i would have done without it. they served us with honor and distinction, mr. speaker. some are still serving. now it is time for us to serve them with a measure of honor

and distinction of our own. i urge my colleagues to reject these shameful proposals which would cut this basic level of assistance to deserving recipients who need it now more than ever. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, for five minutes. without objection. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i probably don't need five minutes to say what i would like to say. his is a very sad moment for the most powerful nation in the istory of this planet. we are on the verge of a government shutdown over ideology. i can remember 1995.

i was the mayor of kansas city en the government shut down, and the impact was herculean, not just here in washington but around the country and around the world. and if we are proud to be americans, it means we pay our bills. we are the only nation that still allows a vote by a legislature on paying our bills. most countries won't do that because they don't need any disruption in paying their debts. we are close to declaring to the whole world that we don't pay our bills. the other part that's troublesome is this whole issue of snap, or food stamps, and

there are so many myths that roll around that it just turns my stomach. i didn't live in a house with running water or electricity until i was 7 years old. we lived in public housing. my father worked three jobs. he eventually was able to buy a home. i know what it's like to be poor. i know what it's like to struggle. my father was able to send my mother to school when i was in the eighth grade to college and then all four of his children graduated in college, too, with postgraduate degrees. and so i am always insulted when i hear all of these irref rent and nasty comments about poor people, and we spread this around the country to the point

of absurdity. we spread lies. well, people go into stores and they buy alcohol with food stamps. well, we don't have food stamps anymore. we have cards. economic benefit transfer cards. and in spite of the lies people tell, you can't buy alcohol with cards. you can't buy lottery tickets. i heard members of congress, this congress, tell people they know people in prison are getting food stamps and they've seen people buy alcohol with food stamp cards. it doesn't work, and it divides and damages this nation. the other lie, over 70% of the people receiving snap benefits are the elderly, the disabled and children and we are against

helping them? another 25% are people who work every day. they can't make enough to survive. i remember growing up and my mother would say, eat everything on your plate, there are starving kids in africa. i am not sure how eating everything was helping them. i'm still struggling with that. but there are starving people not far from here, and the government of the united states is saying we'd rather shut down, we'd rather shut down than to have a program that deals with the people who are in trouble. i just heard a few moments ago about a 101-year-old person whose daily meals, meal on wheels have been reduced. 101 years old.

and people are celebrating that. mr. speaker, this is a sad, sad day. and by the end of next week when we shut down, it's going to be much sadder. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks the meltdown of lehman brothers, the five-year anniversary of the greatest financial crisis in a generation that struck our country. this economic disaster nearly caused the destruction of our country's entire financial infrastructure and led to what we now call the great recession. however, wall street, during the last five years, has actually profited greatly from this crisis and in the process have caused continual financial failures of millions of americans. jpmorgan chase, bank of america, citigroup, wells

fargo, goldman sax and morgan stanley have all reported record profits -- goldman sachs and morgan stanley have all reported record profits with interest. wouldn't the american people like to be in that position? meanwhile, main street has yet to see a real robust recovery. the roots of the recession began in the late 1990's when a majority in this congress first overturned something called the glass-steagall act, which separated speculative banking from prudent banking, and then in 2000 refused to regulate the trading of derivatives by hamstringing the commodity futures trading commission. wall street turned once stable investments into the toxic assets that brought down our economy. american taxpayers were then asked to bail out these same

banks responsible for trashing our economy and facilitating the single greatest redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in american history. our middle class has shrunk, and guess what, the ranks of the poor shot up. it's no wonder people can't afford to pay for food. american citizens continue to struggle to recuperate their lost wealth from a clever banking system that stole their equity. . the federal reserve bang of dallas recently reported that the cost of the collapse to the united states economy was up to $14 trillion. is it any wonder we have rising debt levels? it could be more when you factor in he potential permanent losses in earning pow -- in potential permanent losses in earning power by americans not paying taxes anymore because they are not working yet. according to the economic policy institute from 2000 to 2011 the median income for

working-age household fell from approximately $64,000 a year to $55,000. this is a decline of nearly 13%. the u.s. census bureau paints a similar bleak picture of the he precipitous decline in the american household income. it shows the overall median income of households has continued to fall since the start of the recession and now people are earning, guess what, similar to what their median income was in 1988. they lost decades of growth. income inequality has only widened during the crisis, where only the top 5% of income earners in our country saw an increase in their earnings between 2010 and 2011. the top is doing fine. everybody else is not. in addition, a g.a.o. report earlier this year estimated that the total loss of household equity from the crisis to be $9 trillion. those are some your neighbors

and mine. what a property taking that is. losses on this level prevent americans from owning their own homes, opening their own businesses, or going to college and ultimately creating their own american dream. meanwhile, on wall street we see the enormous accumulation of banking assets and vast financial power in a handful of institutions. j.p. morgan chase, bank of america, goldman sachs. all of them are making enormous profits, indeed the highest profits in the nation along with the oil companies. 15 greers ago -- years ago the assets of the six largest banks were approximately 17% of gross domestic product. today estimates for the assets of those same banks are equivalent to over half of our gross domestic product. so six institutions, j.p. morgan chase, bank of america, citigroup, wells fargo, goldman sachs, and morgan stanley control an enormous percentage of our banking system and in

turn your future and our nation's future. that is too much power in the hands of the big six. america is currently in the midst of the slowest recovery from a he recession since world war ii, and it's important that this congress not sit idly by. in the five years since the recession, we have only managed to put more money in the pockets of the top 1%, ignoring the difficulties of the bottom 99%. one way to begin rectifying this situation is to reinstitute the glass-steagall act, co-sponsor h.r. 129, the return to prudent banking act, and the executive branch should prosecute the predatory practices of those institution that is have led to this harm to the american people. there should be no statute of limitations on the justice owed to the american people. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for five minutes. r. cicilline: thank you.

mr. speaker, i rise today to express my strong opposition to the deep cuts to nutrition programs that are being proposed this week by my friends on the other side of the aisle. the supplemental nutrition assistance program provides critical food and nutrition support for hardworking families in cities and towns across my home state of rhode island. the united states department of agriculture estimates that more than 180,000 rhode islanders rely on this important program every day. once again house republicans have decided rather than working to come to a bipartisan agreement on the farm bill, they'll instead pander to the far right of their party and in doing so impose real hardships on america's working families and put many children at risk of going hungry all across our country. while protecting generous subsidies for agricultural corporations, our republican colleagues are threatening the food security of our most

vulnerable neighbors. so let's review this package of cuts to the nutrition program and consider its impact on children, seniors, veterans, and families. first, the congressional budget office estimates this proposal would cut snap funding by at least $40 billion. some of these cuts would be particularly devastating for seniors and the low-income families. for example, this bill would eliminate categorical eligibility, putting working families at greater risk of going hungry and eliminating the incentive to find work. currently a working mother who makes little more than $24,000 a year qualifies for snap if her disposable income falls under 130% of the poverty line due to the rising costs of childcare or rent. this bill would eliminate this provision and deny working mothers and children in 40 states from receiving necessary nutrition assistance. make no mistake, this places a cruel purd on working families who -- burden on working families who least afford it.

it gets worse, another provision would require a mother of any child a year of age to work or participate in and traing program or risk losing their assistance. at a time of high unemployment and dwindling resources for job training this bill means that a 2-year-old could go hungry if the child's mother can't participate in job training or find work. of course these provisions don't only impact working families. even a veteran receiving disability compensation could lose their exemption and have their nutrition assistance terminated if they can't find a job under this bill. these cuts imposed on the backs of disabled veterans, children younger than 6, and working moms are bad enough. but to compound these cuts the republican farm bill makes it more likely additional beneficiaries will be hurt as well. this legislation would actually encourage individual states to kick people off nutrition assistance by promising them 50% of the savings. of course some of this is old news. we are here debating this issue again shockingly the immoral

outrageous cuts i have outlined weren't enough for the conservative fringe. they weren't satisfied with cutting funding for snap. they demanded even deeper cuts that would force more children and more unemployed workers to go hungry. they insisted more seniors invested, the people who helped build this country should be turned away at the local market. the house republican leadership was happy to comply and they decided to make a bad bill worse. they doubled the cuts imposed on the snap program and chose to slash nutrition assistance by a total of $40 billion. these newer cuts target jobless adults without children who live in areas of high rates of unemployment. the national association of evangelicals said they were, quote, especially concerned about this proposal. let's not mischaracterize this as a new work requirement. the changes proposed in this bill tells people who are struggling to find work in the difficult economy that if their job search goes on longer than three months they should go hungry, too. but the bill does not provide

additional work force training resources and doesn't invest in job creation to help individuals find work. this sends a clear message, if you're struggling to find a job in an area hard hit by the recession, get ready because in a few months you are also going to struggle to eat. let's not forget the context in which this particular bill was drafted. it comes after house republicans stripped out the nutrition title and passed the rest of the farm bill. in other words, they were happy to provide agricultural companies with extremely generous subsidies to purchase crop insurance. they were happen to spend $40 billion on commodity programs, but nutrition assistance for children and unemployed was apparently a bridge too far. dozens of religious groups and other leaders have strongly opposed this bill. earlier this week the united states conference of catholic bishops reminded us that, quote, how the house chooses to address our nation's hunger and nutrition programs will have a profound human and moral consequence. the jewish federation argued that this bill, would quote, constitute untenable trauma to

millions of americans and their families. former senate majority leader bob dole, a republican, warned this is no time to play politics with hunger. they sent a clear message, this bill is wrong. it's immoral and does not reflect our values as a country. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this proposal. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares >> house republican leaders met this morning and house speaker john boehner announced after the meeting added to the house calendar this week is debate and votes on funding to keep the government operating past the current temporary funding date, september 30. it will also include language

defunding the nation's health care law. the associated press adds, house majority leader eric cantor says the house will also push to delay the health care law for a year as part of a plan to extend the government's ability to borrow. he said that talks will also include a path forward on tax reform and approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline. we expect to hear more on this when the house gavels in back -- back in this afternoon, live coverage here on c-span. the house gaveling in at noon eastern. while the house break is under way we'll go live now to the congressional hearing on the investigation into the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. quick note, we welcome your comments on the benghazi investigation at #cspanchat. we join this this progress. >> these requests, since they were all met, i believe i was generally aware that they were -- >> there was no request that went unanswered? >> except for one. there was a request that was debated about whether or not we should elect massive guard towers.

>> did the secretary of state know about any of that? >> no. because the requests were being met. >> let me ask you. why isn't the senior staff and why wasn't the secretary of state interviewed by the r.f.e.? >> that was the question you'll have to ask -- >> did you convain any emails or information you had to the a.r.b. any way? >> other than the reference of talking to ambassador pickering after he had been -- >> you were interviewed inenvelopely? >> there were press reports i was never interviewed. that is false. i was formally interviewed. >> why wouldn't they include that -- you listed on the list? >> yes. >> let me ask you if i could the employment of foreign emergency teams who made that decision not to employ? was the request made and who made the decision not to employ? >> i was asked i, in my role as the management official of the

state department, need the feds to be employed. i said no, for two reasons. one, by the time -- it's not a responsibility use. it is a command and control airplane. the kind we did send to nairobi after -- >> was a request made and did you approve it or deny it? >> i was asked -- the decision is an interagency decision. i was simply asked do i need the capabilities of the fest? since it did not bring military assets to bear it was based in the u.s. and would have taken at least 16 or 18 hours. >> let me ask you -- mr. bam bass door, why was the security team repeatedly ordered to stand down after the attack began who made that decision? >> i am not aware of any c.i.a. security team being ordered to stand down. >> why weren't assets that were in close proximity to the attack deployed to assist our beleaguered and now murdered

ambassador? >> there was no stand down order, sir. there was never a stand down order. a let me ask you a querks how many benghazi survivors were forced to sign nondisclosure agreements? >> the state department does not tell people to sign nondisclosure agreements. >> are you aware of nondisclosure agreements and how many are there? >> i am not aware of any nondisclosure -- >> just where the benghazi survivors are since access to them has been difficult. >> one benghazi survivor is -- was seriously injured in the second attack and is still in the hospital. the other four have resumed duties around the world. >> could i ask you with regards to those, as my colleague says, and the children so eloquently stated, four people get censored, they apparently keep receiving a full pay for a vacation. it appears there was that famous

scene in the fictional "clear and present danger" where the president tells in the john clancy novel, it's the old potomac two-step, people at the lower level take the hit while other people in the know or should is have been in the know walk and are never even interviewed. how do you respond that? to the american people and members on both sides of the aisle, we are concerned that the lessons learned -- i chaired the hearings on the a.r.b. and wrote a law to beef up or embassy security, i was the prime sponsor of it, and it is law, yet we still have a situation where we have learned more than a dozen years later and very people who should be held bible aren't even interviewed, that's appalling. . >> there are several questions there. let me try to take them in sequence. you asked about accountability. with respect to the four individuals, i believe that they were held accountable by

releaving them of their position. one of them actually resigned as assistant secretary for diplomatic security. so -- >> they got paid this whole entire time of their resignation? where did they work? what did they do? >> congressman, it is i believe an essential element of american fairness that i know this committee fully supports because i have seen many of the legislation pieces that you authored that says a person is entitled to a review. and what secretary kerry did was engage -- >> did they initiate a review? i know i'm out of time. did they themselves initiate a review? we have been unfairly -- >> not that i'm aware of, sir. >> thank you. >> we go to mr. gerry connolly of virginia. >> mr. chairman, before the clock starts ticking, i request that i be granted the same amount of time as the gentleman

from new jersey. >> without objection. >> i thank the chair. i also want to thank the chair for the tone in which he began this hearing with a very thoughtful statement. he's quite correct. all committees of congress, it seems to me, ought to follow your advice which is try to understand what happened and try to make sure we take whatever measures we can to prevent this occurrence, no to the exploit it for partisan political gain. i've been involved in this town for a long time. i was on the committee staff when the tragedy of lebanon occurred where our embassy blew up not once but twice on ronald reagan's clock. i don't recall an a.r.b. review of what happened. although there should have been one. we understood that was a national tragedy. and we came together. i wish more of our colleagues would follow the spirit which you set the tone of this hearing, mr. speaker, and i thank you for doing so. i would ask unanimous consent also that my full statement

include appendix b be included in the record. >> without objection. >> i thank the chair. by the way, part of that is a statement called fact vs. fiction prepared by the government oversight and reform staff that lays out many of the commonly repeated accusations about benghazi that just aren't true. mr. ambassador, by the way, my good friend from florida, ms. ileana ros-lehtinen, would have us believe money played absolutely no role in the decision about security allocations around the world. >> if the gentleman would yield. that's not my statement. those are the witnesses' testimony and the a.r.b. report. >> there was a briefing where i put that question to ambassador pickering and he acknowledged that of course money plays a role. sometimes when people say it's not about money it's about money. let me just ask, mr. kennedy,

have i got my facts right? n f.y. 2011, this congress cut $327 million from the request of diplomatic security, construction and maintenance? >> i believe that is the correct figure. >> $327 million. the following fiscal year, this same congress cut another $183 million from the request, is that correct? >> i believe that is the correct amount. >> and then in f.y. 2013 it cut $145 million, is that correct? >> i believe that is the correct amount, sir. >> and we kind of came to our senses after the tragedy of benghazi and restored some of those funding and restored it, is that correct in >> that is correct and deeply appreciated. >> thank you, in secretary. the idea that money doesn't play a role is simply not true. the chairman indicated in his opening statement, and he's

quite right about accountability. i think people are troubled about that. but he also is talking about the follow-up to the benghazi tragedy and he said no one has been captured or killed. and i deeply respect the chairman of this committee but i find it ironic, the impolicity criticism of this administration that did what the previous administration couldn't do for seven years. they captured and killed the man who perpetrated the tragedy of 9/11, the memorial of which we just remembered. had a is the status of the benghazi follow-up that you can share with us? are we going to hold -- we are talking about accountability within the state department. how about accountability for the terrorists who perpetrated this heinous crime? and engineered the death of our four brave fellow americans? as the president and the secretary has said, we are engaged in every effort to ring the terrorists to

justice. this is under the purview by the f.b.i., assisted by the state department. the briefings i received, which unfortunately i can't go into in detail in this setting, the f.b.i. and others are engaged in a full-court press on this. no one is leaving any stone unturned to bring these individuals to justice. >> what about libyan security? part of the problem on that terrible day was frankly libyan security, the responsibility of the host government kind of dissolved. what's the status of that? >> the state department and the department of defense are working with the government of libya to get them a security force that is capable of doing -- doing the job they are required to do, but in the interim period of time, we have reinforced our embassy in

tripoli with a significant number of state department personnel and a significant number of u.s. military personnel who are on scene now. >> and the status of our mission in benghazi? >> our mission in benghazi is closed. >> because of the security status? >> because the security situation there is not -- there's nothing we could do at the moment to mitigate the security risks of a reopened presence there, sir. >> mr. chairman, i think i still have -- with respect to the a.r.b., in your opinion, this was a rigorous and hard-hitting report, is that correct in >> yes, sir. >> is there anything with respect to the recommendations of findings that the state department is not following up on and not trying to implement? >> no, sir. we are working through every single one. . ere are 29 recommendations

as the representative from florida indicated, we have broken that up into 64 separate tasks in order we can manage the process as efficiently and effectively as possible, and working through -- we are working through every single one of them. we have completed -- we have completed many of them. others take time because they involve construction or other matters, but there is nothing that we are lagging on. >> by the way, this issue of whether an order was given to stand down the u.s. military, preventing the military from responding, and i heard you say several times, not true, no such order was given, i'd just like to make a point for the record that our colleagues on the house armed services committee this summer issued a press release from the majority staff that said in his testimony l.t.c. gibson clarified his responsibilities

and access during the attack. contrary to news reports gibson was not ordered to stand down by higher command authorities response to his understandable desire to have soldiers in benghazi. >> that statement has been corroborated by the general of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, saying there was no standdown order given. >> thank you for your courtesy. >> thank you, mr. connolly. we go now to mr. rohrabacher of california. >> before my time starts running here, i would request to have the same amount of time as my good friend -- >> may i suggest that members on the democratic and publican side -- i've kept copious notes here, and i know how much time everyone has gone over and we are dead even. because there are a lot of freshmen on this committee, we

will hold everyone to five minutes, and i will start the time now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. rohrabacher. >> let's hope this hearing is a step forward in an effort to break down what i consider to be a wall of deceit and denial in an attempt to hide the truth from the american people about this benghazi attack. it's been over a year, and the american people have a right to know the truth and they deserve to know it. this idea there has been a full-court press going on, it's over a year now since our ambassador was murdered along with the other brave americans who died that night. and don't tell me that's a full-court press when we haven't even pointed our finger at the people of the organization and a finger at these ple who murdered people. with all due respect to my friend from virginia, assistant secretary lam, testified here

and i know because it was my question specifically, did budget considerations play any role in the decision as to what level of security would be at in benghazi? she said no. and just for the record, she, by saying no, and making sure it was a matter of policy and not budget, was -- she's been one of the ones relieved of her position. wonder why she got relieved of her position after she was able to testify, something like that, before congress? mr. ambassador, we need to know a number of things. i am going to go through some questions for you. was there an autopsy considered on ambassador stevens' body, yes or no? >> yes, it was conducted by the air force military at dover air force base. >> when there are homicides committed against american citizens, are those autopsies then permitted to be made

public, for example, congressional investigations? >> i will have to -- the autopsy was turned over to the f.b.i. ways with the investigating agency. i was informed by the f.b.i. at one point that he died of smoke inhalation. >> i am not asking what he died of. right now if there is an autopsy, is that being kept by investigators? >> i'll take that question back to the f.b.i., sir. >> when you talk about military units not being dispatched, there was no standdown order and they weren't -- but they weren't sent, because there wasn't enough time, let me put -- i put myself on the record for this point. no one knew how long this attack was going to exist and go on. we don't know how long this attack would last. anybody who did not dispatch troops or dispatch aid or assistance of some kind to our ambassador who was under attack had no idea whether it was

going to be a one-hour battle, a four-hour battle or two-day battle and not dispatching help that is a dir election of some type -- dereliction of some type of responsibility. were there other american government employees, perhaps the c.i.a., in benghazi at that ime who could have gone to our ambassador's assistance? were they ordered to stand down? >> there was a team from the annex that did go to the temporary mission facility and did relieve the pressure on that facility. subsequent low -- >> they were -- and apparently those two navy seals that got there were ordered not to go, is that correct? >> mo, sir, i am not aware of that at all. >> all right. >> a quick -- >> not aware doesn't mean no.

>> no, sir, i mean no. a quick reaction team went from the annex to the temporary mission facility main building and then all of them and then the annex was reinforced by the five state department security officers. >> so there was no standdown order even to c.i.a. personnel who were there. ok. now, who made the choice to create this fictitious narrative that it was a demonstration that got out of hand and not a terrorist attack? now we know from the first minutes of this attack we've been told they knew this was a terrorist attack. yet, for a full week we had top level people in this administration claiming it was a movie rage, demonstrations t out of -- who created that narrative? >> i don't know if i can answer the question who created it. i can tell you the narrative

about the movie did cause an attack on the american embassy in cairo. >> you can't answer the question. we're going to have to go to -- >> we are going to have to go to mr. cicilline from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador kennedy, for being here. i've had the opportunity, as others, to listen to the testimony of ambassador pickering and chairman mullen to review the report and the recommendations and to hear testimony in these last several hearings. i thank you for your testimony today and for being here. my first question is 29 recommendations that involve 64 different tasks which seem to me very comprehensive. i agree with your assessment this was a hard-hitting report and really do respect the work that was done and the thoroughness of the report. as those recommendations are being implemented and those tasks are being completed, are there anything that we can do,

congress can do to facilitate the implementations or are there any obstacles presently in the way that we should respond to to be sure that the work you're doing, that the department is doing to implement those can continue appropriately? >> i think the most important thing is the -- is to pass, as the president's budget request for embassy construction and security that is in the f.y. 2014 budget request, that will give us the resources to continue implementing our recommendation, including the new construction and upgrades we need to protect our people. the second is we have the authority only in certain locations around the world to do what is called best value contracting for guards. we now are forced in many locations to take the lowest bidder. having that in authorization bill i know this committee is working on would be very, very helpful to the department and

getting the best kind of local security forces possible. >> you know, every time we have a hearing on this issue, we have to always begin remembering the brave american heroes whose lives were lost and i think our obligation to do everything that we can to prevent this kind of tragedy from ever occurring again and protecting individuals from representing our country all over the world and to follow-up on my friend from virginia's point, the panel in this report found, and i quote, a more serious and sustained commitment from congress and called on a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs which in total constitute a small percentage, both at the national budget and national security. one overall conclusion in this report is congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide resources to address security risks and meet mission impair tiffs. as an aside, in fiscal year 2011, the budget passed by our leadership on the house side

provided $327 million less for state department security than was proposed by the state, and in fiscal year 2012, the year of this attack, the house republicans proposed almost $200 million less for state department security than the senate. this notion that resourcing is important in keeping our diplomatic corps safe is something that was identified in the report, correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> and finally, would you address for a moment, you know, the department is obviously erating in very high-risk, high-threat locations around the world, including places with a lack of clearly defined and capable security support from host nations and all of the problems that arise from that. and this raises security risks for our diplomatic corps and our development experts and imposes particular strains on existing resources.

and should we as a congress begin to think differently working with the executive about ways the way we can plan and appropriately manage these requirements sort of the in the changing landscape of the really high-risk, high-threat locations that we now serve all around the world? >> i think this is an effort that has to be undertaken jointly by the executive branch and the congress. the state department, i believe, has outlined in my longer statement, has made changes on how we look at high-threat, high-risk posts, and i think the two things that are needed there, as was pointed out, we need to continue to work with host nations to increase their capability through additional training of their security forces and their capital -- in their capital cities or other places. and we need additional appropriations and the bill that has passed out of the appropriations subcommittee in the house does exactly that, because if we can construct facilities of the like that we had in khartoum and in tune is

and the attacks that -- tunis in the attacks that happened after 9/11, those buildings held off those attackers and our people remained safe. >> it's important that we hold the terrorists responsible of this -- of this activity accountable, the state department officials that were relieved of our duties and we need to make sure our resources are available to keep our diplomatic corps is kept safe. thank you, mr. speaker. >> we will go down to mr. steve chabot of ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to address something that's troubled me for sometime. i'm speaking about the hoops that this committee has had to jump through to get the facts surrounding the murders of four of our finest public servants. the state department has delayed and delayed coming forthwith information on this matter. when we were finally presented with some relevant data a few months ago, it clearly amounted to what many would call a document dump. thousands of pages of paper and

wide disarray and no particular order in terms of relevance or chronology, making it very difficult to actually locate documents that were helpful. i brought this up with secretary clinton. she wasn't particularly responsive. you're welcome to weigh in if you'd like to. >> as i understand it, sir, the state department was asked for every document that it possessed which was relevant to benghazi. and when we received such a request, we tried to give out everything for fear, to be blunt, of being accused of holding something back. this generates when you have worldwide security efforts and something as complex as benghazi, this generates many, many -- >> well -- >> cubic feet of documents. >> it was a total mess and not particularly helpful. let me go on because i have limited time. on august 23 the state department sent a letter to the committee which stated that the a.r.b. was, quote, very clear

that the only people responsible for the legal attack -- lethal attack on our special mission compound in benghazi were the terrorists who orchestrated the attack. these terrorists must be brought to justice. the entire u.s. government remains committed to doing that, end quote. no one will argue who is directly to blame for the attacks that resulted in the death of those four americans. as the a.r.b. and numerous congressional hearings have revealed, there are other people who need to be held accountable for the fact that the terrorist attacks succeeded. but by the language of this letter, does the state department really want us to believe that the department's bureaucracy could have done nothing more to protect our diplomats? >> that was not the finding of the, and when the actions that are referenced in the august, -- august 23 letter, sir, we e reasserting it the

recommendations. and -- >> we'll get to that in a minute. >> they were relieved of their positions. >> when former secretary of state clinton testified in january, she took responsibility for the attacks. in fact, she stated, again, i'll quote. as i have said multiple times, i take responsibility and nobody is more committed than getting this right, unquote. do you believe secretary clinton has been held truly accountable for failures under her watch? >> i think what the a.r.b. did was take from the original intent of the congress, which established the a.r.b., because the congress and the legislative history -- >> did you think secretary clinton has been held accountable, yes or no? >> she said she was responsible and i am not going to challenge her statement. but -- >> where is the accountability though? >> there is in every

organization, every cabinet department, every agency in effect a line of authority. there are people who set the policy and there are those who then implement that policy or go back up to senior leadership and say the policy cannot be implemented. >> let me move on. admiral pickering described four state department employees as having, quote, failed in the performance of their duties, unquote, with respect to benghazi. now, let me get this straight -- and i know this has been covered before, but i think it's very important. the only disciplinary action meeted out to the four who failed in the performance of their duties was being put on administrative leave for a while, then reassigned to other positions within the state department. now, their benefits as federal employees continued during that time. of course, they are going to be subject to obamacare, so arguably that benefit is worse, and they haven't missed a paycheck.

is that about right? i mean, it seems like pretty pitiful discipline to me. >> sir, i believe that being an assistant secretary at any cabinet office or being a deputy assistant secretary at any cabinet office is a senior position of grave and great responsibility. to be relieved of your position in that regard, i believe, is a serious act of accountability. >> let me conclude by saying, i think failing to call secretary clinton to actually interview her was a gross oversight by almost b. and is really incomprehensible that she didn't -- i'll yield back. >> this was brought up by secretary kerry. the comment that mr. chabot made about the documents -- and this i think affects us all on the committee -- we are still

in a position where those documents as you know, a copy is not available to us. we can't copy those documents. you go down there, somebody can see a document, but we can't make copies of them. 've asked for a set of those documents. and when we ask the secretary of state, secretary kerry said that's no policy of mine. when we raised our objection to this. this is one of the reasons this is ongoing, because we don't ave copies of those documents. so again, we'd like to have copies of the documents turned over to this committee. thank you, ambassador. we go now to mr. alan grayson of florida. >> ambassador, i'd like to ask a few questions about benghazi, the scandal that never was. who decided that ambassador

stevens go to benghazi on september 11, 2012? >> it was the ambassador's decision, sir. >> now, was secretary clinton responsible in any way for viewing and approving the incountry movements of u.s. ambassadors, either ambassador stevens or anybody else? >> no. under departmental policy, ambassadors only need washington permission if they leave their country of assignment, not the capital city. >> now, did he have a normal security detail in accordance with the state department rules and procedures at that time? >> yes. he had two diplomatic security special agents who accompanied him from tripoli to benghazi. >> benghazi was diplomatic post, not an embassy, right? >> it was a temporary mission facility, yes, sir. >> all right. is it even possible to provide the same kind of security at a temporary mission facility as we try to provide at our embassies? >> we can never achieve the perfect -- the kind of perfect

security that we need other than a purpose filled embassy. we have a series of standards, and we were working through those standards. we were constantly adding. as i think in response to the gentleman from virginia, i offered to submit for the record a list of all the improvements that we had made to the temporary mission facility in benghazi. >> was there any money that was appropriated for the purpose of improving that post that was unspent at that time? >> no, sir. there was no specific money appropriated from benghazi. we were simply taking money from other locations. but all of the requests that they put forward, as i mention, the guard towers that were determined to be necessary and potentially to attention getting, all of those requests were fulfilled. >> how long was it between the time the attack began and the time of the ambassador's unfortunate death? >> i would say it was probably

somewhere -- it was definitely under 90 minutes? >> was there any kind of military force, substantial military force close enough to even engage the attackers when in that 90-minute period? >> was there any force that could have rescued the ambassador, given the actual situation on the ground? >> tragicalry, no, sir. >> did the white house ignore any reports regarding this attack? >> no, sir. not that i'm aware of. >> did secretary clinton ignore any reports regarding this attack? >> no, sir. i personally spoke to secretary clinton that evening and secretary clinton was being constantly briefed by our operation center all evening. >> if you had been the president of the united states on that night, would you have done anything different? >> what i know that the president did was to say to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, do everything that you can, and i think that's probably what i would have done

was turn to my senior military command authority and tell them to do whatever was necessary which is what he did. >> regarding the accountability review board report, did the accountability review board find secretary clinton in any way liable for any kind of misconduct? >> no, sir. >> did the board find the president liable for any kind of misconduct? >> no, sir. >> was it in fact within their powers to have done so if they felt that were the case? >> they certainly could have first down the secretary of state, because their charge is to review the state department operations. i am not sure they are legislatively legally able to go outside the state department but it extended to the secretary of state. >> ambassador, are you familiar with the term second guessing, have you heard of that term before? >> yes, sir. >> what about 2020 hindsight?

>> yes, sir. -- >> what about 20/20 hindsight? >> yes, sir. >> and what about monday morning quarterback? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, chairman royce, of seeking explanations for the deaths of four heroic americans in benghazi. it's comparative we fully understand -- it's imperative we fully understand where the systemic breakdown occurred within the state department so no more american foreign service members die while serving our country. i agree with congressman rohrabacher of california. there's been deceit and denial. mr. kennedy, i appreciate your attendance today. at a senate hearing previously you acknowledged that you denied an extension of a 16-person security support team, s.s.t., is that correct? >> yes, sir, that was the team that was based in tripoli, not in benghazi, sir. it was a tripoli assignment. they were never assigned to benghazi. and if i might -- i don't want

to take your time -- >> no, no, please. >> when we first went back into tripoli, we were -- our embassy had been burnt out in tripoli so we turned to the department of defense and asked them for assistance. two of their officers went in with two of ours and we did a survey. we then asked for 16 department of defense personnel. and over the course of standing up the ems abouty, those individuals worked themselves out of a job. in fact, they sent medics, they sent communications personnel. we replaced them with state department personnel. they sent someone to do helicopter landing zone surveys d to look for unexploded ordnance. they did their mission. there were eight in effect security personnel. the state department also replaced those security personnel with personnel in state department roles. however, on the night in question, even though this is

tripoli, not benghazi, six of those positions were still based in benghazi performing -- in tripoli -- excuse me -- performing other missions and those are the six that several members have referred to. so the six were still there. >> and indeed we are talking about people within the same country. and so the -- it's just really sad to me there was not protection given or defense to the four americans killed. additionally, the security support team commander, lieutenant colonel andrew wood, testified before congress last year that they were to meet the security challenges demanded of the secretary of state and they lended support to the state department in this uncertain and volatile environment. additionally, on october, 2012, regional security officer eric norstrom stated that retaining the security team was a primary issue until other security

resources became available. given this testimony, what justification do you have for the denial of the extension of the security support team given the commander and regional officer's belief that it was unnecessary? >> it's exactly what the regional security officer said, until other resources became available and the state department replaced the security part of that team, not -- with state department regional security officers and trained other personnel that we had on the embassy compound. they worked their way out of a job, which is the case when we borrow personnel from the defense department. >> it's hard to imagine they didn't work their way out of a -- >> tripoli, sir. not in benghazi. >> hey, same country. >> not in benghazi. >> same country. availability should have been made possible.

additionally, i'm very appreciative that chairman ed royce has produced an accountability review board reform act of 2014. it's for effectiveness for future accountability review boards. what is the state department view of chairman royce's bill? >> we have provided -- we have provided comments back and i'll be glad to make sure that there will be a copy available to you. let me say one thing about benghazi? >> please. >> if anybody asked me to reassign the s.s.t. from tripoli, 400 miles away to benghazi, i might have considered that. but since no one ever asked for their relocation, the question is had they completed their mission in tripoli and they had completed their mission in tripoli and no one asked for reassignment to benghazi. >> regardless of the assignment, within the same country now 400 miles, i just

have to tell you that i would hope that every resource, whatever it is by any means that it would be provided to protect american lives and american foreign service employees, so brave and heroic. thank you. >> i certainly agree with that, sir. thank you. >> we go to mr. juan vargas of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you for holding this hearing. ambassador, thank you, too, for being here. my first question is this -- and you've answered artfully -- we did have four lives that were lost, four american heroes. you said we were doing everything that we could to catch the perpetrators. the perpetrators here are the terrorists. what can you tell us today that's unclassified that we're doing to try to catch them because i think that's where the american people -- what are we doing to catch these murderers? >> the f.b.i., the intelligence community, the state department are doing everything it can,

and unfortunately the details, ir, would have to come from my colleagues at the f.b.i. in closed session. but they are engaged in a total effort to catch them. >> that's i think the important thing is there has to be a total effort because i think when i'm back home, that's what they're asking. they see the bickering back and forth but they want to make sure that we are in fact trying to get the terrorists that committed these acts. >> the president has said to state, justice, the intelligence community, defense, this is a task and we are on it. >> let me go then to the a.r.b. itself. there has been a lot of criticism, a.r.b., a wall of deceit, denial. i wrote down a bunch of notes here. the two people that headed it up was ambassador pickering and ambassador mike mullen. i rather ambassador pickering to el he was ambassador

salvador appointed by ronald reagan. i was a jesuit at the time. i didn't appreciate what we were doing. that being said, i followed his areer and he's somewhat of a sergei of americans. he was probably the most . phisticated foreign policy could you or could not criticize him for the a.r.b. report? i find it somewhat interesting -- i don't know if he was republican or democrat, but he seemed to be supported by republicans. >> i think an officer appointed by the director of national intelligence, ambassador pickering with his long service, under as you know, both republican and democratic presidents, admiral michael mullen who rows up the ranks of -- rose up the ranks, captain breeb at the i

bush administration at the department of agriculture and at the united nations. and so this compilation of individuals represents the full spectrum, i believe, and as i mentioned earlier, when you read the report, it is not complementary of the state department. >> i did read the report, it was not complementary, but do you think ambassador pickering, then, is not up to the task here? is there some reason you'd criticize him and say they picked the wrong person? the person's not capable of doing a proper a.r.b. >> no, sir. >> why would you say no? >> because of his experience serving as ambassador, as the undersecretary of state, as u.s. representative at the united nations and assignments as difficult as israel, the then soviet union, el salvador. >> is he deceitful, sleight? >> no, sir.

>> admiral mullen, do you think he was competent to serve on this board? >> i had the pleasure of working with admiral mullen somewhat when he represented the department in the joint chiefs of staffs at meetings and i find him to be a very intelligent and highly representable person. >> do you think he's deceitful, trying to cover up here? >> no, sir. >> why do you say that? >> it's the nature -- it's the nature of his career and the position to which he rose to. >> those are my questions. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. vargas. we go now to mike mccaul from texas. >> i thank the chairman and welcome ambassador. prior to the attacks in benghazi and the killing of our ambassador, there were many warning signs and cries of help. april 6, 2012, an i.e.d. was thrown over the wall at the u.s. facility in benghazi.

the american red cross building attacked by the brigades of the blind sheik, the 1993 world trade center mastermind. june 6, the consulate was targeted which an i.e.d. attack that blew a hole in the perimeter. credit, again, by the brigades of the blind sheik. in june 11, the ambassador escapes a narrow death. march 8, sent a cable to secretary clinton requesting additional assets. that cable request was denied and plan to scale back security was made. apple was dore stevens responds with -- ambassador stevens responds with a cable, requesting additional resources. and you terminated effective immediately dc-3 to provide logistical support to special forces assigned in benghazi. we don't know what could have been done on that faithful day.

ambassador stevens responded, please don't scale these resources back. he said again in july, the overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under the control of the central government. u, sir, formally denied that request. and a cable after an emergency meeting with the ambassador, an extraordinary, not ordinary, event. another request for additional security. saying the embassy could not withstand a coordinated attack. this final cry was not answered. did you receive that cable, the august 16 cable, sir? >> yes, sir, i did. if i might, mr. mccaul -- >> i have limited time. did you respond in the affirmative or did you deny this request? >> we did not decline the request. >> was additional security provided on that day? weeks before the september 11 attack? >> the cable, sir -- and i have a cop me in front of me -- it

closes with u.s. mission benghazi will submit requests to u.s. embassy tripoli for additional security upgrades and staffing needs. we never received that additional request. there was no way i could respond to a request that had not yet been submitted. >> do you know if secretary clinton saw this cable? >> i do not believe so. >> let me ask you, a sect waiver on september 11, security at the consulate was deemed high on the state department's threat list but yet it didn't meet the minimum security standards as required by the congress under the security embassies construction and counterterrorism act. somebody at the state department waived these standards known for our presence in benghazi. do you know who waived those standards? >> it wasn't -- it wasn't the standards. those standards only apply to buildings that we build. what i believe we are talking about here, sir, is what are lled the ospb standards, the

overseas policy board standards. these are the standards that we were using in benghazi, but since we had to move in benghazi and we did not have time, either to build a new building or to take the months that it takes to retrofit, we took the overseas security board standards as our goal. as i mentioned in response to mr. connolly, we were going -- running down those standards, adding additional items every -- >> well, i have an amendment that was sent to you from your staff saying we needed to bring the facility up to an acceptable standard to you, mr. ambassador. i don't know what the action was. apparently was not approved. i'd like to enter this amendment, mr. chairman, into the record. >> without objection. >> finally, i got limited time. i talked to sources on the ground that fateful day when the marines were deployed from spain into tripoli and were

asked to deplane and change into civilian clothing and that mission was delayed by several hours. first of all, why wasn't this plane with a marines that could respond possibly in a timely manner sent to benghazi? hy wasn't that done? secondly, why was it delayed by hours so they could deplane and change into civilian clothing? got the time the marines there, we had closed our facility in benghazi. there was no purpose of them going to benghazi because there were no americans left there. >> sir, the plane had gone straight from rota to benghazi in the eight-hour span of the attack, you are saying to me they could not have responded in a timely manner? >> the plane, sir, was moving to benghazi -- moving to tripoli on the 12th, night on the night of -- >> i think more people higher

up should be held accountable what happened that day. >> now we'll if to mr. joseph kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, thank you for testifying today. if you need a second to respond or answer that question, i'll give you time. >> if i could add one thing -- mr. call, first off, on the dc-3, it was not there in support of the special forces detachment. when we opened first in benghazi and then later relocated to tripoli, there was no commercial air service available at all into libya, no commercial air service. so we pulled an aircraft from afghanistan and it was running shuttles into iraq. it was never based there. it was based first in malta at that point. when commercial air service was established, there was no longer a need for that aircraft.

so it had nothing to do with support of the special forces except when they came into benghazi -- into tripoli the first time. they blew that plane in. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i thank you for your service. i wanted to begin by recognizing the memory of four brave americans who did give their lives in service to our country today and say the best thing we can do is obviously ask questions about what happened, why it and and what we can do to -- why it happened and what we can do and if there are reforms that can be made to our embassies, to the foreign policy, we should make them. but the focus should be on lessons learned and moving forward, not focusing on perceived imperfections with -- assigning political blame for the highlights of the day. to that end, mr. ambassador, i was wonder if you could enlighten me. i believe the a.r.b. process began in 1986 after legislation

passed, is that right? >> that is correct, sir. >> sir, do you know how many a.r.b.'s have been convened since then? >> the count is either 18 or 19, depending on whether you nairobi as aam or two or one? >> sir, if we are going with the 18 figure, how many of those were under republican presidents? >> i will have -- >> does 13 sound ok? >> i'll accept that figure. >> do you think ronald reagan, -- philippines, bolivia and peru. jordan, gaza, iraq, iraq, -- >> does that sound correct? >> sir, do you have any idea during the course of the time of any major reform efforts that were initiated by congress by the a.r.b. process? >> no, sir. >> ok. now, sir, if i can, turning to the witnesses, there have been a number of questions today

which witnesses were and were not called. did you have any influence that came to testify over the a.r.b. process? >> no, sir. once the a.r.b. started, i -- my only contact was to be a witness. >> did secretary clinton have any influence? >> no, sir. >> did the administration attempt to influence that process? >> no, sir. >> ok. now, moving forward, you had mention it's been referenced several times today, 29 different recommendations that the a.r.b. found and recommended to state department to try to implement and you broken that to i believe 64 actions. which -- given that the focus i believe should be going forward what can be done to protect our diplomats as we are asking them represent the united states in continually volatile areas of the world, what are the highlights, where should we be focused -- where should congress be focused, excuse me, where should those resources be

directed? if there are policies, if you could do that in a minute scomblrks i think the two most important things is the a.r.b. recommendation that there be capability of funding to to the new embassies character to a tunis or khartoum, sudan, withstand attacks until our own military forces arrive or until host nations muster. and secondly is the issue about additional local guard capabilities. >> mr. ambassador, i see in your testimony that you indicated that such an embassy could take up to four years to site, plan, construct and finish. are there ways we can speed that process up? is that delayed because of bureaucracy? trying to spend four years to build an embassy is a long time. >> that is from finding the land and you have to buy land overseas for this through a

complex process, an embassy is not like any old office building, as you can imagine, because of the security both technical and physical we built in the plan and that simply takes longer, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we now go to mr. poe of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this this report of the attack, the accountability review board found there was, quote, unsatisfactory leadership performance, systematic failures in leadership and management deficiency at senior levels. it would seem to me in the normal world, which would be outside of government, if somebody reviewed the business or an entity and found there were deficiencies and lack of leadership and lack of accountability, somebody would face the consequences. they would see the music, but not so with the government, especially the state department. four junior employees were placed on leave in december for their actions and their

judgments related to benghazi but secretary kerry when he came in he said, oh, it's ok. come on back. in fact, elizabeth dibble has been promoted to deputy chief commission in london. no one has been held accountable for, as i have quoted, the accountability review board, unsatisfactory leadership performance. and in this case, it's not just like missing a memo. people have died. i know there are those in administration who says that was a long time ago, but to those four families, it was the death of four individuals. and when you met up in leadership like this and people die it would seem to me somebody has to be -- if we can use the word -- punished for that. but no one has been punished at all in this situation. and then you look on the other side. to quote the president, here's what he said. my biggest priority now is bringing these folks to justice. ok. that's what he said a year ago. my biggest priority now is

bringing these folks to justice. it would seem to me that the president should be just as concerned about americans dying in libya as he is about syrians dying in syria. that seems to be the priority now, not bringing these folks to justice, because they haven't been brought to justice. my back ground as a prosecutor and judge, and i've seen a lot of cases made by a lot of law enforcement. and you're here and you told us, i can't tell you what the f.b.i., the d.o.d. and all of our intelligence agencies are doing to capture the bad guys because i assume it's classified. well, after a year we can't find these people but yet a cnn reporter can go to benghazi at a hotel, at a coffee shop, and have coffee with the suspected ringleader of this who's been indicted by our government? maybe the f.b.i. ought to just ask the cnn reporter, how did you get a hold of this guy, you

know? why don't we bring him back? and it's skeptical. i am skeptical. people i represent are skeptical about the administration, the state department, the f.b.i. not bringing these killers to justice. my question to you, do you believe al-sharia was responsible for the attack on the benghazi mission? >> i think that is one of the questions that's still being sorted out. it's possible that it was. it's possible it was them and others. >> do you think they were involved? you're the guy that should know. do you think they were involved or not? >> i know -- i know this was a terrorist attack, and it doesn't matter to me if it was al-sharia or al qaeda or whoever, these were terrorists. and whatever organization they belong to, they are enemies of the united states. >> do you thinkance ar althat

herya should be part of a terrorist organization? >> that is not in my domain. i'll take the question back to my colleagues. >> if you want to know what group was involved, but you do believe it was terrorists that were involved in this? >> i didn't say i don't care who was involved. i'm saying there were a range of -- there are clearly a range of individuals who attacked our facility that might and they were terrorists. >> and you -- you'll get back with me on whether you think that al-sharia should be a -- i'll be glad to take that question. >> you are aware, of course, september 12, our time, they claimed responsibility for this, the next day? >> yes. and then they -- and then omeone else claiming to be al-sharia and withdrew that claim. >> but at the end of the day here we are. nobody has been taken out. nobody's in custody. nobody's in jail.

either on the side of the state department, nobody's in jail, accountable for the murder, so whether it's the people who were responsible for the killing or the people who may have made mistakes about the administration of this, nobody's in custody. last question, have people in the -- may i ask the question, mr. chairman -- >> i am afraid your time has expired, mr. poe. >> mr. chairman, can i respond to the previous question? >> i'm going to suggest we go to lois frankel. mr. poe, if you want to pass your question down to one of the other members on the committee, i'm sure they can ask it. ms. frankel, if you want to allow ambassador to respond, i'm sure you can do it. we are going to stick to the clock and we go now to lois frankel of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your very gracious way of handling these meetings. mr. kept, ambassador, thank you for your service and, please, if you want to answer.

>> in response to the last question, congressman, i believe that individuals at the state department were held responsible. being a deputy assistant secretary of state or an assistant secretary of state is not i humbly commit, sir, being a junior employees. those are senior positions. and for one of those individuals resign as the assistant secretary and be -- and then all of them be relieved of their duties is a serious act of accountability to be relieved at those levels. and secondly, benghazi has taken since the events of 9/11 has taken a serious turn for the worse. yes, they'll let journalists in. but they are not letting u.s. law enforcement in to arrest people there because the government of libya is not -- is not in control to that degree. >> thank you, sir. first off, i want to start by saying i know everybody here

shares the grief of the families who lost their loved ones in this tragedy. and i think we all recognize that it is in large part the work that our diplomats knew that plays a role in securing the freedoms that we enjoy, including this discussion which i with great respect and fondness for my colleagues, i don't concur in some of the tone. with that said, i want to thank mr. joe wilson and mr. dana rohrabacher and of course our chair that allowed me to visit -- mr. rohrabacher, we visited nato and i went with mr. wilson to africa. i say we did have discussions with the highest military commanders about benghazi and they were all unanimous in saying there was no military action they thought could have saved the day once the attacks began, which i think is what you did state to us.

we keep hearing that no one is being held accountable, but i do want you to clarify one particular point which is, did the a.r.b. not -- did they conclude that no individual had breached their duty, was that a finding? >> that is correct, congresswoman. the a.r.b. said that two individuals had not carried out their responsibilities in the way they could, but they did not find a breach of duty. and what secretary kerry's decision was to validate the a.r.b.'s decision, actually go farther than the a.r.b.'s decision and relieve all four of their senior level positions. >> and i don't want -- >> we'll leave our live coverage of this hearing at this point. it continues online at c-span.org. and also, we encourage your remarks on the benghazi

investigation. and now live to the u.s. house gaveling in for legislative business this afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] spero: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today our guest chaplain reverend gribble, oak lake church, nebraska. the chaplain: oh lord, we ask for wisdom from you for these leaders as they seek to lead our country. your word tells us your wisdom is from above, it is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

you have said that a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. may these men and women be united in wisdom that leads to peace. may we as a nation who has known the greatness of your mercy and grace not stray from seeking you in your rachese ways for you have said blessed is the nation whose god is the lord. keep us in the shelter of your wings and turn our hearts to you in jesus' name amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman, mr. walberg. mr. walberg: please join in the pledge to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, is recognized for one minute. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. speaker. i am the youngest son of six sons, all children of an ordained baptist minister. i have five older brothers, four of those are still alive today, three of them have responded to the call of ministry and are pastors. one of my sons is also a pastor. it's impossible to separate my faith from my daily life. my brother, dale ribble, who is our guest chaplain today, is exactly the same. i have observed him countless time reaching out to people around him, young and old, with a spirit of compassion and concern. he has a gift given to him by god for this purpose. the work churches do in our communities change and affect lives for the positive. they reach out to the poor, the

sick, the hungry, improving the lives of whom they touch. i've watched dale do these things his entire life. i'm proud of his work and thank him for being with us today. mr. speaker, i yield back. spero: the chair will -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my emarks. mr. walberg: such noble pursuits have been cast aside for part san politics and today the fblc is better known for attacks on judeo-christian groups. they have targeted the alabama accountability act. a school choice law passed earlier this year. under this act, alabama

provides tax credit scholarships for students at failing schools so they can attend better performing schools, private, religious and nonfailing public schools. rather than allow students a chance at a good education, they have filed a lawsuit that would trap students? schools to state's own accountability system has a grade of d or f. in other words, if you can't help every child, you can't help any child. how absurd. mr. speaker, it's time for this intolerance to end, and it's time that congress and the american people embrace policies that allows parents and students the opportunity to choose the type of education that fosters success. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, nine months after the tragedy of sandy hook elementary school

in connecticut, our country is once again facing the terrible reality of another horrific mass shooting. in this case, 12 innocent men and women were murdered at the washington navy yard just two days ago. we know all of us are keeping the victims and their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers today. all of us in this chamber should ask ourselves whether there was anything we could have done to prevent this tragedy. according to the associated press, the person had previously complained about serious mental health issues, including paranoia, sleep disorder and hearing voices in his head and despite all of this he illegally purchased a gun from a firearms dealer in virginia last week. mr. speaker, there's something seriously wrong in this country when someone is able to purchase a firearm without even the slightest bit of scrutiny. we owe it to the victims at the navy yard and their families to finally close loopholes that allows criminals and the seriously mental ill to purchase firearms. how many tragedies should we witness before we enact

commonsense gun violence prevention. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, this morning south carolina attorney general alan wilson ted before a joint committee on chill warning that the health care takeover legislation is a threat to security and safety of citizens. the attorney general cited despite the president saying last month we are well on our way to implementing the affordable care act, important deadlines are being routinely missed. in order for the a.c.a. to adequately determine the eligibility, it must create a data hug that connects it to seven different agencies. they have not ben beta tested, independently verified or audited. when it goes live on october 1, it will be a conman's all you can eat buffet, a gold mine with sensitive information from the agency databases.

attorney general wilson summarized, until h.h.s. rectifies safeguarding america's -- americans' personal information, congress must suspend implementation of a.c.a. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and globalt war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate not only hispanic heritage month but to celebrate the next generation of hispanic leaders. i applaud the national p.t.a. for naming september the month of the hispanic child. with the hispanic population totaling 53 million people in the u.s., hispanic children and youth are the fastest growing

population in america. in -- by 2060, it's projected that hispanics will be about 128 million in the united states. in order to produce the next generation of leaders that are capable and equipped to work and to tackle our future challenges, we must invest in every hispanic child. education and equal opportunity are what will ensure that these students fulfill the american promise. i will continue to advocate for programs like head start and fight to make college more affordable for all children. and as we celebrate hispanic heritage month, let us keep in mind that the young generation will be our leaders of the future. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i

was deeply saddened to see the president begin the sixth year of our nation's economic malaise by renewing his partisan name calling and finger-pointing on monday. fortunately, we have a mdle for bipartisan economic cooperation -- model for bipartisan economic cooperation. one president reached across work with the republican house under the clinton administration, they reduced g.d.p. they produced the largest capital gains tax cut in american history. they reformed entitlement spending by abolishing an open-ended welfare system. we delivered four years of budget surpluses. these bipartisan policies produced a period of prolonged economic expansion and unprecedented prosperity for america's middle and working classes. republicans have been eager to repeat the successful

bipartisan policies of the clinton years. why isn't the president? >> the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition of h.r. 3102, the republican nutrition reform and work opportunity act. america should be uncomfortable, because this ill would cut $40 billion in critical nutrition assistance programs, denying snap benefits to at least four million low-income americans, affecting children, seniors, the disabled and veterans. america should be uncomfortable, because this republican deal affects unemployed adults with an average income of just $2,500 per year.

and would immediately lose their snap benefits. americans should be uncomfortable because this bill hurts americans living in rural, urban and unurban areas. for many, snap benefits are the only thing that keeps them from living with hunger and malnutrition and sickness. america should be uncomfortable. we should not cut these funds. these are extreme cuts. one of the most effective programs combating hunger. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. i rise in opposition to h.r. 3102, nutrition reform and work opportunity act. contrary to the rhetoric of my republican colleagues, the overwhelming majority of snap

recipients who can work do so. ms. bass: more than 50% work while receiving snap benefits. they just don't earn enough money to provide food for their families. in my district in los angeles, nearly 77% of families receiving snap benefits in my district are working families. the republican attack on snap is a sad example of not understanding the struggles faced by so many americans, including many of their own constituents. snap benefits help low-wage working families make ends meet as they try to get back on their feet. millions of families rely on snap as they struggle with unemployment, low wages in the wake of the recession. the house republican proposal would recklessly cut assistance for at least four million to six million people who need help, and we cannot let this happen. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, september is national preparedness month, and, mr. speaker, preparedness includes making sure that the public has access to timely information in cases of emergency. mr. higgins: for many americans, public broadcasting is a vital source of important emergency announcements. over 98% of the american population has access to public radio or a television signal. in times of emergency, public broadcasting is a go-to source of information for emergency management officials and first responders. we have a responsibility to ensure that stations that are damaged in a disaster are repaired and operational as quickly as possible. that's why i introduced the emergency information preparedness act, local and television radio stations are eligible for assistance to . build their facilities

this will ensure that the information resource will be available to the americans in times of need. i invite my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my strong support for the snap program, the supplemental nutrition assistance program. mr. garcia: snap is a critically important program. it helps struggling families put food on the table while they work to get back on their feet. it helps our nation's most vulnerable. as nearly 2/3 of recipients are children, elderly and disabled. and according to new census data released yesterday, the snap program helped lift four million people out of poverty in 2012. additionally, this is a multiplier of 2 1/2 times in our economy. unfortunately, it is my

understanding that the house of representatives may soon consider legislation that cuts $40 million in funding from snap. this is the wrong approach. at a time when many families and communities are still struggling to get back on their feet from the great recession, we should be working to strengthen, not undermine, the snap program. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire ise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart because this body will soon consider a bill that will cut four million children from their nutrition benefits. americans will go hungry new york my district and across this country, these are our friends, our neighbors, our fellow pa riggsers. they are children and veterans and seniors.

one of my constituents wrote to federal ly about how nutrition assistance is necessary to feeding her family. these 26 years old, orphaned and disabled, she has no family to fall back on and she's the mother of a toddler. on top of that, she's in college working to get her undergraduate degree and a double major, no less. but right now she depends on supplemental nutrition assistance programs to feed her toddler and that assistance doesn't go far enough. ms. kuster: and that assistance doesn't go far enough. she has to rely on local food banks. this is who we are talking about when we debate cutting $40 billion from nutrition programs. we can and should do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to call attention to the seriousness of the proposed $40 billion bill. as a member of the house agriculture committee i'm gravely concerned with this bill as it circumvented proper deliberation before the agriculture committee. it threaks transparency required by the american people and is outside the custom and pracktoifs all past farm bills this house has passed. mrs. negrete mcleod:: we are no closer to finding a compromise than we were six months ago. this is about americans' ability to eat as our country struggles to come out of the greatest crisis since the great depression. snap is a vital part of pro viding health to americans. costs for the programs will

shrink as the economy improves and people are able to do exactly what americans want to do -- put food on the table. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, we wonder why people need nutrition assistance in the first place. mrs. wilson: well, it's because our minimum wage is inadequate and because government has given up on creating jobs. a parent working full time at minimum wage will simply not earn enough income to cover basic needs. snap recipients are not lazy, it's this congress that's lazy. mr. speaker, if you want to cut $40 billion in nutrition funding, i have a two-part plan

for you. raise the minimum wage so worker can feed themselves. pass the american jobs act so americans can find work in the first place. mr. speaker, the working poor, senior, and children, are suffering now and you plan to cut nutrition assistance? not only will they suffer but some may die. it's time for this congress to address the real issues, raise the minimum wage and jobs, obs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognizeded for - recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i'm not one to go on and on about statistics.

mr. payne: but as we debate the bill there's one that struck a chord with me. one in four children go to bed hungry every night. i'm not talking about africa, china or india. i'm talking about one in four children who live right here in the united states, who go to sleep without adequate nutrition. for me and the one million new jerseyans on snap, this is a complete and total outrage. we live in the greatest country on earth yet 17 million children in this country do not get the nutrition they need. last year alone, snap lifted four million people out of poverty. the bill on the floor this week, which would cut snap by nearly $40 billion, will only ensure that these people are pushed right back into poverty. that's why i strongly oppose the nutrition assistance bill and i urge my colleagues to

examine their conscience and remember that when they cast their vote, they're casting their votes for or against one in four children. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. davis: i rise to express my disagreement with h.r. 3042, this bill will cut food stamps by $40 billion and as a result of that, at least four million low income individuals will no longer be eligible to receive nutrition assistance. i say shame on whoever concocted this draconian idea. whoever put this proposal together. and certainly shame on us if we vote for it. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sewell: i rise to express my strong opposition to h.r. 3102, calling for $4 billion of cuts in critically needed funding for nutrition assistance program. you know, mr. speaker, struggling to encourage my republican colleagues to take a walk in the shoes of those who suffer from food insecurity has become uncomfortably common. we have moved beyond poor economic doctrine and immoral social policy and we're now dealing with the very dangerous mindset that the weakest in our society are to blame for their condition. you know, instead of taking away food stamp, we should be encouraging jobs. we should be encouraging smaller assistance for those

who are in need, is not, i think, the way this policy should go. we should be incentivizing companies to provide a living waming. i think it's hypocritical for us to value the sanctity of life while neglecting policies to ensure all americans have a better quality of life. 54% of the households in my district have snap. i think it's important to remember the people we're sent here to represent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lujan grisham: i recently met with constituents from new mexico whose lives have been impacted of pan creeyatic cancer -- pancreatic cancer, the most deadly form of common cancers. it's not easy to listen to a

woman talk about losing her husband or a father losing his daughter, but it's important to ear their stories. pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death, the survival rate is 46%. last year democrats and republicans came together to pass the cancer resedge act which requires the national cancer institute to develop a scientific framework for combating both pancreatic cancer and lung cancer. unfortunately the much-needed progress we stand to make is in jeopardy largely because of sequestration, the national cancer institute's bunnell has been drastically cut. it's another reason why i call for a permanent cut to sequestration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes we use words like snap and people don't know what it means. snap means supplemental nutrition assistance program. ms. hanabusa: it's supplemental to what people receive, it's nutrition, that's the purpose, and it gives assistance. what we're proposing to vote on is a bill that will cut $40 billion from snap. what it means, and this is something that's very important for us to recognize, is it means children will lose access to things like free school lunches. free school lunches. for some children that's the best meal of the day that they have. we know hundreds of thousands ll lose that 1.7 million people, 850,000 households will be reduced by $90 a month. think about your own budget and what $90 a month will mean far

family that needs assistance. in addition this bill will ask the disabled people to work 20 hours a week before they can qualify for supplemental nutrition assistance. mr. speaker, this is a mean-spirited measure and congress should not be defined by that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 53. house resolution 347. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 761 to require the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop

domestic sources of minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this

resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only and i ask that all members have five legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you. this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 761, the national strategic critical mineral production act. it provides an hour of general debate equally divide between both sides prorkvide for five amendments, four of which are democrat amendments and one is a republican amendment, so this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally generous and will provide a balanced and open

debate as long as we as members structure our regards to the merits of this particular bill and don't go off on tan jebts. mr. speaker, i am -- tangents. mr. speaker i am pleased to stand before the house and support this rule. it's a good rule. i also support the underlying bill h.r. 761 and i want to con garage late the gentleman from vada, mr. am day, as spon -- for sponsoring this bill. our nation is blessed with an abundance of resources which made us a leading industrial power and we have only scratched the surface of what we can potentially develop. we have energy po enten rble such as oil and coal shale and natural gas deposits as well as various critical minerals we as a nation should need and be developing. unfortunately, many much of this development has been of

our domestic mineral resources has been stymied by a combination of special interest politics as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under this administration. 25 years ago, 20% of all money that was spent for development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the united states. today that's down to only 8%. as other nations have replaced our efforts, unfortunately. this has meant an increase in our trade and balance, dollars going overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and commodities. it means job losses here in the united states, and eye roncally, these jobs -- ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest paid middle-class jobs that are available. bureaucratic delays are causing this and they are causing us to see a change both for manufacturing and defense. 5 years ago, they were -- 25 years ago, there were 30

minerals that we actually had to import to this nation that were considered critical minerals. today that number has gone from 30 to 61. 25 years ago there were 16 minerals that we imported. today that number is 24. it affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys, ceramics, glass, everything. it affects our defense as well as our defense lodge cycle agencies tries to stockpile these minerals so it is there when we need them. more and more of tuesday are being purchased from overseas. they are critical to our weapon development system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced lasers, missile guided systems and it goes on and on. look, the constitution tells us that our first responsibility to provide for a common defense. this bill steps us into the

right direction so we can actually provide for a common defense and do it intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays. but there are some that will criticize us from the kinds of minerals that we are placing in this restricted area. there was a study in 2009 that was called the great california shakeup, which was a mock of what could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area and found out that in an effort to try to rebuild the infrastructure that would be necessary, there is a whole list of things we normally don't consider as critical that would in that situation be critical. including sand and gravel that we sunshinely would have a deficiency of if we were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations. this bill anticipates that and makes sure we will not be found lacking either in defense or in manufacturing or in critical civilian needs in case of disaster.

this bill doesn't predetermine anything. it simply says make a decision. yes or no on whether this project should go forward, simply make a decision and do it in a timely fashion. we still average between seven and 10 years in which those decisions are made. this bill says that is unrealistic and it simply says you got 30 months, 2 1/2 years to make a decision. yes or no if. -- yes or no. if you need an extension, but for heaven's sake, finally make a decision. it is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's based on what we are doing in our transportation area. it's based on a presidential -- a presidential concept. when the president established an executive order number 13604 which talks about the importance of trying to streamline reform and reference our process. this is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular bill as well.

this implies whenever there are agencies, multiple agencies involved in the project there must be a lead agency which must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done. so any kind of environmental statement should be done concurrently, not sequestration , that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not stop the process of making a decision. once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. just make a decision. you have plenty of time to do it. make a decision. there is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward on a project in 2 1/2 years. none whatsoever. the fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. we have done this in other areas. it's time to do this in this area as well. if we can indeed do this process, it is clear this nation could prosper, we could

have good-paying jobs and we could make the desert blossom. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, the gentleman from utah, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and mr. speaker, i would ask to be able to use such time as i deem necessary. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: thank you very much. mr. speaker, the house faces a number of pressing issues that everybody in america knows that we should be addressing. instead, we are here today on a rule 347, a structured rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 761, -- the national strategic and critical minerals production act of 2013. get it my friends from areas that have these minerals in public spaces would like for us

o proceed a pace, to extract them. i understand their feelings. i come from yet another of the critical areas of our country that we have to protect much of the space and that would be the everglades. i don't understand why congress trying to provide even more brakes to the united states mining operations when we have these urgent domestic issues that we are confronted with and some how or another we are not able to undertake. we haven't done all of our appropriations. we are having difficulty getting a continuing resolution. we will soon be faced with lifting the debt ceiling. and somehow or another we are dealing with something that, i might add, we have voted on

before that came out of the house of representatives that 761 ot pass the senate and is not going to pass the senate either. so 761 guts important environmental protections offered through the national environment policy act, referred to as nepa. it fails to require adequate financial assurance -- and i will have an amendment on the floor that will address that subject -- and offers other benefits to mining companies. mining operations in the united states benefit already from multiple federal tax breaks, exemptions to regulation under existing environmental laws and no royalty payments to the united states for mining operations even on u.s. land. mining companies limit their liability for environmental restoration and clean up by operating with u.s.

subsidiaries to foreign parent companies. this relationship shields the parent company from liability and has allowed parent companies to draw profit from united states mining operations. so what happens when companies do not pay for environmental damage caused by their operation? the people of the united states pay. they pay through a contaminated environment. they pay through sickness, including cancer. they pay through taxes because taxpayer dollars are ultimately needed to clean up these sites. it would seem that we should have learned from our mistakes with the 1872 general mining law. mining companies should be held accountable so that their operation will not impose additional burden on the

american people. h.r. 761 not only takes away natural resources for hiking, fishing, canoing and other recreational activities, it shifts the burdens of mining cleanup and restoration to the american taxpayer. furthermore, h.r. 761 classifies domestic mining operation for strategic and critical minerals on federal land as infrastructure projects. using a broad definition that encompasses virtually every type of mine, this legislation allows mines to take advantage of a presidential order from 2012, which requires federal agencies to streamline the permitting process for infrastructure projects. however, building a mine is not the same as building roads and

highways that are much needed in this country or replacing rotted sewerage that is much needed in this country which is in fact the country's infrastructure. bills like this are why, in my opinion, the american people are so frustrated with us here in the united states congress. we have a number of issues that we could -- not that we could but we should be working on. and yet we are rehashing a bill that went nowhere last congress, ain't going to go nowhere this congress and most importantly is bad for the nation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i yield myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. i'd like to make a couple of

comments before we go on discussion with this particular rule which in fact is a fair rule and good rule. but at no time, this bill is one of those bills that have no significant costs to the budget. at no time does this stop any of the nepa requirements. all it says is do your job and do it on time. nobody big about that. simply what those regulations. it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector as well as for defense. like i'm old. i still use legal pads. i trust those. they never crash on me. but if you have an iphone or an ipad or any of that other kind of new stuff that my kids like that have, you are going to have these critical minerals and if we are not proposing and developing them here in the united states, we are paying more to develop them out of country and we're putting ourselves manufacturing-wise in a significant deficit situation. and obviously with defense, what is happening is even more

critical. this is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good for infrastructure. it's also good for our critical mineral development system and say, do the job, do it well, do it quickly, get it done in a reasonable period of time and don't drag this stuff out by sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. you have a period of time. do your job. an amazing concept of asking bureaucracy of this nation to actually do their job, but it's important. yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, bipartisan bill. the fact that the senate did none other p is indictment to senior leadership, an oxymoron, but them ignoring the significant issues that we have to face in this nation. it's another indictment that they should actually do their job. just because senate leadership decides to sit on these type of

issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. this is something we have to have, and it needs to go over to the senate. the senate to actually do something, then it's our responsibility and we should coit. i reserve the balance -- we should do it. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the house is reminded not to make characterizations of leadership from the other body. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to my good friend from oregon, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on natural resources, mr. defazio. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. great name, really good at particularly messaging around here. particularly on the republican side. great name, national stratenalic and critical minerals production act of threen. now, we heard just earlier this is about things that are in critical short supply, vital for our national security and for emergencies.

none of those things are true. they could be a minuscule part of this, but what this bill does is say that any mining project anywhere on any public land in the united states of america does not constitute a significant federal action. no matter how large, no matter how sensitive, no matter how approximate to say the grand canyon and national treasures, how approximate the yellowstone or how approximate to some critical watershed, that's not a major federal action so it's exempt from nepa. that's one very big problem with this legislation. i think there's a lot of members of the public even living in very conservative areas of the country who would find that a little bit of overreach. and then, again, these critical minerals are not critical. sand and gravel is now critical. anything is critical that you can find on public land. any dirt of any sort.

you're going to get an expedited process, a little bit of overreach. we're going to have a great amendment by mr. lowenthal who will use an actual definition from the national research council for strategic and critical minerals. if this is on the up and up, the other side will accept that amendment, we'll have expedited processes which cause us some anxiety but they'll only be for truly critical strategic materials, not everything and anything on public land. secondly, most americans would be apalled, those who don't already know, to learn we give away all of the minerals on our public lands. gold, uranium, platinum. no matter what it is. we give it away. we do not charge, unlike many western states, unlike native american tribal lands, unlike

private lands, unlike most foreign countries, we don't charge a royalty for extracting minerals from our lands. no matter how valuable new york matter how many billions of dollars that that load might be worth of platinum or gold or uranium. no charge. give it away. now twice this body has passed on a bipartisan basis, historically, a modest royalty on the extraction of depete -- depleteable valuable minerals on federal lands. been very involved in that in the past. in the summer i went to the committee when this bill was first going to come up -- the rules committee -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: they admit there's no scoring issues, my amendment in 8% royalty would raise

hundreds of millions of dollars and those hundreds of millions of dollars would be used to remediate hundreds of thousands of mines in the west that are polluting the environment. polluting our rivers. i have one in my district, four in -- foreign company, yeah they put up their million dollar bond. unfortunately, they left the country and it's a $14 million cleanup. the public is going to get stuck with that. it's polluting a river, killing fish and the public they are taxpayers will have to pay for it. my amendment would have raised the resources necessary to deal with hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines in the western united states that need remediation and mitigation but the republicans were afraid to vote on that amendment. some in the west know it's a problem, they didn't want to vote against fixing the problem, and others say, the government, run it like a business except when it comes to valuable mineral, we want to give them away, we don't care about the deficit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from utah.

mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question i'm going to offer an that ent to this rule will allow the house to hold a vote on the bring jobs home act this will help boost the economy by encouraging businesses to bring more jobs to america and discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas. to discuss our proposal, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, my good friend, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. hastings. to our chairman. i rise, mr. speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill before us today, h.r. 761. i just think it goes too far. the national strategic and critical minerals production act of 2013. i urge my colleagues to defeat

the previous question and take up this legislation which we worked on for a full year now, bring jobs home act. a bill which for the first time makes sure we promote in sourcing of jobs and stop the corporate welfare business of outsourcing jobs. the underlying legislation would set a dangerous precedent by waiving mining projects from environmental reviews and limiting public access to the justice system itself. pushing mining projects through the permitting process is sure to continue to downgrade and degrade our environment. and create workplace situations which are definitely unsafe. but it won't solve the employment problem.

now since that's been injected into the discussion, the legislation simply will -- will simply allow our nation's resources to be used to pad the pockets of the same international corporations who ship jobbed overseas. and by the way, in that process , the shipping of jobs overseas is subsidized by the federal government. we have for years helped corporations send jobs overseas. what we should be doing is helping them get jobs back to america. particularly since we see an upgrading of the past 16 months in the manufacturing sector of our economy. we're going to end with this bill, to end the tax breaks that encourage companies to ship their jobs overseas. use that to pay for tax credits

for patriotic companies that want to bring jobs back home. you want to have real job improvement? this is the way to do it. over the last decade, we've lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs. more than during the entire great depression. our trade deficit increased by $300 billion. and during the recession, the manufacturing work forest plummeted to a near 60-year low. more troubling is that the recent studies estimates that one quarter of american jobs are at risk -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: more troubling, mr. speaker is that in recent studies, stims that one quarter of american jobs are at risk of being outsourced in the coming

years. we're not talking about chump change here. s that lot of jobs. so let's defeat this motion so we can actually debate a bill that will end corporate welfare that allows companies to continue to engage in outsourcing, and then get a tax cut for doing so. instead, let's provide incentives that will grow good-paying manufacturing jobs in the u.s.a. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back and i thank you for providing this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i i'm going to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would ask my friend is he's prepared to close. i have no further speakers at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: obviously i'm prepared to close. depends on how long your closing goes, though.

mr. hastings: i can make it go as long as you want it to go. mr. bishop: i may ask you to do that. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: something mr. pascrell left off, i want intending to talk about this until my good friend mentioned the time frame. we are on tomorrow going to ote on whether or not to cut $40 billion from the supplemental nutrition program for people in this country. and one of the measures included in that is going to be that people can only qualify for three months during a specified period of time if they are able bodied people. if you vote for the previous question that mr. pascrell

offered, there may be some jobs for those people. otherwise, what we're getting ready to do is we're getting ready to put more people in a position of needing the food stamps and we continue to talk about jobs but we haven't done anything on the infrastructure and i predict even if this measure before us today were to become law, then -- which it is not, but if it did by chance become law we'd be lucky if in the course of time we had the kinds of jobs and the number of jobs that are desperately needed in this country. what is wrong with this institution? don't we understand that we have college kids that are graduating and they can't find a job. we hire kids up here at lower than the minimum wage because they can't find jobs in the private sector. this is crazy. we can't continue doing nothing when in fact the people are suffering in this great country of ours.

we have the resources, not only the natural resources that my friends would have us extract from even public lands without paying royalties but we have the resources as a people to do the things creatively to assist us in bringing jobs here rather than sending them all over the rld and causing a diminution of jobs here at home. for the life of me, i don't know why we're considering this bill today. we're considering virtually every mine on public land, including uranium and coal mines, to operate without adhering to public laws that protect public safety. our priorities are truly in the wrong place. as i asked before, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and underlying legislation and mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the amendment in the record along with

extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question, i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank youing mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular rule to the body. i've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing this time with the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, who is a good friend and have colorful like to d i always hear his orations here on the -- here on the floor. you'll forgive me if i want to try to refocus on the bill, the matter at hand. for indeed i recognize statements that have been made by the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. what we simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private sector jobs,

not just government sector jobs. by promoting private sector jobs we actually expand the economy and build upon that concept. that is one of the reasons why this particular bill is here. when all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had to import from other areas, to 61 minerals that we now have to import from abroad, that means there are a bunch of minerals we used to be producing in good, high-paying jobs, that no longer are there. so this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the proper direction and not just simply saying, ok, let's create some kind of make-work program that adds particular jobs. it needs to be the right kind of jobs to move our country forward. one person once told me if the people sitting here is the , we will not make each other rich by paying

each other to take vacations. at some point we have to add real wealth into the equation. that's what this bill is trying to do we have mineral wealth in this country and it needs to be added to the equation so we create good-paying mining jobs which will become good-paying manufacturing jobs. i would like to make one issue as to the idea that these companies who benefit from these are getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. they are not paying federal taxes but sometimes we forget that we're not the only equation out there. every one of these pays significant royalties and severance taxes to state and local governments. the federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this bill would be on top of that. it would be a form of double taxation. its goal would be to raise money. which is a nice goal but simply because you found a potential effort for the federal

government to try and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that, especially when it has negative aspects somewhere else. it would have a negative aspect on state and local government. it would also have a negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have any empathy for the situation they are in. if if you actually put an additional federal royalty on top of the state and local royalty they are paying and the a r tax you are paying, in traditional company you could pass that tax burden on to the consumer. in a world market, we cannot. that just doesn't happen. it has to come out from the company itself. the companies who are involved have clearly said they're not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds on it but these kind of proposals we'll be hearing in the debate today are not net proceeds tax. they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax. nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments

would try to put on this program system of once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good private sector jobs. and the underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way legitimate. . as a school teacher we nine months to do something. if you couldn't get it done in nine months, you didn't get it done. there was no idea postponing it to a future date. if a principal came to he me and said we have to have our testing done on tuesday for the standized test, i cont say no, let's wait two weeks, and maybe i'll be ready to help you with the testing data. in the public education, any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. you have to do the work.

you back, you back schedule to make sure you actually do the work. that happens in almost every element of society except for here in government. when i was in the state legislature we had a constitutional end to that legislative date. we had 45 days to make a decision. often those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices you have, but we had to make a decision. i contrast that with what is happening here in the united states government in which the forest service is asked to do a study on a potential bridge that we could transfer from the federal ownership over to state ownership, and they said yes in about four years we would be able to do that study. four years? do a simple study? we give ourselves these unreasonable and unexcusable time references and we do it all the time. i had a bill that was passed a couple years ago in which mandated that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property over to the

local entity of government. congress passed it. they mandated it. now here 2 1/2 years later, the agency still has not transferred that land. they are going through their surveys. they are taking their time. even the local government had to pay for all these time consuming surveys. what congress mandated two years later still has not happened. that's unrealistic. in the private sector no one would tolerate that. in our state government, no one would actually tolerate that. and the education community, no one would tolerate that. yet we look at that as the norm? seven to 10 years as an average to actually permit these things? that is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through the process. use the nepa process, but do it in a fair and rational way, and make a decision. you don't drag things out just for the fun of dragging things out. if the decision is yes, fine.

if the decision is no, fine. but for heaven's sakes, make a decision. some elements of government who -- ll not make carketures cake tures about even if it's true, some like to drag out decisions. this is an area that shouldn't be. so this simply says if you're going to deal with this area, you got 30 months. 30 months to make a decision. you can do that in 2 1/2 years. there is no reason why you cannot be. we are doing this in other areas of the government. the president in his executive order said this has to be the way we move forward. this bill moves us forward. this bill does a good thing. it was right that it passed in the last session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do. it's the right message, it's the right program, it moves us forward. it's the right thing to do this year. and we will continue to push this until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving forward with

hard deadlines so that the he decisions are made and we are not just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time. mr. speaker, this is a very good bill. it's still a good bill. we need to pass this bill again. it's also a very good rule. it's a fair rule. it's a rule for which we can be proud. and i would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both bodies a long time ago, but we need to once again start this process and to continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. it will provide us with resources. it will provide us with jobs. it will provide us more importantly with decisions, finally we can actually have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner. with that, mr. speaker, i will

now yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 347, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 301. 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 his vote the ayes --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 229. . e noes are 192 the previous question is ordered. the he question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 231,

the nays are 19 0. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, suspend the rules and pass h.r. 301 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 301, a bill to provide for the establishment to promote religious freedom of religious minorities in the near east and south central asia. 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 will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- on this vote the yeas are 402, the nays are 22, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 761. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution

347 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 761. the chair appoints the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, to preside over he committee of the whole. the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 761 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to require the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop

domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time they have gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. members are reminded to please take their conversations off the floor.

the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i rise in strong support of h.r. 761 the national strategic and critical minerals production act. not a day goes by that americans don't use a product made with critical minerals. life as we know it would not be possible without these minerals. there would be no computer, blackburies or ifopes. no m.r.i. or c.t. scans or x-ray machines. the list is exhaustive of these things of these critical minerals that make modern life possible. re earth elements are core

components of these products in the 21st century. yet despite the tremendous need for rare earth elements, the united states has allowed itself to become almost entirely dependent on china and other foreign nations for these resources. america has a plentiful supply of rare earth elements but roadblocks to the developments of these crucial materials have resulted in china producing 97% of the world's supply. our current policies are handing china in monopoly on these elements, creating a dependence that has serious implications on american jobs, on our economy, and on our national security. burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits and onerous regulation can hold up new mining projects here in the u.s. for more than 10 years. these unnecessary delays cost american jobs as we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for these raw ingredients. the lack of america-produced strategic and critical minerals

are prime examples of how america has regulated itself into a 100% dependence on at least 19 unique minerals. it has also earned the united states the unfortunate distinction of being ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects. in 2012, the u.s. was ranked last along with pop what new gi nee out of 25 major mining companies on the pace of permitting. i can't speak for pap what new papua new the -- for but we need to improve this. this will help us streamline red tape that blocks america's strategic and critical mineral production. instead of waiting over a

decade for mining permits to be approved, this sets a total review process for 30 months. this isn't a hard deadline, it can be extended. but it is a goal to push bureaucrat into action on these important infrastructure projects. it shouldn't take a decade to get a project built for minerals in our everyday life and for our national security. finally, mr. chairman, above all, this is a jobs bill. the positive economic impact of this bill will extend beyond just the mining industry. for every mining job created, an estimated 2.3 additional jobs are generated and for every nonmetal mining job, another 1.6 jobs are created. this legislation gives the opportunity for american manufacturers, small businesses, technology companies, and construction firms to use american resources to help make the products that

are essential to our everyday use. . we should respond with an american mineral mining renaissance that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to america. the national strategic and critical minerals production act is important to our jobs and to our economy. we must act now to cut the government red tape that is stopping american mineral production and furthering our dependence on foreign minerals. were that tsh-with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> mr. chairman, today we are considering h.r. 761, the so-called national strategic and critical minerals production act. mr. holt: now, despite the bill's title, it has almost nothing to do with national

strategic and critical minerals production. in fact, under the guise of promoting the development of minerals critical to the united states national security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public lands for almost all minerals. mr. chairman, the bill's classification of critical minerals is so broad that even sand and gravel and other such things can fall under its definition. critical and strategic minerals? the democratic amendments we will consider today will attempt to tailor this legislation to cover only minerals that are truly critical and strategic. and will address the egregious provisions that would truncate important environmental review. make no mistake, this bill is a give away. it is free mining, no

royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption from legal enforcement of the protections. and it's unnecessary. there is a real debate that we could be having about mining aws in this country. it should start with reforming the mining law of 1872, which is as archaic as its name suggests. he mining law of 1872. e should be discussing abandoned mine reclamation. we should be discussing ensuring taxpayers a fair return on industrial development of our public lands. mr. chairman, in the natural resources committee markup on may 15 of this year, where h.r. 761 was reported out on a

nearly party line vote, the committee also reported two other bills on a bipartisan basis. two other bills that would lay the groundwork for developing critical and strategic mineral production. those bills, h.r. 1062, the national and strategic critical minerals policy act of 2013, and h.r. 981, the rare act, were unanimously reported out of the natural resources committee, and legitimately would be worth debating here in the house as part of any serious effort to improve our understanding of critical strategic mineral deposits and to aid in their development. we reported out bills on a bipartisan basis that would do what this legislation purports to do. we could be discussing those bills, instead we are taking up legislation which is a give

away. the legislation we could be dealing with would actually deal with strategic and critical minerals. now, if the majority were to bring it to the floor, i'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming bipartisan way and would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law. in fact, in the last congress the critical and strategic mineral policy act, not to be confused with the production act that we are considering today, was supported by the national mining association, the president and c.e.o. of the national mining association issued a statement when that bill passed out of committee last congress and he said, quote, the house natural resources committee took important bipartisan action today to ensure u.s. manufacturers, technology innovators, and our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the products

they produce and use. he went on to say that legislation, quote, will provide a valuable assessment of our current and future mineral demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through domestic policy production. we could be considering legislation like that. we should be able to work in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to improving our supply of rare earth minerals and other strategic minerals and ensuring that we are not dependent on china and other nations for their supply, but the majority seems to be not interested in that. evidently they don't want to work in a bipartisan fashion to produce legislation that all sides out there in the country, in industry, people who look after public lands and the environment, could agree on. instead, they are moving this bill, h.r. 761, which has almost nothing to do with

strategic minerals, is really about give aways to the mining industry. this bill would be a trojan horse if it were to become law. however it has no chance of becoming law. maybe the american people grateful we won't pass this give away. that the american people i say those american people who don't stand to get rich by this mining give away. can the american people really feel good we are wasting time and actually not looking after the critical and strategic minerals that american products, american defense depends on? why are we playing these games? why, i should say, are they playing these games with our legitimate needs to develop strategic minerals? we should be working in the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill.

the majority should shell everybody this give away to the mining industry and bring to the floor serious proposals that we could honestly debate as part of a legitimate bipartisan discussion regarding rare earth policy and supply. i reserve the balance of my ime. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from nevada, mr. amodei. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. mr. amodei: thank you, mr. chairman. having a real debate on this issue is something that i wholeheartedly support. we probably ought to start with the facts. first of all you heard much about the overly broad definition. h.r. 761 deliberately contains a broad definition of strategy and critical minerals. here's some of the reasons why. in 2006 prior to the worldwide

economic turndown, there was great concern over the future availability of platinum group metals and copper. at the time projections in demand for copper indicated by 201630 large-scale copper deposits would have to come online to meet worldwide demand. at the time there were not enough copper deposits to make up for projected downward curve. you have heard much about sand and gravel. even sand and gravel and other construction mineral materials can be in short supply or not available as the usgs discovered in 2009 during the great california shakeout. what they discovered during that was that in its assessment of scope and damage and materials needed for construction in the event of a large-scale earthquake, they discovered there was not enough sand and gravel and other construction materials available in the region to meet the affected areas' reconstruction needs. so when you talk about the ability to foretell the future and you say we should just limit things to the i.u.m.

ending minerals, i say you probably ought to think about what it takes to get a bill through congress to respond to those things because it's less timely than the federal permitting process. much has been made about getting rid of nepa review. when all else fails read the bill. take a look at page 5 and when you look at lines 12 through 17 there, these are not the words you would be using if you were trying to get rid of the nepa process. starting up at line 6 it says the lead agency with responsibility for permitting, then you go down to line 12, if they find -- it says if the procedure and substantive standards for the permitting process alone, they must find that those are there. look at page -- line 12, if the procedural are found. that is unlimited discretion in executive branch agency. so don't tell me we are getting ready of nepa because the bill would have been written different if we were trying to get rid of nepa.

i also want to point out your attention to the base of this as a infrastructure executive order from the current administration that talks about avoiding duplication of efforts. i also want to point out some words in there that says infrastructure projects in sectors, including surface transportation -- by the way i think that has something to do with sand and gravel -- aviation, run ways have some of those elements people don't think are critical, ports, waterways, water resource projects, renewable energy generation, electricity transmission, broadband, hello, keystone, see how good it's done them. if this is an attempt to stir environmental regulation, someone probably should have written it differently. we didn't. it is simply not the truth. i want to talk about fair return and all this taxation stuff. in my state which is 85% owned by the federal government, the federal government gives $22 million a year to the rural

counties in nevada for pit. i know some of my colleagues from east of the mississippi don't understand what that means, payment in lieu of texases, $22 million. what this job is really about is about jobs. the final piece, the final piece is this, this does not require anybody in the federal permitting agencies to say, yes you can have your permit in 30 months. it requires an answer in 30 months. nobody seeks to apply this to get a nice crisp no in 30 months. which is why the language is in there, mr. chairman, that says, by the way if both sides agree you can have longer to process it. when you bounce that off the claims of 3 1/2 and five years under exexisting administration timelines, asking them to set a 30-month timeline is not something which undoes environmental responsibility, breaks the landscape, and outdoes the taxpayers out of their normal revenues that are there. with that, mr. chairman, i

yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: may i ask the time remaining, mr. chairman? the chair: you have 23 1/2 minutes. mr. holt: thank you. i will repeat this bill is a give away. it is free mining, no royalties. i refer to the archaic legislation that is -- goes by the archaic name of the mining act of 1872. which excuses miners from royalty payments. that would apply here. and as for excusing the miners from environmental regulations, he legislation says that the lead agency shall determine hat a major federal action significantly affecting the

quality of human environment has not occurred, or is not occurring. in other words, it is the ning activities are excluded from, excused from the triggering language of the environmental policy act. no environmental significant environmental policy review would be undertaken under the national environmental policy act if the agency can say, well, the state is doing something. the state is doing something. whatever that may be, however adequate that may turn out to be. so i call that a relaxation if not an exemption of environmental protection. and i repeat these mining activities do not allow for a fair return to the taxpayer,

the owners of this land, for the use of this land. under this we could call anything at all strategic and critical. sometimes the military might need to build a runway or extend the runway. but to say that the sand and gravel that's necessary to do that becomes strategic is a real perversion of the idea of strategic and critical. so let's deal with those things that we need for aircraft ngines and powerful magnets, these other so-called rare earth elements, some of which are actually not so rare but they are dispersed but hard to

mine and get adequate quantitieses of them. some of which are truly rare. let's make those available for manufacturing needs for national security needs. rather than having a catch-all mining definition that excuses ny kind of mining from royalties and from environmental regulation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, a new member of the natural resources committee, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i commend the congressman the need for recognizing a nay jor -- major supply chain vulnerability in the united

states, that of strategic critical minerals. many those only heard this after we became lawmakers. most of the time we hear about exotic elements at the bottom of the periodic table, like neodymium and europium. but the fact is we're facing down potentially devastating supply disruption for a much more familiar material, lead. in my district, we know a lot -- a lot about lead, because my district produces more lead than any other district in the nation. we rely on lead for everything from bullets, missiles, ships and tanks to batteries for vehicles and energy storage to tv and computer screens to storing nuclear waste. almost every one of us drives a car powered by a lead acid battery. it may be hard to believe that lead could be a strategic

vulnerability for the united states, because we have used it in so many products for over a creptry. over the past generation, we have taken lead out of things like gasoline and paint to help protect the human health. but the fact is lead is still crucial as a critical material that we use safely in a vast number of american manufactured technologies. there is only one primary lead producer remaining in the united states today, and that facility is scheduled to close at the end of 2013. and environmental regulations are making it more and more difficult for lead producers to xtract and process ore economically. today china produces lead three times the u.s. produces and our global market share is shrinking. demand for lead is expected to grow 5% to 6% a year, increasing prices and

competition for our domestic resources. american innovators are working hard to improve the efficiency of lead production, and make sure as many lead acid batteries are recycled so their con refurbished but we cannot meet the national security needs and commercialize important new technologies without a more robust secure supply. i hope that h.r. 761 will open doors for lead production in the united states and that any future legislative effort on critical minerals will be also account for lead supplies. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the chair. this legislation is fundamentally a solution in search of a problem. now, according to analysis of data provided by the bureau of land management for hard rock mines on public lands for which

there is complete data, the average time it takes to approve a plan of operation for a mine has actually decreased under the obama administration. we do not need a relaxation of regulation in order to speed things up. according to the b.l.m. data, plans of operation for hard rock mines are being approved roughly 17% more quickly under the obama administration than under the previous administration. thank you, president obama. and despite the majority's claims, 82% of plans of operation for hard rock mines are approved within three years under the obama administration. now, the mining companies will say, oh, three years. that's so long. well, according to the b.l.m., quote, it takes on average four years to approve a mining plan of operations for a large mine. more than 1,000 acres on public lands, end quote. now, my colleagues on the other side have asked repeatedly what

the problem is with their legislation that would truncate and eviscerate proper review of all mines on public lands if the majority of plans are approved within three years. well, it's because a little more than 15% of hard rock mines take more than four years to approve. for these mines where mining companies may not have submitted a complete application or may not have posted sufficient bond to ensure that the mine is cleaned up after their work or where additional environmental review is large or potentially damage to our environment and to public health, this bill would prevent proper review. we're already approving hard rock mines more quickly under the current administration than under the previous administration. we should not be eviscerating proper review of virtually all mining operations on public lands, including sand and gravel, i repeat, as this republican bill would do.

we should certainly not be doing it under the pretense of developing critical and strategic minerals. now, the other side likes to cherry pick. they cherry pick one statistic out of a report without having read the rest of the report. if you look at the full report by the international consulting firm bear dole bear, it states, quote, permitting delays are a global issue, end quote, and that, quote, business environment will likely favor firms that aggressively take a proactive stance concerning societal and environmental issues, end quote. plans under the current administration, under the current b.l.m., plans of operation for hard rock mines are being approved roughly 17% ore quickly than previously.

they say that the united states ranked last in mining. what they fail to note is that the united states is one of the most attractive countries in the world for mining. sixth, to be precise. sixth most attractive. we are number six in the world when you take all factors into consideration and all countries into consideration. yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to cherry pick and say that the united states is so unfair to the mining interests that we have to give them a break, that we have to give away all of these mining resources on the public lands with no royalties and very few questions asked. i yield -- i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the committee will rise informally to receive a message.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the gentleman from nevada two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. amodei: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. you know, only in washington would we be having a debate about whether four years is ok

or 2 1/2 years is ok when we're talking about a jobs bill. and only in washington would we talk about cherry picking when we're talking about the vast majority of the production that is sought for permitting and the vast number of jobs created is not -- i want to make this very clear so the record is clear -- is not handled within three years. now, it may be true that it's less than the bush administration, which is fine, but let's assume that it is. but when we're talking about primarily issues that deal with western land to states at or near a majority of federal ownership and you want to talk about the middle class and you want to talk about generating jobs, and you want to say, hey, by the way, you take as long as you want and we don't know if you'll have a job in that industry or not because there are no rules, only in

washington would we be fending no time limits whatsoever. to say 30 months is a bad idea with language that says if both sides agree you could take longer is not an unreasonable environmental or administrative stance. nobody wants a nice, crisp denial in 30 months. by the way, if the application should be denied, then i presume that it will be denied. but what we're seeing now, despite you can find no legislative history for this anywhere in any of the applicable environmental rules and statutes, there is nothing that says, oh, by the way, if nothing else works, just see if you can drag it out as long as possible and see if that capital goes away. because when you talk about permitting attractiveness, it's not what these folks or that folks say, it's where the capital goes, and the capital isn't going here. and the strategic interest of having to go to china for your

rare earths or having to go to other countries to produce those is not apparent. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mere friend on the other side of the aisle says -- my friend on the other side of the aisle says evidently the agencies that are reviewing these massive projects, projects that can permanently degrade the environment, permanently degrade the environment, hurt public health, affect communities, they're doing it just to be mean to the mining interests. no, i don't think so. they are charged with protecting the lands that belong to americans, the health long-term and the welfare of the communities. now, as for china, let's talk

about china. we should be talking about china. we should be concerned about what happens to the rare earth minerals around the world and in this country being locked up by china. talk to any business searching the venture capital community for startup funding, and one of the first things they'll be asked is, what is your china plan, because if you don't have a china plan, you won't be very successful. the bill that we're considering today, once again, shows that republicans and their eagerness to have giveaways to the mining industry are wandering in total darkness when coming up with a strategy when dealing with china. in the final sections of the bill before us, china and india has driven demand for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of resource, nationalism exemplified by exports of rare

earth elements. true. these are the rare earth elements that are necessary for telecommunications, military technologies, health care technologies and conventional energy and renewable energy. so what will this bill do with china's export restrictions? what will this bill do to ensure that china not restrict exports of rare earths to us or that we keep the rare earth elements in this country to be used as strategic input to these strategic industries? nothing. i have news for my colleagues. we do in the united states produce rare earth. we mine and concentrate rare earth minerals. one in california mines one of the richest rare earth deposits in the world. they're ramping up 40,000 tons of production by next year. that will be a quarter of the

global production. but guess what, guess where they are sending much of that production? yes, china. that's right. our rare earths will go to china to be refined in alloys and metals. and there they will stay if the chinese government so determines. . or chinese high-tech manufacturers. what are we doing about that in had legislation? nothing. so why are we doing this legislation first when the bigger problem is how are we going to have a reliable supply of these strategic minerals? the republican solution, here china. we have waived our environmental laws. we are going to turn these out faster and faster from these public lands that belong to the american people, we'll send them to you, china, so you can refine them, and please send them back to us. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i ask my friend from new jersey if he has any further speakers because i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. holt: no further speakers. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. holt: let me just repeat what -- the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the chair. let me just repeat what we have heard over and over. this is unnecessary. it's not dealing with the real problems first. mining iveaway to the industry to exempt them from regulations, to extempt them from being a reasonable royalty to the american people for use of the american people's lands. it would alter nearly all mining operations on public lands in the united states by

reducing or even eliminating he review under the national environmental policy act. it would change these mining operations not just for these rare earth elements, but for copper, uranium, sand and gravel. the interior department testified this legislation would remove. of the environmental safeguards for almost all types of hard rock mines on public lands. bypass evaluation of potential impacts under the national environmental policy act, and limit public involvement in agency decisionmaking. can that be a good idea to eliminate all those things and not actually deal with the supply, the production and supply and availability of strategic minerals. the authors of the bill say it's needed because it could

take a developer years to get all government permits in place. well, that's up to the developer. to get those in place. and it's up to the government agencies to make sure they do t in a way that protects the public health, protects the public lands, protects the future of communities that would be affected by this. this bill is not about fixing delays but really about preventing proper review, environmental review, and safety and public health reviews. we should be updating the ining act of 1872. it's let's say a century or a century and a half late in that we are a century or century and a half late in updating that mining law.

maybe there was a time in the 19th century when we wanted to send people out to develop the great expanses of the western united states and give them carte blanche. we have come a long way since then. we should get up to date here in the house of representatives. we should be dealing with the 100,000 known abandoned mines that are dangerous -- that are a danger to people and to the environment. promoting the development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities and that are genuinely susceptible to disruptions should be an area where pothe sides, republicans and democrats -- both sides, republicans and democrats, can work together. instead we are dealing with special interest interests, giving them free rein -- free reign in a handout.

i urge my colleagues to he reject this misguided bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, before i make my closing remarks i want to thank chairman goodlatte of the judiciary committee for his cooperation in helping schedule this bill for consideration, and we have an exchange of letters to that effect. mr. chairman, much has been debated here on the floor about strategic and what is the strategic and what is not strategic. let me posit a suggestion here on the fact that there are two ways that you could dough fine this. you could define it by making a definition so narrow that in effect the legislation picks winners and losers, or you

could write statutory law that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the driver of what is strategic. that means the marketplace is the one that decides what is strategic. i think that's a much better approach because when i talk about this in this sense, i recall hearing that in the late 1890's the u.s. patent office issued a statement, and i could be off a little bit, they said we ought to close down the u.s. patent office because everything that has been invented has been invented. this is 1890's. now, this is before we were flying airplanes. this is before the car became commercially available. which means that all of the minerals that go into those things weren't even thought of at the time. so what we do then in this bill is just very straightforward. we say that the strategic minerals will meet these

criteria. a, by the way you can find this on page 5, section 3, definitions, a, for national defense and national security. that is so self-evident it hardly needs to be debated. second, for our nation's energy infrastructure including pipelines, refining, and so on from the energy standpoint. now, that certainly should not be debated because we have to have an energy -- good energy source if we are going to have a growing economy. c, to support domestic manufacturing, of course that includes agriculture, in other words, to support our economy. doesn't that make good sense to this -- to have a good source of strategic minerals for that? finally, d, for the nation's economic security and balance of trade. now, that makes imminently good sense. because we are seriously out of balance now with china has been brought up. so when we approach this, this

approach is more of a long-term solution because i dare say in 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find, that will be used for new technology, but if we have defined it so narrowly we don't know what that technology is, we have become picking winners and losers. that's the wrong approach. the right approach is what's embodied in this bill to say that these conditions will be the ones will define strategic minerals. finally, let me close because everybody likes to make fun of sand and gravel as being strategic. i guarantee you in southern california after the earthquake and in northern california after the earthquake, when the freeways collapsed, i can tell you very, very strategicically -- strategically cement, sand, and gravel fit that category. so under the conditions this, i think, fits what we are

attempting to do in the long term. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 113-214. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for vision of the question. -- division of the question.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-214. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: to present the amendment. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 113-114, offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 347, gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chair. i was puzzled when i read the bill title as the national strategic and critical minerals production act. then when i went on to read the bill's text, surely there must have been a mistake when drafting this bill. strategic and critical minerals were certainly not meant to include sand and gravel and

clay, but right now section 3 of this bill is written so broadly that it would include very common, nonstrategic and noncritical minerals. even going so far as i mentioned to encompass materials such as sand, gravel, and clay. interior department recently testified before my colleagues on the natural resources committee and confirmed that this is, in fact, exactly the case. the bill that we are now considering is written expansively beyond critical minerals. interior department testified this legislation would remove many of the environmental safeguards for almost all kinds of hard rock mines on public lands. it would bypass evaluation of potential impacts under nepa, and it would limit public involvement in agency decisionmaking. that's why i introduced an

amendment that would simply narrow the bill's definition of purported strategic and critical minerals to actual strategic and critical minerals as defined by the national research council. why is my amendment critical? it is because instead of ostensibly fast tracking only strategic and critical minerals, which this bill i think does poorly, this legislation appears to be a guise for mining interest to loosen public review. judicial review, and environmental protections not just for strategic and critical minerals, but for all hard rock mining. we could have a debate about how to ensure american supply of strategic and critical minerals, but first we have to get the definition right. i urge the adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington.

mr. hastings: i claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, this amendment really picks up on what my arguments were at the end of the general debate because the effect of this amendment would be to pick winners and losers by narrowly defining a use. as i stated in my closing remarks, we have four categories that i think are very broad and change over a period of time. so what this amendment does is ry to restrict what may be decided as a critical mineral, but of course that will change over time. now, if this amendment is adopted, and i urge will -- obviously urge rejection of this, but if it were to be amended, i can make a prediction that i know would

come back. and that is, we'll be back here in the future saying, oh, there's another set of critical minerals we need to define, and we keep doing that over and over and over. isn't it, isn't it not much, much better to define the categories and then apply those minerals to those categories because they'll change? i find it kind of interesting, too, mr. chairman, because i close my general debate remarks by talking about sand and gravel, and my good friend from southern california i guess alluded to the fact that sand and gravel doesn't fit into that category. i'm not going to ask him to answer me, but i'll just ask the question rhetoricically, i wonder if he felt that way after the earthquake collapse of the freeways in southern california. would he have liked to wait maybe four years permitting

process to get sand and gravel in order to rebuild those freeways that are so important to southern california? i ask that question rhetorically of course, mr. chairman, but i just want to say that this amendment would do exactly opposite of what the intent of this bill is about, and that way -- that is it picks winners and losers and i urge its rejection and i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. i welcome those comments. let's be clear what i am talking about. i am talking about eliminating an almost a giveaway of almost all hard rock mining to define what is strategic and critical as defined by the robust methodology in the national resources council's report. now, what do i mean by a robust

methodology? it says, if we look at all the mining we have, if we look at what we have to define what's strategic, we have to look along two dimensions in a scientific way. we have to know what is the impact of this mineral or this mining if it was supplied restriction. what would be the impact if there was a supply restriction? would it impact defense? would it impact national security? if it does have an impact, then it has a high, high rating on that. also, what about the supply risk? we need to measure. if we do not develop this mine at this place, are there other places that we can? if in fact a mineral has high supply risk, high impact, that not only are those minerals defined now but the secretary of interior, using this methodology, will define. this clearly defines what is needed in terms of strategic

and critical and not everything. remind you right now we are -- we have in the bill, environmental protection agency, public participation, judicial review for everything. we are doing it, as pointed out, for national defense. he said everything that meets national security requirements for energy infrastructure, pipelines, refining capacity, power generation, domestic manufacturing which includes everything, whether it's important or not, health care, telecommunications, transportation. what we're doing is we're gutting protections for everything not those that are just needed. i present a methodology which will allow a real clear definition, not of what's in the bill now, but included a methodology that the secretary of interior can include if indeed the material is really needed to be mined. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time.

i yield -- the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i yield to my colleague from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman -- for how much time? how much time does the gentleman yield? mr. lowenthal: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman yields 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: china is not trying to lock up the world's sand and gravel. we do have to worry about the yttrium and things that are in hard drives and laptops and so forth. let's get to the point that has to due with the definition that my colleague talked about, winners and losers. yes, this bill has winners and losers. the winners would be the mining companies. the losers would be the local community, water quality and american taxpayers.

i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. lowenthal: i'm prepared to close. may i ask how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has 15 seconds remaining. r. lowenthal: thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: why i introduced this amendment that would narrow the bill's definition to not what is purported to be strategic but actually what is strategic. if we're going to give benefits, they must be strategic and my amendment provides for an actual way of measuring that. i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time do i have, mr. chairman? the chair: three minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: once again, the

-- i think the gentleman from new jersey did say this picks winners or losers. he tried to turn it around and say we pick winners and losers. i will acknowledge that from this standpoint. the winners will be those states that have huge, huge swath of federal land. the winners will be the communities in those states that has large swaths of federal land that want to create jobs, because jobs are created because the natural resources in those states. so from that sense, yes, we are picking winners and losers and frankly i am proud of that. but i have to say this, mr. chairman, and listen to my friend's argument on this, keep in mind what this bill does. this bill tries to provide certainty for those that would want to get in the mining business. by saying you have to have a decision made in 30 months. now, the decision doesn't have to be affirmative but you have to have a decision. what this the gentleman is saying, what the effect of this amendment is, as i hear in his arguments, there's one more

layer we have to go through before it's strategic and that's the secretary of interior. does that not suggest that might be a political problem, then, rather than a problem based on what is needed? no. the four broad categories is a much, much broader way to do it. i think the gentleman's amendment is misplaced. i urge its rejection and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. lowenthal: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in ouse report 113-214. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. veasey: mr. chairman,

amendment at the desk. -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in 2 printed in house report 113-214 offered by mr. veasey of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 347, the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. veasey: mr. chairman, i thank you for recognizing me. i rise to offer this amendment because, mr. chairman, mineral exploration and mining have a deep history in our country. we have vast resources in america that we've been able to use for our own security, innovation and economic benefit. this is why we must continue to explore these resources in a smart, environmentally sensitive manner. it's dangerous for america to depend on countries like china for rare earth elements and rare earth metals. these elements are necessary for telecommunications, military technologies, health care technologies as well as

conventional and renewable energy technologies. but the underlying bill goes far beyond these specific minerals in defining what constitutes strategic and critical. while the national strategic and critical minerals production act gives four characteristics to what should be a strategic and critical mineral, it leaves the exact minerals open to interpretation. the majority has stated that their purpose for leaving in the definition, this definition is so broad that it allows for flexibility over time. this bill would cover all hard rock minings on federal land. i think most americans will agree that sand and gravel are important to our economy, but how many would be willing to go on federal lands in places such as the grand canyon in order to mine these two elements? that is why i propose my amendment to h.r. 761. my amendment would give the secretary of interior the authority to specifically list what are strategic and critical

minerals and give this information available -- and make this information available to the public. after a given number of years, looking at the global and national landscape for mineral exploration, the secretary would have the authority to change this list as factors dictate. this allows for flexibility in responding to global mineral markets while protecting our public resources. mr. chairman, i know both democrats and republicans strongly support the development of rare earth elements and other critical minerals national for our national security and our national competitive but we must refeign from allowing the mining industry to say what is critical solely for their needs. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment to define what minerals are of national public interest and to protect the prestige of public lands. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: clearly, with the last amendment and this amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- on the other side of the aisle are concerned about what is strategic. this is very similar to the last amendment except it specifically gives the secretary of interior that power to decide what is critical or not. now, i'm sorry, mr. chairman. i don't think from a policy standpoint we should give that much power to anybody to say what is critical and not as far as minerals are concerned to support our economy. let me give you a case in point how we run into problems with this. less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group metals used in computer and electronics and the pending

shortfall of copper. so because we hadn't defined these broad categories, if we had this bill in place 10 years ago, this category would have taken care of itself because the market would have suggested we need new minerals in order to support a certain sector of the economy. but, no, when you pick winners and losers, then you have to go through the whole process and the high prices and all of those things that slow down the economy. so once again, in deference to my good friend that offered this amendment, in a bill that is trying to add certainty to the regulatory process, this adds another letter of uncertainty by giving it to the secretary of interior. i'm sorry, mr. chairman. i don't think that is good policy. this goes along again with the last -- with the last amendment. by voice vote this was

rejected. this should be rejected in the like manner, and i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. veasey: i would, mr. speaker, i would like to ask the gentleman from washington if this deal, who would decide who is strategic and a critical mineral? i'd yield the balance to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: does the gentleman yield to me? i'd be more happy to tell you, and i made this -- if you look on page 5 under definitions, strategic and critical minerals, the term, quote, strategic -- i always have trouble saying that word -- strategic and critical minerals means minerals that are necessary. for national defense, national security requirements. i can't predict in 25 years which mineral will support our

weapons, for example. but that is the category in which that would be a critical mineral. b, for the nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission and renewable energy production. now, i have no idea what in the future critical minerals we need to support those activities, but i know before wind and solar took hold, nobody was worrying about those minerals, but this category, if you had it by category, you ould have not go through finding out what that source is. c, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, health care, transportation infrastructure. mr. veasey: mr. chairman, i'd like to reclaim my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. veasey: who would decide what is a strategic and

critical mineral? i listen to the gentleman in his explanation. i never heard exactly who would decide in his explanation. mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield? mr. veasey: yes. let me finish then because there's one more and i do want to say that. for the nation's economic security and balance of trade. so once that category is defined and somebody wants to refine -- i don't know, pick a name. there are always new names. i can't pronounce them anyway. and they find out there is a new industry that wants a an in element, if -- if entrepreneur want to mine from that, they make the permit and it's decided by the federal agency, very simple. if it fits this category, he gets the permit. mr. veasey: i reclaim. mr. hastings: that's the beauty of it. mr. veasey: i reclaim my time, mr. speaker. and the answer to that would be the secretary of the interior,

mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: the gentleman's time has expired? the chair: yes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. i say we have somewhat exhausted this, but the difference between this gentleman's amendment and the broad categories i say is that he, he -- i should say the secretary of interior, picks that. the secretary picks it. under the underlying bill, yes, the secretary picks it, but if it meets these broad categories, then, of course, he has to pick that mineral. that makes perfectly good sense because it's in response to the marketplace. so mr. chairman, i urge rejection of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, this noes have it.

mr. veasey: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in house report 113-214. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 347, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, here we go again. another week, another attempt by the house majority to gut critical protections that save lives and communities. right before we left for the august recess, a break i urged

the republican leadership to forgo, the house passed a reckless offshore drilling bill that risks communities along the atlantaic, pacific and gulf coast, and for what? to explore for fossil fuels. we had passed and rule and were set to consider it until the majority pulled it from the floor and rammed through a farm gave stead, a bill that handouts to big agribusiness and ignored the -- those in need. once again the majority is trying to remove environmental arbitrary but to set deadlines for the approval process. i urge my colleagues to

consider this commonsense amendment that will ensure a thorough safety review is conduct nsmed 1969, congress passed the national environmental policy act a bipartisan act with strong republican support, including president richard nixon. who understood then that environmental impacts on large projects must be explored. understood and eventually mitigated. under knee pa, any project -- pa, any project that could have an environmental impact must file a report before time approval. those with less environmental impact.ay have less

other projects such as a footpath may have no exclusions. but these are not footpaths, they are major mining prompts that could devastate communities. here are many things for which we should consider closing loopholes. considering that other major projects, even transit projects with clear environmental benefits, must go through an environmental impact statement, it's absurd to turn around and ex-cluse collude from such analysis active or put an arbitrary time on it my commonsense amendment, mr. chairman, would simply restore that process that so -- so that there can be peace and comfort of mind to affected communities. i urge its adoption. i reserve the balance of my time

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> if you like the current stovep 10-year time frame for permits in this country, you'll love this amendment. but this bill is about making it possible to do mining in this country and use our natural resources in a reasonable, commonsense way. other countries like australia and canada have a two-year time cycle from beginning to end to get your application an permit done so you can begin mining. in this country it's seven to 10 years. that's why we have declining activity of the well-paying jobs that mining prodeuces, the resources available from mining that -- so we don't have to rely on countries like china, and this bill would eviscerate this bill would gut what -- this amendment would gut what

this bill is tri-ing to do. it's unnecessary because nepa already applies. nepa remains in force. this just allows needless and endless bureaucratic delays by allowing nepa to be done, an environmental impact statement at every step in the whole process. it is important to have a certainty of when the process is over so you know whether or not you can invest in a long-term project like this. seven to 10 years is beyond any of our economic cycles. it is not feasible from a business standpoint to wait that long in a commodity market like minerals and metals, to make these investment decisions. you have to have certain i -- certainty, you have to have closure, you have to have a time certain that you're done. the 30-month time frame is

critical. we respect and uphold nepa, it remains in effect, but we get rid of the ability to do it as every step in the process. be a mendment would backwards step, back to the current status quo which makes it harder to have mining projects in this country work the jobs they create work the benefit to our economy that these minerals allow for. so mr. chairman, i would urge a strong no on this amendment and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the secret from virginia. mr. connolly: i would inquire how much time is left on this side. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. mr. chairman, i certainly respect my friend and his point of view about the mining industry. i wish it were true that the other side of the aisle respects the nepa process.

but frankly, we've had bill after bill and amendment after amendment in excess of 100 that actually attack everything from the clean water act to the clean air act that is resisted regulation even when it comes to public health, particulate matter for example. they have assaulted the nepa process every step of the way. in this bill, there's a huge carve quout for one industry, the mining industry. and it's not true that the average is seven to 10 years. it may be true that some have had that. but it's also true a nepa process protects communities, it answers questions, it answers the very uncertainty my friend talked about. but sometimes it answers that uncertainty in a way that the industry and its supporters on't like. i think our job here is not scotch protect wealthy advocates of a particular

ndustry who may also positively influence the financing of campaigns. i think our first duty is to protect public health and safety. those community that was found themselves devastated because of proper environmental analysis in fact had not been done and we've seen that all across america. from appalachia to southern illinois. to in the west. i, too, want to make sure we unlock strategic minerals, the so the united states has them available when it needs them. but i don't believe the tradeoff has to be at the expense of every community that could potentially be the site of a mine. mr. chairman, i actually strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes for this commonsense amendment to restore an environmental analysis process that in fact has worked. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from colorado is recognized.

mr. lamborn: i would like to remind my colleague from virginia that this administration has streamlined nepa for several uses during its time in office. for renewable energy projects, for highways, for the so-called stimulus that we had in 2007. so this administration at times anyway, sees the need to balance the creation of jobs with protecting the environment but not allowing environmental regulations to be used to endlessly delay projects. your amendment, i'm afraid, would, mr. chairman, this amendment, i'm afraid, would endlessly delay the production of the projects that we need to produce critical and strategic minerals. for that reason, i urge a no vote. how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one and a half minutes left. mr. lamborn: i yield one minute to my colleague and friend from

new mexico, representative pearce. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: thank you, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would make the comment to my friend from virginia that we in the west were being protected from ourselves, we're being protected from jobs. the devastation is in our jobs. i've got one county, i've got 18 county, one is 17,000 square mile three times the size of delaware, six times the size of rhode island, got a preponderancelation of 3,725 people. the jobs have gone away. there used to be 11 rare earth mineral mines in the southern district of new mexico, today there are none. all those jobs have gone to china. this is a commonsense bill that says we're going to go through the process. we have economies that are being devastated. it's not an environmental devastation. it's from the environmentalists who will sue to stop every single job in the west. we've lost our mining jobs, we've lost our timber jobs, these are areas that are not

sitting out here making life unlivable and unhealthy. these are areas that are looking for jobs. so i would urge a no vote on the amendment with respect to my friend and yield back the time. mr. lamborn: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. do you care to close? mr. lamborn: i'll wrap up the remaining 30 seconds to say that if you think it's a good situation for the united states new lumped in with papua, guinea, dead last in mining companies in that it takes seven to 10 years to get mining projects off the ground, then you'd like this amendment but if you don't, if you think we can protect the environment at the same time as creating jobs and strike that balance which this bill does, then you'll vote no on this amendment and yes on bill number 761.

thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: mr. chairman. the chair: in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. connolly: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 113-214. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 113-214 offered by mr. hastings

of florida. the chair: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: let me read the amendment, it's very short. the lead agency with responsible for issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit may not issue such permit until the applicant for the permit has fully reimbursed the united states, each state, and each native american tribe for all costs incurred by the united states and such states respectively, for issuance of the permit. shutch reimbursement shall include cost of all federal, state, and tribal reviews and approval required for the permit, contracting costs and salaries, including benefits for state and federal employees and the conduct of reviews by

state -- by a state that under authority delegated to the state under federal law. mr. chairman, the amendment at i offer today to h.r. 761 would reimburse the cost of permitting and order that the -- in order that the national environment policy act requirements be met. those who complain about the national environmental policy act permitting often cite, and it's been said here repeatedly on the floor when i was managing the rule or earlier today it was said, they cite timing as a concern. with budget cuts, furloughs, and other competing work it is not possible to meet all the demands. reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve this issue and provide for meaningful public participation in the division making process

for the use of federal lands. mr. chairman, i would ultimately ask that my amendment be made in order and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i appreciate the intention behind this amendment and i thank the gentleman for offering it. i want to reassure him, though, that the bill and current law already satisfies what he's after. so i would urge a no vote on this amendment. let me read specifically from the language of the bill. this is on page 9. i'm going to read a paragraph, and hopefully this will alleviate your concerns. financial assurance, subsection g, the lead agency will determine the amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a mineral exploration or mining site which must cover the estimated cost if the lead agency were to

contract with a third party to reclaim the operations according to the reclamation plan including construction and maintenance costs for any treatment facility necessary to meet federal, state or tribal environmental standards. unquote. so in case the company goes bankrupt in the worst-case scenario, they have to post a bond. i believe it's equal to 140% of what the reclamation cost would be. so we already have comprehensive regulations in addition to the bill language from the bureau of land management and the u.s. forest service, these regulations have been revised in both the clipon and bush administrations -- clinton and the bush administrations so that b.l.m. and forest service regulations require that exploration and mining activities have the resources necessary to ensure reclamation after it's over

even if the company goes bankrupt. so i appreciate the intention behind this amendment, but i believe it is completely unnecessary. and so for that reason, mr. chairman, i urge a no vote on the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i need to make a correction. the -- i had two amendments in the rules committee last night. and the one that i just read in to the record and my friend and colleague just responded to was the one that was not made in order. but i'll be very brief because the one that was made in order, amendment number 4 that we are addressing, requires financial assurance in the form of a surette bond, letter or credit -- surety bond, letter of credit or other instrument that would be routinely be accepted in commerce.

i ask that my full statement for amendment number 4 be placed in the record. and i'm sure my colleague has time to respond to amendment number 4. if he does not i would be prepared to yield to him whatever time i have in order or him to respond. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of the time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: how much time is remaining for myself? the chair: three minutes. mr. lamborn: let me just summarize that we already have it in current law and it's already addressed in this bill that there must be adequate financial assurances given, including the posting of bonds, i believe -- yes, including the posting of bonds to ensure that the reclamation can take place by contracted for third parties if the company goes bankrupt.

or for whatever reason can't follow through. all of our western public land states also have comprehensive regulatory and bonding programs covering hard rock mining. that's in addition to the federal laws and regulations. in many of these states, the federal and state agencies work together to jointly manage the reclamation and bonding projects. in june of 2013, b.l.m., with its state partners, holds more than $2.2 billion currently in financial assurances to reclaim potential mining sites around the u.s. so you can see this is an active and well-funded program that is in place. under regulation, these holdings are reviewed and adjusted annually to make sure that costs won't spiral out of control if we have inflation or unforeseen contingencies. in some instances, mining companies are required to establish trust funds and build

them over the cost of the mine life to ensure long-term treatment facilities that might be necessary to meet federal, state or tribal environmental standards. so i believe, mr. chairman, that there are already in place appropriate and adequate protections in regulations and the bill respects that also. i respect the gentleman for his intentions on this amendment, but i believe that it is unnecessary and for that reason i would urge a no vote, and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'd just say to my colleague that there are deficiencies and inadequacies in funding of the measures that u cited and that they do not -- the clean cost of cover the cost of cleanup. mr. chairman, i'd ask my

colleagues to vote aye on this measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- mr. hastings: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-214. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. pearce: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-214 offered by mr. pearce of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 347, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. i offer an amendment today to h.r. 761, the national strategic and critical minerals production act. my amendment is very simple. it only serves to clarify the scope of the bill by stating that it does not impact the rules put in place by ecretaryial order number 33 -- secretarial order 3324 issued last year. that sets in place buffer zones ash mines and oil and gas drilling among other requirements. the potash reserves are some of the purest in the world and our oil and gas drilling plays a key role in the gas boom that the country is experiencing. there is a long history between potash and the drilling in the region and the secretary order helped clarify some of those issues. i spent the better part of my career in congress working to facilitate an agreement between

these two industries to ensure both are able to thrive simultaneously. while some have reservations of the order, it's an important step in the process of ensuring the safe extraction of mineral resources. my amendment simply clarifies that the text of the bill cannot be used by the bureau of land management to show favoritism for either potash or oil and gas leases within the area laid out in the order. it does not affect the underlying bill, does not cost the american taxpayers a single time. to rings economic stability the permian bases and makes sure that these two minerals can be developed safely and side by side. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. the gentleman from new jersey -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. holt: i rise to claim the time that is allotted to the opposition to this amendment, although i do not intend to oppose it.

the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: thank you. i'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment, because it makes the point very well that i was making earlier today. we have criticized this bill because while it is being sold as necessary for critical and strategic minerals, the definition is so broad that it would cover virtually all mining on public lands. now, mr. pearce shares our concern. the gentleman is worried that if h.r. 761 is enacted, the definition is broad enough that it would cover even potash. now, potash is important for fertilizer for crops and for other purposes, but let's be clear, it is not used very much in high-tech manufacturing. it is not used in manufacturing items that are important for

our national defense, and it is not scarce. it is one of a long list of minerals that produces money for miners but should not be covered under this very broad definition in the underlying bill. we agree with -- i agree with mr. pearce that potash could be covered under this legislation, and we agree that elevating mining for potash on public ands under this bill could impact other uses of those lands, including the development of oil and gas, so i'm happy to support this amendment to clarify this overly broad definition. now, i'd like to note that we had an amendment a few moments ago offered by our colleague, mr. lowenthal, which would fix the definition in this bill by

eliminating -- limiting the bill to truly strategic and critical minerals determined as the gentleman, mr. lowenthal, described, a really thorough and let's say academic definition of those minerals and it would address not only mr. pearce's concerns but would solve one of the overall problems of this bill. so i'm happy to support the amendment. i thank the gentleman for making our case for us. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: mr. chairman, before i yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the subcommittee, i would like to differ with the gentleman from new jersey, my friend. he said that potash is not very high tech. when you use a scoop shovel to follow the cows around and use

the byproduct from the cattle to fertilize with, potash is extremely high tech. so with that one exception, i yield to the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lamborn: nothing in this bill impacts the mission of our nation's public lands, one of the great stories of america is that our nation recognizes the importance of balancing our land use for many different needs, including mineral and oil and gas development, renewable energy projects, grazing timber harvest, hunting, fishing, recreation and other important activities that bring economic vitality to our public lands. this legislation doesn't change that. it simply addresses the burr krattic and burdensome timelines -- bureaucratic and burdensome timelines by building on executive orders requiring coordination by regulatory agencies to process permits for infrastructure projects in a timely manner and without compromising environmental safeguards.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman for his time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: mr. speaker, i have no other comments and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. lamborn: i move that the committee now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye.

those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 761 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 761 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states.

the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the hou

the president thinks small businesses and families are doing just fine in this economy. speech after speech is about justifying his failed policies. one of his biggest failures is adding $6 trillion to the national debt. for decades, congresses and presidents have used the debt limit for legislation to cut spending and even president obama worked with us two years

ago in the debt limit negotiations to put controls on pending. this year won't be any different. we're going to do everything we can to repeal the president's ailed health care law. we'll repeal the c.r. the president has signed seven billing over the last two and a half years to make changes to obamacare and i sincerely hope our friends in the senate have plans to make this an eighth time. the law is a train wreck. the president has protected american big business. it's time to protect american families from this unworkable law. >> good morning. first i want to express my deepest condolences to those families who lost loved ones in

the attack on month in the navy yard. it is in these moments we witness the steel resolve of all those who serve our nation there as well as the first responders who came to help. now we just came out of our conference and had a very good discussion on our work on a budget measure that will continue our record of reduced government spending and deals head on with obamacare. not since the korean war has the federal government reduced spending two years in a row. e aim to make that happen. we aim to put a stop to obamacare before it loses one more job or raises a family's out of pocket expenses one more dollar. that fight will continue as we negotiate the debt limit with the president and senate. in the coming week we'll unveil a plan to extend our nation's ability to borrow while delay

og ba macare and protecting working middle class families from its horrific effects. those discussions will focus on a path forward and on the keystone pipeline and a variety of measures designed to lower energy prices, simplify our tax system and get our economy going for the middle class orking people of this country. we house republicans won't ignore the national debt or the problems facing the working class in this country. we hope and we ask that the president engage with congress and work with us on behalf of the american families. >> we all join with the comments the leader made about monday. we just got out of conference

and i notice you all stay outside to see what's the feel, what's the motion. i have not seen our conference so united. you'll see big excitement coming this week and next week as well as we move legislation. the excitement is the united conference going after the battle we've been willing to wage. the president laid out many times different portions of his health care bill is not prepared for the rest of the ation. we think it's time it's delayed. it's not just us that talk about it, the union leaders as well say, he wants to pick what matters more. and that's what you'll see come forward out of the house. >> i'd like to join in offering condolences to families who lost loved ones on monday. our hearts and prayers continue

with -- to be with them. it was a terrible day here in our nation's capitol. on monday we heard from the president regarding the economy we immediate to work together to create jobs and grow our economy. i remind the president that's been our goal since day one. it's unfortunate that it's many of the president's policies making it harder on americans all across this country and we've seen americans that continue to have a tough time finding a job in this economy. they're seing their premiums go up for their health insurance. it's harder at the gas pump. this is the longest, 1,000 days plus that gas has been over $3 a gallon. first time ever. at the grocery store it's harder to pay the bills. the republicans are focused on policies that will make it easier, that will create a climate a stronger economy for

america so that people will have an easier time finding a job, paying the bills, and for those graduating from college, finding a job. that's our commitment. these are not just numbers, these are real people's lives and the policies that we debate day in and day out make a difference in people's lives. we are committed to working with the president, working with the senate, where we can, to move policies forward that are going to make a positive difference and get people back to work. >> the president did say earlier this week that the economy is not where he would like it to be. something that my constituents are very well aware of every time they go to the doctor, go to the grocery store, fill up their automobile with gasoline. it is not where it needs to be. after five years as president we are hoping that he will turn to congress and work with us to

improve this economy. the unemployment rate was slightly down this month but it's because people have all but given up looking for work. i think the more important statistic is that the work force participation rate is the lowest it's been in 35 years. the lowest since 1978. while we stand ready to work with the president on a number of issues that have been articulated already on the health care law to keystone, tax reform is something that those of us on ways and means have been working on for several years now. twheff highest corporate tax rate in the world. every minute we refuse to pursue tax reform, we are incentivizing businesses to take their jobs offshore. that's the wrong answer. we have been working very hard to make life easier for our small businesses by lowering

the rates, eliminating the loopholes that only the very wealthy take advantage of, we want to put more money in hardworking american taxpayers' pockets so we stand ready to work with the president and hope he will engage at some point in reforming our tax code so we can get this economy moving and the american people ack to work. >> thank you, appreciate some of the comments made by the president and vice president this week, regarding the economy and the necessity to do infra -- to do infrastructure jobs. mr. biden was at a port talking about the infrastructure of our country. yet there's one infrastructure project that has, because of political reasons, been ignored new york action taken by this administration. i'm talking about the keystone x.l. pipeline. tomorrow, -- tomorrow marks an

interesting anniversary. it's the fifth year anniversary of the keystone permit filing. now what's particularly interesting about this administration ignoring this infrastructure and jobs and economic driver bill and oject is that shortly into his first year, the president did sign and the state department did recommend a cross border permit of a pipeline carrying oil sands into the united states. so the president didn't have a problem with the alberta clipper pipeline delivering oil into the united states and crossing a border until it became an environmental issue on the keystone pipeline. only then and because of politics has the president refused to act on the permit. so i'm proud our leadership is

now discussing and contemplating putting keystone pipeline in whatever opportunities we may have with debt ceiling and continuing resolutions, i appreciate our leadership's continued focus on this type of jobs bill. >> mr. speaker, it's no secret that you did not want to attach obamacare to -- defunding obamacare to this bill. i know it's not been easy to be the speaker over the caucus but at this point have you lost control of the caucus? >> we've got a lot of divergent opinions in the caucus, and the key to any leadership job is to listen. you know, i was here during the gingrich era, he had a little plaque in his office, and it was a management model. listen, learn, help and lead. we listen to our colleagues over the course of the last

week, we have a plan that they're happy with. we're going forward. > doesn't -- if you're working with the senate, isn't that a fait accompli, there's not going to be 60 votes. >> the fight over here has been won. the house has voted 40 times to defund, change obamacare, repeal it. it's time for the senate to have this fight. >> don't you know what's going to happen? >> i'm not going to predict what the senate will do or not do. >> will you let the house work its will and vote up or down on whatever the senate sends back? >> i'm not going to speculate on what the senate is going to do or not do or what we're going to do or not do because it's very premature. >> last question. >> do you believe the implications and ramifications of the government shutdown are the same for the republican

party this time as they were then? >> there should be no conversation about shutting the government down. that's not the goal here. our goal here is to cut spending and to protect the american people from obamacare. simple as that. there's no interest on our part in shutting the government own. >> joiping me -- joining me is jonathan strong, house reporter for the national review. republicans decided -- what did they do de-side? >> hay put in provisions to defund obamacare permanently which was a difference from the original plan floated by majority leader cantor which would have only forced a vote on that in the senate. this puts it in there to tee up a showdown with senate majority

leader harry reid and president obama over obamacare funding. there's some other provisions in the c.r., one of which is called a prioritization bill, which kind of governs how the incoming tax revenue would be spent in the event the country went past the debt ceiling deadline, which is coming up in the middle of october. that's what's in the c.r. >> how are house democrats likely to vote on a continuing resolution that includes this language to defund the health care law? >> i'd be surprised if any democrats vote to support this, although the only possibility would be several kind of blue dog democrats in vulnerable districts who want to differentiate themselves from president obama. this is a bill that is catered to even the conservative hardliners in the g.o.p. conference. i would expect to see a very strong vote, almost unanimous

majority on behalf of republicans. some of the conservatives walking out of the meeting this morning when it was anouned were very gung ho, very on board with the plan, happy to see this change, kind of a veer to the right by speaker boehner. >> assuming this bill passes in the house late they are week what are its chances in the senate? >> dim, the chances are dim in the senate because obviously democrats control that chamber. what we would expect to see is senate majority -- -- is senate majority leader harry reid try to strip this out. the republicans will have a chance to try to filibuster that move. whether they're able to get all their members on board, all the senators is an open question. there's a good numb of moderate-leaning republicans who might not be willing to stand up if that are. >> when the bill goes back to the house, though, after that defunding language is stripped from the senate, what do you expect will happen with it there? >> it's interesting. when you talk to the members coming out of the meeting, this is the opening bid for not just

this fight over the continuing resolution but also for the fight on the debt ceiling that comes afterwards and many of the conservative members are very open to kind of transitioning the fight to the debt ceiling so what we could see is this bill you know initially faltering in the senate and the house republicans coming back to this issue again, going along with something that's close to a clean c.r. but then, you know, renewing the demand for a new fight over the debt ceiling next week. >> lots of concern over the possibility of a government shutdown. what's the likelihood we'll see that happen? >> at this point, i believe that the likelihood of a shutdown is unlikely because the republicans seem to be kind of ok with switching this fight to the debt ceiling. in other words, i don't think they're going to push this matter over the edge through the vehicle of the c.r.

i do think when we get to the debt ceil, we'll have very high stakes kind of showdown between republicans and obama and that is going to be very dicey. that's the place where i expect the fight to really be. the shutdown is unlikely. a lot of republicans, house budget chairman paul ryan actually pleaded with his colleagues in this closed door meeting earlier, the shutdown does not help us. the public will not side with republicans in the event of a shutdown. the debt ceil, he argued, is much kind of stronger ground to wage this fight. >> house majority leader cantor is saying republicans will continue to attach this defunding language on other hot button issues such as the debt ceiling. how do they propose doing that? >> well, you know, we had a debt ceiling fight in the sum over 2011 and what it comes down to mechanically is that republicans say, we will only y, e the debt ceiling if x,

az are included that will prompt negotiations between president obama and house republicans. the president is president obama has already said emphatically in public that we lil not -- will not negotiate at all over the debt ceiling. you have a total impasse at the moment. >> how does this strategy resolve the deep divide between the two parties on fiscal matters? >> that remains to be seen. we are headed into a very high stakes battle with a complete and utter impasse between the two parties. there's not a lot of signs that they're coming together and reaching -- close to reaching an agreement on these things. there's no back channel communications between speaker boehner, president obama, there's no kind of the senate republicans who have been negotiating with obama, those talks have stopped. so it's a very delicate point

we're at, we do still have several week tpwhevers drop dead moment comes. >> jonathan strong writes on politics for "national review." thank you for your time today. >> thank you. >> here's how the associated press is writing about the government funding bill and aising the debt ceiling. house g.o.p. leaders will work to raise the funding gap by blocking obamacare, forcing construction of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline and setting the stage for reforming the tax code. the story says the stratsqui appears that the senate will strip out the defund obamacare and send it back to the house. the house would face a chiss, pass the measure without the health care provision or continue the battle and risk a partial government shutdown when the new budget year continues. our live coverage of the house rules committee debating the government funding bill is live

on c-span3 right now. while waiting for the house to come back in, today they're working on a mineral production bill. votes are expected at about 4:30 eastern. until then, we hear about bipartisanship in congress from a couple of members of congress. >> here on "washington journal" we continue our discussion on bipartisanship in congress. we're joined by two representatives from arizona, congresswoman kirkpatrick, a democrat who represents the first district and paul gosar, a republican from the fourth district of arizona. welcome to "washington journal." >> good morning. >> thank you so much, good morning. >> there's a headline we saw that said ann kirk patic and paul gosar are the arizona odd cup. you're working together on issues to benefit arizona and other issues. how did this partnership come about? >> you know, between the two of

us we represent most of rural arizona and we come from large families that are bipartisan, paul and i talked about it, we have democrats and republicans in our families. my mother was republican growing up and i always said it made for very interesting rsati. >> i've always told the story i'm the first of 10 kids, there's five democrats, four republicans, one independent. first time my wife met my family she called her mom and said, oh, my god, these people hate each other. we can argue but the aspect is, once you're elected you represent everybody across the board. and good legislation is good legislation. when you're working on behalf of getting people back to work and something that's crucial and critical to arizona like copper, copper is one of our five seeds we were founded upon. citrus, climate, cattle, copper. that's a very, very important thing to people back home. hypothe two of you faced each other in an election a few years ago. you were clearly on opposite

team -- teams, still are. how do you overcome the tone of a campaign and how did that shake out? >> we were opponent, we put that behind us for the good of the people in arizona and have been working together to get things done for the people in arizona. going back to the rural areas, people understand that they may disagree on issues but you've got to get along. >> absolutely. i think that's what politics is all about. i think that's what our framers looked at. they wanted people from different voices, different walks of life but they wanted you to truly be and particularly in the house representatives of the house, the people's house. >> we're talking with paul gosar and ann kirkpatrick, representatives of arizona talking about more broadly than just arizona issues. we want to open up our phone lines to everyone.

hypocongressman gosar you talked about copper, tell us specifically how you came together on this issue. why is this an issue? >> this isn't a new issue for arizona. this is an issue that's been going on, trying to get a land deal for the third largest copper reserve in the world, bringing almost $1 billion to the state of arizona over and over again. what we were trying to do, you have to work with different entities and this is a little bit more of a complex land swap because it deals with so many different entities, roughly 2,400 ache sers what they're trading for and in exchange the federal government gets some 5,400 acres of pristine, conservation, highly prized areas. so what we've been doing is trying to make sure that we listen to the people within the districts, the different communities, and trying to get

something that can work for everybody. and ultimately putting people back to work. these are jobs that pay $45,000 to $165,000. these are jobs, people are investing in america, buying cars, buying homes, that's how you get the economy rolling. >> congresswoman kirkpatrick, how do you overcome objections from groups like environmentalists who are more prone to support democrats. republic" he arizona reported on a conference, they wrote that you said the mine is a spark plug for the community and we can grow this diversified economy. it's an opportunity for the town to expand and be stable you said you plan to lobby the senate to require the rere-view before the land exchange occurs. did it satisfy environmental critics?

>> yes, we got a very good response from the -- at the town hall from folks there on these issues. people who live in that community have lived there for yen rations. they're concerned because they want a good environment to raise their children and grandchildren. and they have a lot of questions about what is the impact on the environment. those can be -- those answers can only be given to them if we do the proper studies, independent studies. i do support that. >> how important or how much of a factor are things like ratings, let's say ratings from environmental groups and congressman gosar in your case, perhaps ratings from conservative organizations, scorecarding you. >> i don't pay any attention to ratings, i honestly don't. i'm listening to people in the district. it's a very diverse district system of i listen to folks and it's where i grew up and try to find that common ground. >> i've been challenged by one of the big conservative groups when i ran for re-election, club for growth. one of their proponents that ran against me in the primary

last year was a senator? arizona, what i look at is, putting things on the table, what's your solution? america deserves solutions to our problems. having the fortitude to dialogue with people. i don't look at scorecards. i weigh the evidence and make sure that the people in arizona, in our districts and the people of the united states , we're moving forward and getting them behind us. >> let's hear from viewers. we have first up in georgia, john on our republican line. welcome. >> how are you doing this morning? >> doing fine. >> i'd like to say, there's something going on up there i don't understand. they talk about having another jobs bill and all this. that stimulus, i was looking on this that stimulus thing and it was like denmark, 51.6 million, 218 million to denmark, 25 million to denmark. 91, let's see, 100,000 to new

zealand, 444 million to germany. 100 million to spain. 3.9 million and then 4.9 million to great britain. indonesia, 200 million. italy 12.75 million. how is that going to fix our bridges. >> before you go let me ask you, where are you getting your figures? >> off of marshall's go biden's stimulus recovery thing. >> all right, thanks for your call. >> look at it though, it'll make you sick, better have a barf bag. >> congressman gosar, foreign aid. >> in regards to this, when we're talking about a stimulus, this is private money being invested back in a community. this is what creates jobs. so from this standpoint, that's what we're looking at is trying to get people back to work. this is reinvestment into the american dream, american

ideals. >> i understand the concern the gentleman is expressing though because i'm on the veterans committee and first of all, veterans, taking care of veterans is not a partisan issue. we're having trouble providing benefits for veterans from iraq, afghanistan, an vietnam. that -- we need to address that issue. we need to take care of folks here in the united states. >> what's both of your sense of how things will move forward in terms of coming to some agreement on the budget over the next week, week and a half or so? >> it's going to be interesting. we're going to see how that plays out as a c.r., the debt ceiling, are they going to play together or be separated. we backed ourselves into a corner coming up with a protocol before the end of september. so it's going to be interesting to see what actually is putting on the table and then how does the whole aspect of obamacare, it's behind schedule, not ready for primetime, how does it fit in the mix of.

>> is it frustrating to you that the house passed some spending bills but you can't get work done on the fiscal year spending bills in time? >> the biggest concern is sequestration. i'd like to have a c.r. that deals with sequestration. it's hurting defense, in my district it's hurting our schools and our national parks. we really need to address that. and it will continue. those those are meat ax cuts that will continue year after year unless we address that. >> i would actually say that we've got to get back to regular order. week of got -- that's what the budget processes are. we're from rural america. people do budgets. and they have to stay on track. congress has to stay on track. so i'm one of the believers that we should have some type of a short-term c.r. and go through our budgetary process and get back to regular orders. i think that's what a lot of people would like to see, us articulate. that -- articulate that.

host: we go to bay city, texas. william. hello, there. caller: hi, how are you doing this morning? host: good. go ahead with your comment. caller: i wanted to comment on the whole bipartisanship. i thought that democracy was supposed to be based on multipartisanship rather than bipartisanship. i think the whole two-party system is bleeding it dry. there are two many cattle and not enough bulls. everyone wants to fly into the same -- under the same flag and i don't know if that's necessarily correct to say multipartisan, but i also the system mment on and your all's comments on that. host: thanks for your call. multipartisanship. other voices on capitol hill. guest: we're looking that the jobs bill about bipartisan. we've built coalitions from climbers to environmentalists

to industry, to consumer groups. i think that's what it's all about. it's who we should be inclusive, not exclusive. host: you're from rural districts. you're from the fourth congressional district. what's that like? guest: open terrain. host: where exactly? guest: if you think about arizona, it's the whole western side, from california all the way to the mexico border, all the way up to nevada and utah. and then we have like a big arm that comes around. we're actually asking ann to take the southwest corn sore my district can lay siege -- corner to my district can lay siege to the city of phoenix. guest: i am along the new mexico border from utah all the way down to the mexican border. host: kristena in massachusetts for congresswoman kirkpatrick and congressman gosar. good morning, kristena, independent line. guest: i'm an independent. and being from massachusetts, democratic state. but my question and a couple

comments. one, you talk about getting c.r.'s, continuing resolutions. they haven't worked so why keep doing the same thing over and over? we have to pass budgets and keep going. but my question to both of you is, with the bipartisanship, i watched congress and the senate, the back and forth, you don't work together and you keep americans fighting with each other. what do you think is going to happen if we -- do you picture us becoming two separate countries? because that's what i'm waiting to see happen. what do you think about that? if congress and the senate don't stop fighting -- they're actually fighting with the american people. i'll go off to listen to that answer. host: thanks for the call. guest: let me say that i really see people trying to work together, like congressman gosar and i are. we realize that we're all americans and one of the big

concerns right now is whether or not we're going to shut down government. i'm opposed to that. i think that's an irresponsible way to deal with the budget. and so maybe the continuing resolution is the next best step. but it's not the best step. as my colleague said, we need to sit down and negotiate a budget like we do with our families. we sit around the table and we set our priorities. what are our values, what are our principles, how do we want to spend our money? that's how you do a budget. and we need to do that as a country. host: congressman gosar. guest: i think christina brings up a big point. we are representatives of america and i think we come from different frame wmbings -- frameworks. i certainly hope we don't raise tensions to the point where we stop talking. the ire is brought in from outside groups and then us and then the american public. we have to understand that communication is the first aspect, start talking and start addressing these things.

i've always said that the facts set you free. trust is a series of exroppingses kept. start -- promises kept. start simple, honor promises you made with the american people. and do it. that's what leadership is all about and i think that's what's lacking up here in washington, d.c. host: we want to remind our c-span viewers and our listeners, we have a line for arizona residents, 202-585-3883 and democrats, 3880, republicans, 3881. d for independents, that's 202-585-3882. couple of editorials have been praise worthy of the efforts you have had. this was from late august. they write that you both have a history of battling each other. but now yeeve been working together. that has raised a few eyebrows but it's basically what constituents expect.

host: the editorial praise is one thing. how do your efforts sit with your leadership on the republican side first? guest: i've always told everybody that i'm a dentist impersonating a politician. i think that catches people offguard. we were sent to get work done. government is about working for the people, by the people and not dictating to them. i think that it's ruffled some feathers. some of the consultants have made some turs comments. they called ann the enemy. the last thing i know is ann is another person of this country, a citizen who's got an opinion, an enemy, but somebody who

has maybe a different opinion on something. obviously in this regard we have the same, pretty close to the same opinion. but we've been able to bridge that, making sure that what we're doing is we're moving forward in the aspect that benefits people. i'm not too worried. that's why i thought politics was about, having thicker skin. host: do you get much pushback from your efforts with congressman gosar? guest: this is really about making progress and calling each other enemy is not how we make progress. i have been called one of the more independent democrats in congress because i always put my district first and that's what i'm here today. i'm here to represent a very rural district. we are always fighting for our fair share of resources for our veterans, for infrastructure, for transportation and that's what i'm here to do. host: let's get back to our callers. aurora, colorado. louies to on our republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just wanted to comment on this bipartisanship. i think it's good you guys are doing this show. i watched with interest yesterday as steny hoyer, the

representative from maryland, was on a political show and every chance he could he put in a jab or took swipes at republicans or somebody at the senate or the house. and then after i was done watching that, i turned the channel and here's harry reid doing the same thing. and just taking shots at the republicans sentence after sentence. there's no wonder there's no getting along so to speak and i think that's why things are getting done, especially in the senate. anyway, i'm glad you guys are doing this show and these are two good people here and if more people could be like that we'd probably be moving in the right direction. host: are there times where your leadership statements or efforts or appearances make it difficult for you to work on the things you're trying to get done together? guest: let me first thank the gentleman from colorado for getting up so early to watch

c-span. thank you. and your point is well made. ere are times of course that i may not completely agree with the president or leadership because i'm putting my district first. and that's just the way it happens. there are 435 people in congress and think about the last time your family tried to go out to dinner and you're deciding where you're going to eat, somebody wants mexican, somebody wants chinese, somebody wants steak. that's the kind of negotiation we do on a daily basis. and reach consensus. guest: i think sometimes these are just going back to family squabbles. we have to get back to facts. i've always said, you can solve a lot of things when you take emotion out of things and start bringing facts. the facts set you free. and i think that's what families do and i think that's what congress has to do. host: to our independent line. william in st. paul, minnesota. caller: hi. how are you?

i'd also like to thank c-span. the representative from arizona , i just want to offer a comment on the bipartisanship. i think that first caller doesn't exactly -- actually -- [inaudible] and both you guys answered the questions i guess in your own way. meanwhile you addressed the actual question, i think the nice lady there has the question, i think they went on some tangent about, i don't know, something. it had nothing to do -- [inaudible]. i think that's the problem in congress. we're actually looking at two sides of the same coin. both republican and democrat. bipartisan -- wo too bipartisanship i guess in a sense exists. but in reality, i think it's

basically until we get a third party. look at the state of arizona. you guys have a mess down there didn't governor and he seem to get that right. i'd like to know where you both stand on that. thank you. host: let's follow up on his last comment on immigration. since you haven't touched on that. where are you on immigration? guest: i think we need immigration reform. but i'm one of those people that, having a limited committee viewpoint, a limited amendment process on a senate floor is actually a good bill. i want the american public to have the dialogue, an open dialogue and smaller piecemeal aspects. you shouldn't have to pass something to find out what's in a bill. have the open dialogue with the american people. share the aspects with them. and allow them to integrate their thoughts and ideas. immigration is so important to the thread of this country that it needs to take its time. not rush through.

take your time. talk about border security, talk about visa reform, talk about guest worker programs. all of these are so important. but keep them simple. very germane. we've asked for this over and over again. smaller bills that are well aired out with the american public. a lot of people compliment and talk about arizona having a problem with immigration. no. arizona, you got to know its history. it's always asking questions. you may not like the answer they came up with but they had the fortitude to come forward with the question, there is a problem with immigration. we need to address it. and arizona's always answering the call and asking the question, what do we do with this? so i'm not ashamed of what arizona -- i'm very, very glad about arizona. i'm asking the question because today we're talking about immigration reform. if it wasn't for arizona we wouldn't be talking about immigration reform. host: the issue of immigration top of the list in terms of your august recess, when you did town halls or meetings with constituents, do you find that issue at the top of their list?

guest: yes. one of the reasons i initially ran for congress, because i was in the state legislature in arizona, and very frustrated with the fact that congress wasn't dealing with it. and i appreciated and applaud our senators, mccain and flake, for their leadership in the senate in crafting a bipartisan effort. we've got that going on in the house. it is a bipartisan issue. that's how we're going to get it done. one of the things i did is set up an immigration advisory group. it's a very broad spectrum. it's ranchers, farmers, chambers, business people, dreamers, faith groups, all to sit around the table again and say, you know, what makes this? and i think that arizonans, i know arizonans are commonsense folks, pragmatic folks, they want to get something done and, again, the way we do that is to sit around the table and let's talk about this and find that common ground. host: the issue of immigration is front page of the "arizona republic" this morning.

the state expands the license ban to all migrants granted deferred action. one of only two states that denied driver's licenses to young, undocumented immigrants, allowed to stay and work, is expanding the ban. in terms of the drafting legislation for the house, for congress, how closely do you talk to the state's governor? guest: i talk to her quite a bit. we've had tragedies in arizona that have brought us together. the arnell fire that happened in july where we lost 19 firefighters. in a tragic fire incident. that's one of the things that i think has been important. is how does the federal interaction with the state and local municipalities, that's one of the things rural america and particularly rural arizona's very, very good. i go back on recess, i'm meeting with mayors and city council and chambers and also i think it's very, very important that your chief executive officer for the state, the

governor, that you ought to be in step, with where's she going or where this are they going in regards to legislation, direction of the state? when i talk to her and my constituents, jobs are number one. it's not immigration. it's about jobs. people want to be back, building, rebuilding this country, being involved in it, having a say. immigration wasn't number one. it wasn't even number two on our town hall list. but jobs and jobs were one and two. host: let's hear from arizona. many farms, arizona. charlotte's a democrat there. welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: you're on the air. go ahead. caller: i've been watching c-span for a year or two. and i am very happy and fortunate to be on listening to ann kirkpatrick and mr. gosar. thank you for being on c-span. i'm a native american from many

farms, arizona. and i'm very proud of you to be working together. and then the other one is that basically the northern arizona and the navajo reservation, the infrastructure is very -- it does need development. and i'm very happy to hear that you, as partners, are working together. the part that i also know is the immigration policy. i did see a representative or senator flake and also mccain working together because we are one country, we are one state and the way i feel is that we are diverse. at the same time i feel i depend on our leaders to work together to make it the best for arizona. but the part that i want to really explain is the infrastructure.

our unemployment is very high and i feel that we have the ability as leaders to help us to go forward. host: all right, charlotte, thank you for your call. guest: thank you for calling in this morning, getting up so early. you're absolutely right. infrastructure is a huge issue for us. my district has 12 tribes. 25% of the district is native american. i grew up on tribal land. and many parts do not have running water, electricity, the school buses, charlotte, as you know, run on dirt roads and we've had a lot of rain lately. we've got communities that are flooded out. with no cell phone coverage, no communications, let alone being able to get supplies to those communities. so it's a huge concern. [speaking foreign language] host: you were speaking at the end navajo? guest: yes. host: how large in your

district, you said 25% is native american. how much territory is that in your district? guest: that's a good question. i actually don't know exactly -- probably about half. probably about half. guest: probably not as much as hers but she's probably got, by land mass and native american, probably half of her district is native american. host: she also mentioned the unemployment issue among native americans. any idea how that care compares to the 7.3% national average? guest: it's much higher. the san carlos has 70% unemployment. host: she talked about infrastructure. if there was one thing that the two of you could see passed in congress in terms of affecting native areas, what would that be? or one thing that congress could do right now? guest: it's about jobs and getting people back to work, that's exactly right. that's the one issue that

unifies rural arizona. regardless of whether you're in my district or his district. and you start with infrastructure. one of the things people don't realize is we don't have broadband and cell phone coverage in many areas. and when you talk with businesses about locating to rural arizona, they say, we talked to our corporate office by broadband, by the internet, and you don't have that. we are starting with very, very basic infrastructure. guest: we also have huge road infrastructure throughout. arizona's huge. the original district one was bigger than the size of pennsylvania. so when you're on road you're on the road. and a lot of our roads, we have lots of public lands. so in some cases they were wonderful to have these great open spaces. but there's costs with them. where you get shuffled to the end of the road from the federal government on maintenance on this. our education aspects, you know, you've www.to be able to drive from one place to another. and that happens and it's interrupted when you have big

snowstorms or big rains. so it's very problematic. but the fortitude of the rural arizonans is pretty incredible. host: here's colorado springs. a republican caller. good morning, john, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me speak here on c-span. i was wondering about the lobbyists. you hear obama talking about stopping that process and i want to know how much you think that personal agendas or the is ist situation, which worse against bipartisanship? thank you. guest: i'm a believe that are everybody should have a voice and hear everybody's voice on issues. it's up to us as members and representatives to balance that, to make sure that we're doing the right thing. getting that expertise.

the president has made the comment that he wants to limit that. the problem is is actions speak louder and we haven't seen that. we've seen a spreadcation that when are a lobbyists, particularly in raising money, you have better access to the administration. i don't think that's right. i think that it gets back to what's good for our constituents, the people back home, and how does it work in the fabric of getting this country back to work and functioning on all cylinders. host: back to arizona. this time to phoenix and steve who is an independent there. hi, steve. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i notice that the topic was bipartisanship. but i'd like to show how it works. they're talking about immigration and one of the parties would say, well, we can't send them all back, that would ruin the economy. and the other party would say, we can't send them all back, that would tear apart families. so, i'd like to go with the second one first. they knew that -- [inaudible] in the first place, that was

the chance that they would take, about separating their families. and about the first part, you certainly can replace 11 million people overnight because in trucking, we have 100% turnover rate every year. that means that for every guy you got working at your trucking company, by the end of the year there's going to be another guy working it and at the same time -- [inaudible] for statistics. and that's my point. the people who rleal, citizens and legal aliens they did what was right but now laws are getting passed to supersede them and make the law breakers benefit and i'd like the congresspeople there to explain to me how it is that we, who rleal and should be represented, are being overlooked for people who are aren't legal that would be the illegal worker and your illegal hirer because that's against the law, hiring people that aren't supposed to be working here. host: steve, representative kirkpatrick. guest: there has to be a pathway that allows people to earn the right to be citizens

and our farmers are very commonsense and pragmatic and they've come up with a solution at least in terms of agricultural workers and they've submitted a bill to congress that says that if you can show that you're employed in the agricultural industry, then you have legal status for a limited time and you can choose whether you want to become a citizen or you want a visa to work in the country. and we're listening to those kind of very pragmatic, commonsense ideas. it has to be earned. your right to citizenship has to be earned, you're rit about that. host: there's a picture from your recent town hall, the town hall you did, one of the town halls i guess that you did during august together. this is largely focused on the issue of the compromise. what brought you together for this particular issue and talk about how well it was received for the audience there? guest: i think it was a packed house. superior is a little town with less than 1,000 people.

i think there were well over 400 people that showed up, that's how much it means. unemployment is very high in the mining area in this area. so this is a big, big deal. host: superior in your district or your district? guest: it's in my district and it's in the copper corridor and that's an area in arizona that's been copper mining forever. that's basically the industry there. so when you talk with folks, they're going back third, fourth generation copper miners and they -- that's what they do. that's what they care about. and we had overwhelming response. the purpose of doing a town hall was i ran legislation when i was in my first term, paul ran legislation, week of worked together and we wanted people to know exactly what is in the current legislation and one thing that's very important, that native americans in that area have sacred sites. they have a sacred site. we took that out of the land exchange and so when we put that slide up in the auditorium

and you could almost hear a pin drop in the room because people were like, oh, that's been a contentious issue. these two representatives worked together. that's out of the land exchange. that's no longer on the table. host: where is this bill in the process? guest: it's come out of -- i've stewarded it out of the subcommittee and natural resource and out of the natural resources committee and it's sitting poised possibly this friday, as long as a c.r. or something doesn't come forward or something doesn't happen in syria. so maybe seeing this coming out of the house this friday. and then we've actually co-sponsored this, senator flake and senator mccain have done this on the senate side. it's about time to get this over the hurdles. but going back i think to looking at how we do this i think that ann's got assets that she's good at and so do i and i think when people got a chance to see, ok, ask this question, maybe it's better for me to answer or maybe it was better for ann to answer.

they actually really appreciated the -- to get that sense that we were very in tune with the legislation. could answer their questions factually based and people were sitting back going, wow. host: bottom line, this bill passes, it passes congress, what are your realistic expectations on how many jobs it generates? guest: over 4,000. these are high opinion paying obs, between $45,000 and $165,000. this is real money, not investment money from the federal government. this is private enterprise, producing something. resources like copper, each of those windmill us that see has five tons of copper. one of those solar plants down in hilla bend, there's 90 miles of copper in there. we're importing now 30% of it. this could can actually take a big chunk of that, produce jobs, and when you have mining or resources mining, it circulates within your state.

take the $1 billion and add it into your economy. it's a big deal and when it's rural arizona, it's even a bigger deal. host: let's go to california. san bernardino. tiler is on our democrats line. caller: how are you doing? host: doing fine, thank you. caller: great. i have a little analogy on this. this is just my take on it. we've got an administration that set the country ablaze, right? well, now, people we voted for knew -- [inaudible] now, though, the administration don't want to let us use the hoses now and that's not bipartisan to me. bipartisan would be just go ahead and help us fix the country. i watch a lot of this right here. and for bipartisan, i mean, all republicans have to do is come together and help us fix this country because when their administration was in there, it went bad. now we got a new fire chief. the people overwhelmingly voted for a new fire chief.

fix the country. plain and simple. as far as on our immigration ght here, my feeling is that you wanted cheap labor, now you got a whole lot of cheap labor out here, people out here for cheap labor. now they don't want them here. but they want their votes. it's really sad to me on how people sit and ignore the fact that -- of the truth. my mom taught me that one thing is right is right and wrong is wrong. write won't wrong no one. host: all right. any thoughts? guest: thank you for calling in and expressing your opinion. i'd like to go back to paul's comment about jobs and this project that we're working on because as i said, my work, my vision for arizona is a diversified, stable economy.

and what this bill does, it's a spark plug, it's not the end-all, be-all in terms of jobs for america, but as paul said, over 4,000 jobs. that's a huge jump start getting people back to work. but it doesn't stop there. we have to continue to bring in other industries, address the infrastructure needs, so that we've got a diversified, stable economy. the price of copper comes and goes, mining comes and goes but at the end of the day we still need to have people working. host: let me ask both of you, on another issue, in reaction to the navy yard shooting on monday, the 12 people shot there. what have you heard from constituents and any calls for congress to take up a gun legislation? guest: my district have very pro-second amendment. here you have some of the strictest gun laws in the united states and you still have a shooter. that's not what the second amendment was all about, is restriction. what we want to do is proper ownership and making sure there's a stewardship.

but the second amendment is a very strong amendment. and it actually allows you to have all the rest of your amendments, your right to speech, to quartering, not quartering the military, to looking at all the freedoms that we have. so what they want to see is they want to make sure that there's a commonsense application. uphold the rule of law instead of adding more and more rules and regulations that restrict credibility -- that credibility -- that ability. host: what are you hearing? guest: my heart goes out to the families and victims of the shooting. i was getting ready for work when that came over the television. these are folks who went to work that day and i just can't get it out of my mind that they went to work, doing their job and they didn't return at the end of the day. and so i have heavy grief in my heart from those families and i just want to let them know that they have my sympathy. in terms of what do we do about

guns? after newtown started talking with folks in my district, i have a lot of n.r.a. members in my district, that's part of our rural life. i'm a gun owner, i grew up hunting with my dad. but there's a consensus around we should strengthen background checks, crackdown on illegal gun sales, but the real issue is mental health treatment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> "washington journal" airs live every morning starting at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. we're going live now to the u.s. house for votes related to mineral production bill. he stat further consideration of h.r. t 761. will the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 761, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to to require

secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop sources of minerals of strategic and critical importance to united states security and economic effectiveness. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number five rinted in house report 113-214 offered by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-214 on which further proceed wrgs postpone. amendment number one by mr. lowenthal of california, amendment number two by mr. veasey of texas, mr. amendment number three by mr. hastings of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote for

the amendment printed in house report 113-214 on which further proceed wrgs postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 113-214 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be count asmed sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. 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.]