what about the president's supporters? how do they respond? a lot of the unions and active groups that support the president when he was elected have fiercely criticized him for his deportation policy. and they want him to change. they wanted to change administration policies to reduce deportations. thank you. we go to the house of representatives. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 8, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable rob woodall 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 7, 2014, 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 but in to five minutes, no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. this is my weekly reminder to house republicans that they have only 30 legislative days before the july 4 recess. in that time they better allow a vote on immigration reform or the president will take executive action. the chance to save the republican party from being a regional party and not a

national one rests on what republican leaders do during the next 30 legislative days. if they deny justice, security with our -- to our brothers and sisters from foreign lands to pick vegetables and fruits, they will not let them to pick and plant vegetables in the white house vegetable garden anytime soon. tomorrow, wednesday, the hispanic congressional caucus will have a special meeting with secretary johnson. we will lay out options that the obama administration has under current law to protect more immigrants from deportation, along the lines of deferred action for dreamers. the important phrase here is under current law. we delivered a memo to the president outlining specific actions he can take in existing law to spare families and spare those qualifying for the dream act. protecting them on a

case-by-case basis using tools like hardship waivers. our position was strengthened in april of that year by a paper called executive branch authority regarding implementation of immigration law and policy. a report written by bob cooper who served as general counsel of the immigration naturalization office and another general counsel. the report said, quote, the executive branch, through secretary of homeland security, can exercise discretion not prosecuting a case to otherwise removeable or deportable person. it was sent to the president from almost 100 law professors at our top law schools and universities outlining the power the president has to spare immigrants from deportation. but legal scholars and research are not always enough to persuade my friends in the

republican conference. almost every single one of them voted for the king amendment deferring action and tried to sue the president. they are rejecting these arguments as some kind of academic hoax. so as i have done in the past, i ask you not to just take my word for it or the word of legal experts or hundreds of law professors. i ask you to take the word of your former judiciary chairman, three of them, when it comes to immigration and deportation. here's the letter from november, 1999, where at least 28 republicans and democrats called on president clinton to exercise prosecutorial discretion when it comes to deportation and immigration enforcement. quote -- it's in this letter -- there has been widespread agreement that some deportations were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. quote, the principle of prosecutorial discretion is established. it's in the letter.

quote, optimally, removal proceedings should be erminated only upon specific i.m.f. officials and they urge those guidelines should be issued from headquarters just as the hispanic congressional caucus is going to urge the president to issue guidelines for initiation and termination of deportation proceedings tomorrow. let's see. here's lamar smith and james sensenbrenner signed it and henry hyde, three republicans, chairmen of the judiciary committee signed the letter stating the president had broad discretion. mr. speaker, three former chairmen of the house judiciary committee, the legal foundation upon which this petition rests, is as rock solid as their conservative credentials are. and yet to this date the republican caucus has not come up with an immigration bill or a series of bills of their own. the american people are still

waiting for republicans to write their own immigration bill or amend the ones that were sent to us by 2/3 bipartisan majority in the senate. and i'm here to remind my friends in the republican caucus that the time is running out. if you don't take action, the president will take action to permit millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants to be able to live safely in the united states of america. it's your choice. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, washington can get things done. it may not be all the time but over the last year we've been able to make constructive progress on array of issues. had it not been for members on all sides of the aisle coming together, looking past party labels and working on what's

important, this would not have been the case. last week on thursday, april 3, president obama signed into law an important piece of legislation that represents one of those points of progress. in december of last year, the house passed bipartisan legislation to shift 126 million dollars, money previously used to finance national political conventions, to the national institutes of health where it will now support research into childhood cancer and other pediatric diseases, including down syndrome, cancer and countless other diseases that affect our children that don't yet have a cure. in march of 20 14, the senate passed the legislation, again, with bipartisan support. that bill now law was the kids first research act. now, there have been many critical research breakthroughs over the past decade. as a result of this new law, millions of additional dollars will be put towards research in an effort to develop treatments

and cures for pediatric diseases and disorders. today more is on the horizon. and with the passage of this law they will be upon us as much more quickly. gabrielle miller passed away from cancer from an inoperable brain cancer. she stated, quote, if i go, if i lose my battle then i'm going to want other people to carry on with the war. they are going to win this war. end quotes. mr. speaker, although there is much more to be done, with the passage of this act this body took one small step in that direction. through this new law we honor the legacy of a brave and spirited young girl who left a mark on the nation and the world. let us continue to fight this battle on behalf of so many boys and girls in similar positions. my prayers are with gabriella and her family. 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 gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. mr. speaker, april 16 marks emancipation day in the district of columbia when the slaves who lived in the district of columbia were emancipated. i come to the floor this week to discuss a different kind of emancipation. today i begin as the nation without taxes representation. if i would ask you who pays the highest taxes per capita in the united states of america, who would you say? what jurisdiction would you

say? new york, connecticut, arizona, texas. it would be the citizens of the nation's capital who support the nation without representation in the congress of the united states. 650,000 citizens. that's why you see license plates that say taxation without representation. that was not the thought of the government. it was a citizen who came forward to suggest that that should be what was on our license plates. so april 16, we celebrate or commemorate emancipation every day because we had the distinction of being the first jurisdiction in the united states where the slaves were emancipated nine months before they were emancipated

elsewhere. the irony is we are now the last jurisdiction when citizens of every background do not enjoy equal rights. all americans have at least one voting representation and two senators. the district of columbia citizens have no vote on this house floor and no senators. all other americans govern themselves without interference from the congress. the district of columbia must abide the nullification of local laws if the congress sees fit. all other americans enjoy total control of their own taxpayer funds. the district budget, approved by and raised by district officials, must be approved in this house and in the senate by people who had nothing to do with raising those funds. all other americans pass any

constitutional local law they see fit. all local laws of the district of columbia must lay over here in the house to see whether somebody wants to pop up and overturn them even if they are constitutional. what constitutes the difference between the people i represent and the people my colleagues represent? we do not have statehood rights and that is what anybody who pays taxes and goes to serve in the armed services for the nation deserves. we seek statehood. the only way to achieve what we have sought and still seek, budget autonomy, legislative autonomy, freedom from interference into our lives by the congress of the united states. the violation of the first principle, the principle that gave rise to revolution is taxation without representation.

and so in our country, if we see -- and how would you feel if the highest per capita taxes were paid by your citizens and they didn't have the same rights as every other citizen? .lmost $12,000 per capita the lowest are paid -- and i point them out only because they are the lowest -- by mississippi. and their taxes are the lowest. i don't go through all the states because there's not room. but what is your state? new york, $8,737. compare that to our almost $12,000. that's a large state. $8,162. a, 10th, .ompare that to our $12,000

per capita, my friends, per citizen. n our country when england decided to impose taxation without representation, the colonies decided they would be colonies no more and they passed a resolution saying no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them by their respective legislatures. look at this graph. it speaks for itself. it speaks for the residents of the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler, for five minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i rise today to recognize and thank powerlinemen from dixon,

missouri, for facilitating the advent of safe, reliable and affordable electricity for the community in haiti. his service and sacrifice will improve the lives of many people because electricity is a critical element to improving the quality of life, health care, education, clean water and other vital services. . i would like to recognize carl brandt, volunteering his time and expertise for the national rural electric cooperative association's international foundation, he spent two weeks in the town of cure could you, providing training for local haitian linemen. he also assisted with installing power for residents located in an industrial park. when fully functional, this industrial park will have the capacity to employ 30,000 people. only about 13% of the people in haiti have reliable access to

electricity. the national rural eclectic cooperative association international has been working on a usaid funded program to bring electricity to the town and nearby areas in northern haiti. today more than 1,200 consumers in the town have access to reliable electricity. according to the u.s. agency for international development, usaid, some homes now have antennas for tv's, small businesses like internet cafes have been established, and water treatment plants are in operation. so, mr. brandt, we thank you for your service. i yield whack. -- back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. you, mr. uer: thank speaker . last week attorney general holder said that he would be happy to work with congress to re-examine how marijuana is

scheduled under federal statutes. that's a thoughtful effort, but i hope the attorney general realizes that the time for examination and re-examination has passed. it's now time for him and the administration to act. the jury has returned its verdict on medical marijuana. more than a million patients use it in managing chemotherapy symptoms, chronic pain, ptsd in our soldiers, and epilepsy. particularly severe epilepsy that afflicts children. 70% of americans think that medical marijuana should be legal, and i honestly believe that if the other 30% had a child who was subject to these severe epileptic seizures or a loved one who had unbearable chronic relief, that they would come around as well. but marijuana is currently listed as a schedule 1 drug.

that's the same classification as hair win or l.s.d. -- harrow win. or l.s.d. this makes no sense whatsoever. no one dies from marijuana overdose. and the alleged less dangerous methamphetamines have been ravishing communities, particularly in rural and small town america, and people do tie and people do commit violent acts. the attorney general's called on congress to act, and in fact we have. working in a bipartisan way we have introduced a variety of bills that do everything from creating aing regulatory framework to tax marijuana to bills to protect state marijuana laws from federal interference. legalizing the production of industrial hemp. but the dysfunction of congress has kept these simple, commonsense bills from passing to this point.

but you know, what we need is for the attorney general and those who work for him at the d.e.a. to at least move marijuana off the schedule 1 or schedule 2 of controlled substances. this is something they can do under their own initiative. relisting or delisting marijuana could make it easier for researchers to gain access to the drug, will allow marijuana businesses that are perfectly legal in over 20 states to deduct their business expenses like all other legal businesses. it could give states more flexibility in dealing with it as a public health issue. and would reflect what every teenager in america but apparently the d.e.a. does not know, marijuana is not more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamines. and to pretend otherwise means that young people and the general public will take the

d.e.a. less seriously. i'm inviting the attorney general to visit us here on capitol hill or we'll go to his office to go over these points in person, with a bipartisan group that's been working on these issues, whose advice and counsel should be helpful to him. however the easiest path forward for the attorney general remains the same. take marijuana off the schedule 1, a cab ride to capitol hill is not going to change that, we hope we can see some action and see it soon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, for five minutes. r. miller: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the life of keith -- of master sergeant walter h. richardson, united states air force retired, who passed away on march 29 of 2014.

walt built his life on three pillars of faith, hope, and love , was dedicated to his country, his community, his family, and above all, to the lord. i'm privileged to honor a truly remarkable man and an american hero. born and raised in pensacola, florida, walt joined the armed services to serve his country and help provide for his family. his career in the armed forces spanned 30 years and included service in the korean and vietnam wars. walt was an original member of the revered tuskegee airmen, training at tuskegee army airfield in a variety of disciplines that would serve him well throughout his entire career.

a few years ago i had the honor of presenting walt the congressional gold medal for his service as a tuskegee airman. during his time in the military, walt was one of over 1,000 enlisted men selected to integrate the armed forces. walt's unwavering commitment to service and immense leadership skills were recognized , when while stationed at dover air force base, he became the first african-american to be promoted to the rank of master sergeant in the field maintenance squadron. he retired as the highest enlisted rank in the air force, chief master sergeant. as the senior enlisted advisor to the commanding general of the .irst special operations wing beyond his military service walt was an accomplished writer whose

personal memoir is titled, "how reat thou art, a black boy's depression-era success story. addition to a dedicated member of the northwest florida community who served as a deacon of st. mary parish in fort walton beach for over three decades. walt was known throughout the gulf coast as a kind and warm hearted man who was always helping his fellow citizens. to his family he was a loving and devoted husband. father, grandfather, and great grandfather. the legacy left by walt richardson and his fellow tuskegee airmen had a profound him pact on the course of our history. our nation is proud and grateful for the brave men and women like walt richardson who stared into the face of racial discrimination and said, we are

one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. walt led an exemplary life of courage, service, patriotism, and devotion to faith and family and his service to god's family and country will never be forgotten. mr. speaker, on behalf of the united states congress i'm humbled to honor chief master sergeant walter h. richardson, united states air force retiree. my wife and i send our sincerest condolences to his wife of 60 years, helen, his eight children, walter, pat, lili, carmen, henry, donna, william, and carl, their nine grandchildren, four great grandchildren, and the entire richardson family. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from ohio, ms. fudge,

or five minutes. ms. fudge: mr. speaker, this week the house begins deliberations on the majority budget for fiscal year 2015. better known as the ryan budget. sadly it is reminiscent of the same misguided policy proposals rejected by the american people time after time. a budget is a moral document. a road map to fiscal stability and the security of the social safety net. the majority's budget does neither. it's not a serious document, and it is not responsible. according to the center on budget policies and priorities, nearly 70% of the cuts included in the majority's budget come from programs serving low and middle income american families. like pell grants, snap, and medicaid. yet no cuts were made from defense funding. instead, it received a near $500 million increase. most would agree that a nation's

budget reflects its priorities. well, the majority's budget is a clear sign that economic prosperity for all is simply not that important, that equality is not that important. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused on shrinking the government at any cost, at all cost. even if it means doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. the cbs -- c.b.c. substitute budget offers a different approach by reducing the deficit and eliminates the harm from sequestration in a responsible and fiscally sound way. it is focused on making our government work smarter and programs operate more efficiently. it provides a plan to turn our country's economy around and opens the door of opportunity for future generations. e c.b.c. substitute includes items like extending emergency unemployment insurance and

raising the federal minimum wage while also mapping out a long-term agenda for future economic growth. it reinforces support for critical safety programs, rebuilds our transportation infrastructure, and promotes domestic manufacturing. the c.b.c. substitute proposes reforms to make our tax code more fair. our budget eliminates a number of special tax breaks that benefits -- benefit the healthiest americans and closes international loopholes that move american jobs overseas. the c.b.c. proposed tax reforms would save $2 trillion over a 10-year period, and create jobs. by passing the c.b.c. substitute, congress can stimulate the economy while expanding the middle class. to my colleagues in the house, we have a blueprint. let's build a better america together and move closer to giving everyone a budget and a country of which we can be proud.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the lady from tennessee, mrs. black, for five minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to honor two beloved tennesseans who have dedicated their lives in service to our state. millard and joyce oakley. a lifelong resident of overton county and graduate from tennessee tech university, millard oakley is a true jack of all trades. he proudly represented the upper cumberland for four terms in the tennessee general assembly, and continued his service as a member of the tennessee board of regents and state insurance commissioner. today he ensures that small businesses in our district have the capital needed to expand their reach and hire more workers has -- as the director of the first national bank of tennessee and he helps spread the gospel message as the

director for the thomas nelson publishers, the world's largest bible publishing company. his loving wife, joyce, or j.j. as she is known, is a west virginia native, but she got to tennessee just as soon as she could and met her husband to be while atnding the university of tennessee -- attending the university of tennessee law school. while the oakley's accomplishments are many, they are best known for their generosity to the students and families of my district. in 2004, the oakleys sponsored a vince gill concert that helped tennessee tech university raise more than $140,000 for the new nursing school. they also offered tennessee tech use of their family farm and donated $2 million to fund the school's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics center, the largest single gift in the university's history. additionally, the oakleys were instrumental in he recruiting a

satellite campus of volunteer state community college and gave generously to causes such as the overton county public library. today the oakleys can still be seen around my district visiting the library that bears their name or walking on the campus of tennessee tech and meeting students who have personally benefited from their contributions. people like millard and j.j. oakley truly earn the tennessee its nickname as the volunteer state. i am deeply grateful for their friendship and their example of selfless generosity. may we all aspire to live such a life. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, i've spent a fair amount of time on the house oor talking about sexual

harassment, sexual assault and rape in the military. in fact, i've spoken some 30 times about that issue. but it's apparent that we also need to spend some time talking about sexual harassment in this chamber. this is the congress of the united states of america. this is the house of representatives of the united states of america. this is not a frat house. regrettably this week, another one of our colleagues was discovered engaged in inappropriate action with one of his staff. this is not the first time. it will probably not be the last time. it happens on the republican side. it happens on the democratic side. that doesn't make it ok. almost 25 years ago, anita hill

testified before the judiciary committee of the senate. there were six male senators that questioned her, suggested that she somehow had wanted it or was lying. i remember watching that testimony and throwing my slipper at the television, i was so mad. that was 1991. the following year in 1992, it was called the year of the woman in congress, because that year more women were elected to congress than ever before because women were mad. in fact in california, we elected two u.s. senators, senators dianne feinstein and barbara boxer. it is time for us to recognize that we have a problem. it is not ok to fondle a staff

member. it is not ok to make suggestive comments to a staff member. it is not ok to have provocative pictures on your computer. it is just not ok to conduct ourselves in that manner. so today i'm introducing a bill, a bill i've been working on for sometime that will require that every member of this house participate in a training on sexual harassment at least once every two years and that every staff member of the house do the same thing. we're only asking ourselves to do what is being done by over 60% of the corporations in this country. in fact in california, i carried legislation that required the posting of signage in every corporation about what the rights and responsibilities were, what sexual harassment was, what steps you could take. and then we took steps to make

sure that every member of the state legislature was subject to sexual harassment training at least once every two years. here in congress, there's an office of compliance, but ironically, the office of compliance is where you might report sexual harassment but then the office of compliance is responsible for protecting the office. go figure. it is time, mr. speaker, it is time for us to clean up our act. it is time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. johnson, for five minutes. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. johnson: as the ranking member of the committee on science, space and technology,

i feel compelled to talk to you today about the disastrous effects of the ryan budget and that it would have on our country's research and velopment enterprise and conconsequently the disastrous effect it will have on our future's competitiveness. as others pointed out, the republican budget cuts nondefense discretionary spending by $1.3 trillion below the baseline 2014 spending level adjusted for inflation. these are massive cuts on top of a budget that has already had large reductions in recent years. the effects of research and development would be dramatic. the american association for the advancement of science estimates that the ryan budget would cut civilian research and development by $92 billion from the current baseline and $112

billion below the president's budget request. these are striking reductions. please keep in mind here that the national science foundation's total annual budget is just over $7 billion. o the republican budget cuts development and more than the national science foundation. that is insanity. my friends on the other side have divorced themselves from reality if they don't think this will cripple our economy for decades to come. let's talk about the -- about what the republicans want to cut. it's estimated that technological innovation has led to the majority of americans' economic growth since world war ii. much of this innovation has been funded by the federal government. think back to the first grants that nasa gave robert norris'

upstart company in the 1960's. of course he went on to be the founder of intel, the largest computer chip maker in the world. or think of the n.s.f. research grant that led to the creation of google, the very internet itself was initially funded as a research project by the department of defense and rolled out by the national science foundation. you can look at virtually every aspect of our high-tech industry and the economy and find a connection to federal research and development funding. to make dramatic cuts and drastic cuts to the r&d funding in the name of deficit reduction is truly shortsighted. my friend and former c.e.o. of lockheed martin, dr. augustine, frequently gives the following analogy -- when an airplane is overloaded and too heavy to fly, you don't cut weight by

chopping off the engines. i think it's a great analogy because that's exactly what this budget does. it cuts off the engine of american invasion. it would be bad enough if -- innovation. it would be bad enough if it cut research and development, but the ryan budget will also painfully cut education funding. index for inflation that budget would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from precollege and college education programs. let's put these education cuts in context. in the last international student assessment, u.s. students ranked 26th in mathematics and 21st in science. we are falling behind our economic competitors in stem education. the republican solution to this problem is to throw the towel in. these educational cuts sell our children out, plain and simple. taken together, the cuts to

research and education in this ryan budget paint a dark picture of america's future. it's a picture where america no long early leads the world in innovation. it's a picture where our children are not prepared for the rigors of a competitive 21st century global marketplace. it's a picture of america in decline. i reject this future. i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the ryan republican budget that sells america short and instead shows support for robust education and research funding and a strong american future. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, for five minutes. mr. jeffries: thank you, mr. speaker. rise today in opposition to the ryan republican budget and in support of the alternative budget plan that has been

submitted by the congressional black caucus. the c.b.c. budget is an effort to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the g.o.p. budget balances itself on the backs of children , college students, working families, middle-class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick and the afflicted. the c.b.c. budget would move america forward. the g.o.p. budget would take us backward. the c.b.c. budget is designed to create progress for the greatest number of americans possible. the g.o.p. budget is designed to promote prosperity for the few. now, we should be here on the floor of the house of representatives this week as we engage in this budget debate

trying to find ways to promote the american dream for the middle class and for those who aspire to be part of it. instead, the ryan republican budget is a nightmare for far too many americans. now, my good friends on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, may suggest that when we use language such as that, that's hyperbole. well, let's examine what the ryan republican budget actually does. because i believe that when you put it to an evidence-based analysis, one can come to no other conclusion but that it ll result in a nightmare for far too many americans. the ryan republican budget $125 ut more than billion in food and nutritional

assistance for food-insecure americans. now, in this great country of ours, the richest in the world, there are more than 50 million americans every night, every day when they wake up, the next morning, who are hungry, who are food insecure. approximately 16 million of those hungry americans are children. yet, the ryan republican budget would cut $125 billion in assistance for these americans? that's a nightmare. the ryan republican budget uld also cut approximately $260 billion in funding for higher education. essentially robbing the capacity of so many younger americans to pursue the american dream, get a college

education. now, in this country there is already more than $1 trillion in collective student loan debt. .ore than $1 trillion that reality, mr. speaker, means that so many younger americans have an inability when they graduate from college to purchase a home, to start a family, to create small businesses. we are robbing these americans of a viable future. $260 billion in cuts to higher education funding, seems to me that that's a nightmare for younger americans. the ryan republican budget ould also cut $732 billion from medicaid. now, almost 2/3 of the recipients of medicaid are

actually seniors, the sick, the disabled and the afflicted. unbelieve this caricature that people likes to create when it comes to medicaid. seniors, the sick, the disabled, the afflicted who benefit from medicaid and the ryan republican budget would 10-year billion over a period from this vital social safety net program? that's a nightmare for the american people. and so this is not hyperbole. unfortunately this is reality. i would urge my colleagues to take a real close look at the congressional black caucus alternative. a fair and balanced alternative, a budget that would invest in job training and education, invest in transportation and infrastructure, invest in research and development, invest in technology and innovation, invest in the

american people and our future, and that is why i am urging a no vote on the ryan republican budget and a yes vote on the c.b.c. alternative. mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. . mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask permission that i revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is said that what you don't know won't hurt you. what you don't know won't hurt you. i disagree. what you don't know about health care can hurt you. what you don't know about a treatable condition that can harm you, possibly kill you, but you don't know about it, can hurt you. i don't believe in the idiom,

the adage, what you don't know, won't hurt you. i believe you should know the truth because the truth can set you free. let us take a moment now and look at just one aspect of what is called the ryan budget. let's look at health care. the ryan budget repeals the affordable care act. it repeals it without replacing it. what you don't know can hurt you. but if you know the truth, it could liberate you. we need to get the truth to the masses so that the masses can understand the impact of repealing without replacing. let's reflect upon 2009 when we embarked upon the task of developing a affordable care act. in 2009 we were spending $2.5 trillion per year on health

care. $2.5 trillion is a very large number. it's difficult to get your mind around it. however, $2.5 trillion is $79,000 a second. $79,000 a second is what we were pending. 17.6% of the g.d.p. $100 million being spent on persons without insurance. emergency rooms, and other places. it was projected that by 2018 we would spend $4.4 trillion per second. know the truth. it can liberate you. 4.4 trillion is $139,000 per second. estimated that it would be about 23.3% of g.d.p. in 2009 we had 40 million to 50 million people uninsured,

depending on who's counting and you how tsh-and how you couldn't. in 2009 we had people dying because they didn't have ensures. this is per harvard university. one person dying every 12 minutes. in 2009 in the state of texas, we had six million people uninsured and 20% of the children in the state of texas uninsured. we had to do something about health care if for no other reason to semibend the cost curve, and the cost curve is bending. it's projected that in the first 10 years it would bend the cost curve about $100 billion. in the next 10 years, $1 trillion. know the truth and truth can liberate you, my dear friends. and the truth is this. if the ryan budget repeals the affordable care act, and it is not replaced, and there is no replacement provision in that dget, seniors who are on the

-- on medicare, seniors who are on medicare are going to see the doughnut hole expand rather than close. the doughnut hole is that point which seniors have to pay more for prescription drugs, more than many can afford. what you don't know can hurt you , seniors, when the doughnut hole starts to expand. the budget would cause those who are 26 years of age, under 26 years of age, who are on policies of their parents, to come off. young people are invincible until they have an accident and get hurt and need health care. they are invincible until they find out they have a condition that's curable and need health care. young people, what you don't know can hurt you, but the truth can liberate you so you can do the right thing as relates to this budget and let people know you are opposed to what can happen to you. this budget will cause pre-ex isting -- pre-existing

conditions to become an uninsurable circumstance in your life. there are people who are born with pre-existing conditions. these people will not be insurable. the affordable care act eliminates pre-existing conditions as a reason not to insure people. we would go back to people being born with pre-existing conditions, many of whom would have to wait until they can afford or get to medicare before they could get insurance. medicare is a type of insurance. this budget would cause women to, again, have to go back to a circumstance wherein they by virtue of their condition of being a woman would have a pre-existing condition. mr. chairman, i would put a to be continued in this message but what you don't know can hurt you. the truth can set you free. god bless you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr.

fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, the pulitzer prize winning novelest, noted humanitarian, and long time bucks county, pennsylvania, resident, pearl s. buck, touched many lives during her lifetime. her books brought readers inside the worlds of those they might have never known, and her commitment to a global community devoid of prejudice and bias solidified her place in american history. however, it was her dedication to children of all races for which i recognize her today. pearl s. buck pry neared a process for international adoption that brought down the walls of interracial adoption and grew loving families where before there were no options. her work continues today and it continues with the leaders at pearl s. buck international in my district. through the welcome house program, an adoption assistance,

the organization carries on her critical mission of connecting children worldwide with loving families here in the united states. i was proud to join the leaders at pearl s. buck international last month to highlight our mutual support for the children and families first act. this bipartisan legislation streamlines our nation's international adoption process an increases america's diplomatic mission abroad, to include the well-being of children around the globe. as a member of the congressional adoption coalition and a co-sponsor of the bill, i'm excited to advance the children and families first act as a commonsense response to the needs of families and groups like pearl s. buck international, by removing roadblocks, increasing usaid opportunities, and prioritizing adoption within the state department we can ensure that every child, no matter what they are born, has a home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the

gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor this morning and talk just a little bit about free speech and how we exercise that free speech in this country. i think it is no secret that the twitter verse and the internet has been abuzz with a little bit of concern about what the president is planning to do about the internet and control an governance of the internet. and i think we all agree this internet has had a revolutionary impact on not only this nation but on the world. you can take a look at what has happened with jobs, with innovation, with economic freedom, and indeed with social change.

you see it pronounced because the internominate -- internet allows people to participate from the bottom up. in receiving information about what their governments are doing. about opportunities that are out there. they have the opportunity to get online and do a little bit of research. so with this open ecosystem and this decentralized nature of information, it is benefiting freedom. it is benefiting free people and free markets. we want to see that continue. now, like many of my colleagues, i do support a free market, multistate holder model of internet governance, and in a rfect world i can -- ican, which is the organization of governance of domain names and the internet would be fully privatized and free from any government influence or control.

however, realistically we know that china and russia have a very different view of what would be perfection. their end goal is to have ican and iana function migrate to the u.n.'s i.t.u., which is the international telecommunications union. that solution is one i do not support and one that i would never stand in favor of. i stand in opposition to it. if the commerce department, u.s. department of commerce, is going to relinquish control of its contractual authority over the iana contract and move control of d.n.s. into a global multistakeholder community, the timing and the architecture would have to be absolutely perfect. this is an area where you have overwhelm got one shot at

getting it right. only one shot. we have to make certain that it is a shot that is focused fully on freedom. if this administration wants to prove to congress and the international community that they are serious about this process, then they must immediately move to bring an end to the net neutrality movement that is alive and well at our federal communications commission. telling congress and the international community that they are serious about relinquishing control over the iana contract while simultaneously having the f.c.c. work to promote net neutrality is disingenuous. while we know russia's got a land grab going on, we also see the u.n. and the i.t.u. trying to carry forth this space grab. a lot of our colleagues come to

us, mr. speaker, and they say so what are we going to do about this? i want to highlight two different pieces of legislation with you. irst, h.r. 4342, this is the domain openness through continued oversight matters act. dot-com act. congressman shimkus and rokita have joined me in this effort. and what we would do is to make certain that there is a prohibition against the tent of commerce's national telecommunications information add madam speaker. we call it ntia here, from turning over its domaincies testimony, oversight responsibilities pending a g.a.o. report to congress. let's put this report in front of the action. let's have a great discussion about what taking that action of

relinquishing oversight would mean. to each eafer -- and every person that is asimbled in this -- assembled in this great room. how is that going to affect our constituents? how is it going to affect american innovation? let's have those discussions now. let's not make a mistake. i also highlight h.r. 4070, a piece of legislation i have authored. the internet freedom act to barr the funk particular and their actions on net neutrality. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to rule 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

records. there are other records held by third parties, for example, e-mails, searches of the thatnet, financial records i believe are covered under to 15. i am just trying to figure if that is your understanding. >> the ways we are trying to therm to 15, the notion is request has to be supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. >> you are not answering my

question. are these other records in the same legal posture as the phone records? not sure i am understanding your question. obviously they are governed by the same law. >> you have answered my question. i do. i want to talk about section 702. ronclapper sent a letter to 28 and kidding there have been queries of u.s. persons of communications that he says were lawfully acquired under section 702. now, in taking a look at what the fisa court said a few years ago in 2011, they observe the 250acquires more than million internet communications each year pursuant to section seven of two. that was in 2011. i want to probe how it could be

that we would collect this data looking at foreign purses on a persons on a 51% basis of confidence that the person is abroad and query for u.s. persons. how does that comply with the fourth amendment? has been donethat is consistent with the fourth amendment. that only goes part of the way. the president has said because we can do certain things does not mean that we should do them. we look at 215, proposed modifications that have indicated looking at sections of 72, and we are going to have modifications we are going to propose there as well. >> let me ask you in terms of whether you think we have legal or constitutional limits in receiving information on american citizens in the united states that have been collected

allies, forfrom our example, britain or canada or australia's security forces. is there any prohibition constitutionally in receiving information from allied agencies? >> i am not sure there is a constitutional prohibition, but we do have good relationships with our allies. we share information with them when that is appropriate. >> let me ask you in terms of other public data. we are in a situation in this world,, really in the where there is a digital record made of us wherever we go. you walk down the street, every atm machine has a camera, every 7-eleven has a camera. what is the permit's view in terms of the need for a judicial review to obtain those digital

records and to data mine them for information about american citizens? >> the department has different standards depending on the nature of the information that is sought. the information that is in play of the determination, we try to do things in a way that are consistent with our obligation under the fourth amendment. -- butbe on that so that go beyond that so we do not turn ourselves into a state that we do not want to ultimately be. ,> the question is do you feel does the department feel you have to get a warrant or not to obtain and data mine such information? >> it depends on the nature of that which we seek. if you go back, when i was a young prosecutor, and you wanted mail covers, for

instance, there are a variety of things you can do with and without the court, and that is still the case. >> my time has expired. i will follow up with imai may, mr. attorney general, with specific questions that i can get into. thank you very much. >> we hope the attorney general will respond. the chair recognizes the german from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. attorney general. on july 25, 2013, 15 members of this committee wrote you to inquire whether the department of justice was consulted regarding the constitutionality of the administration's decision to delay the employer mandate. and if so, what the department's position was regarding its constitutionality. has notmittee still received a satisfactory response. you stated publicly on the record to senator michael lee of utah at a senate judiciary

committee hearing held on about two, 2014, months ago, that the justice department had indeed divided such a legal analysis. now that same hearing, you speculated publicly about what contained inas that legal analysis. since you have previously speculated publicly on these issues and since you have had time since that meeting back on january 29, 2014, the senate hearing, to refresh her memory, regarding the specific nature of that legal analysis, could you now please describe the specific analysis onat legal the affordable care act? -- chairmantment goodlatte sent me a letter that i had a chance to review that had contained within it my e.lloquy with senator leahy

it seemed to me that conversation was more general than the one you have discussed. in any case. the government, the department generally does not disclose content of confidential legal advice to the president or other governmental decision-makers. hasdepartment's treasury about theongress decision regarding the delay of the enforcement of the mandate. i would refer you to that document. >> when 15 members of this committee send you a request based on the legal analysis, something as significant as that, don't you think we deserve a response? not apologize if there has been a response to that inquiry, that is worthy of response. >> thank you. let me move on. the president made the unilateral decision to delay the affordable care act's employer

mandate for one year. this is despite clear statutory language instructing that the penalties associated with the o monthsshall apply tw after honey 13. when congress puts effective datesin law -- effective in law, do we need to state that the effective date cannot be waived or modified by the executive branch or is the president required to follow the law and also follow the dates that are set by congress? the president has the duty to follow the law. >> would that include the dates included in the law? i do not think there was anything confusing about them or contradictory about them. doesn't the president have to follow that law? >> it would depend on the statute, it would depend on the statutory interposition.

>> we are talking about the affordable care act. it is not some hypothetical law. that is the law. hashe treasury department looked at it and determine there was a legal basis for -- i your his legal advisor, and am asking you should he not follow the law when it's at the specific date? are we going to have to put in their what i stated, that the effective date cannot be modified by the executive range, meaning the president? lighthave to put that which in there from now on, or should be assumed that the president does not have to assume that if we do not put that in there? >> far be it from me to tell you how to do the jobs -- your jobs. i can only talk about the statute and other branches of the executive -- >> let me give you one quick win. as attorney general in our faced with the law, and with regard to states' attorneys general, you

told them to be suspicious of thatthat define -- of laws define marriage between one woman and one man. why would use say to states not to defend laws constitutionally passed by those states whether you agree with that policy or not? >> with all due information, i think you have gotten some bad information. i did not say that people need to be specific -- >> that was a paraphrase. we will go back and look at the language. >> that is fine. decisionsd was that not to defend the statute cannot be based on politics, alice he. -- policy. >> you guys would never do that. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> i was going to say there have law. bases in

, 1950 three, the congress passed a law that said that separate but equal -- 1953, the congress passed a law that said separate but equal was -- >> the time of the tournament has expired. the chair recognizes the general month -- the gentlewoman from texas. me thank the general for your presence and your service and the number of vast stages that are for the good. clients havey asked about the nsa, and i'm going to write a letter on that or ask a question if i get enough time. i wanted to bring -- and i asked consent to introduce his letter to the record -- this letter that i sent to mr. holder on january 2014.

ice without objection. if you would, jasper, texas, the home of the late person who was violently murdered in 1998. another young man, a 28-year-old african-american, honors graduate from the university of memphis, whose body was found 19 days after first reported missing and had allegedly, the community had allegedly been searching for 17 days, his body was somewhat mutilated, but do thereok like it had been for 17 or 19 days. he stopped his truck. it was overheated. he was in front of a store, and all of a sudden he went missing. we have a justice department investigation, but there has been no word whatsoever. there has been a lot of chatter,

by familypsetness members, a lot of emotion. my question is, how quickly can we speed up that investigation? either stand that we cannot paint an investigation, but i would appreciate if there could be some dialogue. i do not believe that dialogue with those who represent those individuals is a violation of that investigation. >> we will take into account the letter you have indicated. the letter you have talked about. i was checking to make sure, that my memory, the u.s. attorney is looking at this matter. not in a position to discuss this further at this time, but i have been told the attorney has been in touch with the family. it is something we are taken seriously. >> i appreciate it, and if i could get a briefing through do j in washington, and either stand that specifics cannot be

discussed, it would be helpful. thank you. that would be -- let me move to a letter, and i asked consent to introduce it to the record. mr. chairman? this letter involves a shooting in bel air to, texas, and unfortunately a young man, a family owned a home and he was confronted by police on his own steps and shock on his own steps under the allegation he had stolen a car. he was in a neighborhood that did not look like him. the unfortunate part was it and it is very prominent -- promising baseball career. the problem is as the response came back there was not going to be an investigation probably because incidents are not reported frequently out of bel air, texas. it was a suggestion of practice and patterns. j to getlike tha

back to me about this, and you have a situation that has not been addressed. this was sent to you. i ask unanimous consent of the senate record. >> that objection. >> another letter that i will pursue questioning on, and thank you, february 5, three members of this committee sent a letter to our major leaders of civil rights organizations to comment on the clemency process that is now being in place. could you emphasize how basedant this process is on the change in law that this committee have on the crack howine, and how are you -- is it being him amended with the federal bureau of prisons? how successful do you think it is? let me ask a follow-up question so that i will not be left out. i will send you a letter regarding the investigation on the high-speed trading and understand what the basis of the law is.

there's a proposed merger between comcast and time-warner. you have been for antitrust issues. i want to know how vigorous you are going to be in this very massive and impactful potential merger on the clemency, mr. attorney general. thank you for your work. matter that you talk about is something that is of concern to us. he have requested in a budget the ability to hire 70 people for our office that would include four attorneys so we can process these matters at a greater rate. we have also begun an initiative to identify the additional clemency candidates. the president granted clemency to eight of those a few months ago. there are people who do not have ties to gang's or cartels, are

not threats to public safety, and we would generally agree that clemency should be considered. so that we could try to make this clemency process a better and more fulsome one. se could he take 10 se conds? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. it is now the time for the opportunity for the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you. i hope you're feeling better. >> i'm getting there. >> when you appeared here last night, i asked you about the ap case. to supply anyble details because you said you had recused yourself early on.

i asked a few if there was a date of that or whether it was a formal process, and you said there was no record of it. to youat time indicated and i think you probably agreed with me that there would be a -- there should be a need when you are cruise yourself from a case to have a formal, written entry. have you all adopted such a policy? i have thought in my own mind that i would recuse myself and put a writing to get on some sort that would indicate what the basis was of that were crucial. -- of that recusal. believe we had two cases that it is essential that there would be a formal process --re you

>> is a good idea. my only concern -- >> as opposed to a good idea -- why doesn't the justice department adopted formal process and do that, particularly and you are required by law to sign off on any subpoena involving the media. i just think in a matter like that, there ought to be a formal recusal. i will renew my request that you do that and inform us if and when you do it. >> that is fine. >> since that time, i became aware in a press conference about that same time you set the associated press case was one of the most -- you said it is one of the worst weeks you have seen throughout your career. do you still believe that? >> yes. >> it is my understanding from

everything we have seen now that the information they published on monday was going to be the subject of an announcement by the white house early tuesday morning, and this was something that happened a year or two before in yemen. , am wondering why of the delay something that the white house was going to announce the next day, why would it have been so serious to secretly subpoena from verizon all of the records -- am i wrong that the white house not want to reveal this information the very next day? >> i hope we are talking about the same leak. what i was discussing was something that impinged our -- had a negative impact on our ability -- i cannot talk about this -- >> this case is closed, is it not? >> yeah, but we still have to

talk about -- am i wrong that the white house was going to disclose this information in the article the very next day and they had asked the ap to delay it one more day? >> i was only after the fact of the leak had existed. had there been a leak -- >> ok, all right. what i'm saying is the white house was going to reveal the information the very next day. it, the planber was not to reveal it on any day, but for the fact that the leak had already occurred. i also asked you, and i think it was informally, whether or not there were any other media outlets during that time or since that time -- let's say during that time that were targeted by the justice apartment other than the rosen

case and the ap case, and you said you were not sure. were there other media outlets which were targeted? weknow of the rosen case, know of the ap case. were there other examples where media outlets were secretly targeted? >> i would not agree any media outlets were targeted. what happened in at least a couple of those cases was determination is made to get information. we went through a process after that firestorm. >> i know about that, in july, but what i am asking you, were any other media targeted by secret requests to verizon or others to look at their information other than the associated press and the rosen case, which we know of, because that was revealed? are there any other? >> the processes that we had in place to the extent that we

thought where i made i the determination had in fact been made. we had a good series of meetings with the media -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes that chairman from her, mr. scott, for five minutes. , mr. attorney general, for being here today. i had a question about torture and just simply we have heard that torture worked in certain situations. immunityt retroactive if it had worked for conducting illegal torture? >> do you get retroactive immunity -- >> if it works, you got good information? what is the legal significance of getting good information if it worked? >> i'm not sure if i understand the question. >> some people say it worked, therefore, otherwise it would have been illegal torture was ok. is it ok if it worked?

>> if somebody had engaged in practices, torture, that violated federal law, the fact that it worked would not be a bar to potential criminal liability. >> thank you. if you call it enhanced interrogation, does that make it ok? >> no, slapping a label on it does not change it. >> thank you. i want to switch subjects to mandatory minimums. you mentioned legislation that is pending. what can the executive ranch do branchviate -- executive due to alleviate -- >> what i try to do is to make sure that we are using people in the field, the assistant u.s. attorneys are yousing chargeion, only to

minimum sentences where they are appropriate, given the nature of the conduct of a defendant .efore a u.s. attorney i have great faith in the department make those decisions in an appropriate way. >> are you recommending the executive branch to deal with these cases, to? -- too? >> yes, we think that clemency process has to be a part of this overall look at our criminal justice system. >> thank you. the youth promise act, you are familiar with it, which requires localities to come together first of all assess how much they are spending on incarceration and other things that could be prevented with a good comprehensive evidence-based locally tailored money is being saved to reinvest the money to keep the programs going here it has the department of justice taken a position on the youth promise act? >> i believe we are supportive

of it. we are supportive of the youth promise act. >> thank you. on voting rights, we are disappointed by the shell the decision and we are trying to fix it. -- the shelby decision and we are trying to fix it. what can we do to cover the notsdictions where there is a formal finding of prior discrimination? is there any way that we can prioritize recent discrimination? is there anyway we can cover jurisdictions without a finding? >> what we shared with the members of congress and this committee was a regulatory -- a framework in which over a set time a number of violations could make the particular state or jurisdiction subject to justice department review if there was a desire to change a voting procedure. i think that would respond to

the supreme court's concern expressed in shelby. >> could we have someone be required to have a process precleared if it is a suspect change, if there is no prior finding of discrimination? we have beyond what proposed there are other parts of the voting rights act that allow the department to look at individualized determination -- individualized actions that a jurisdiction might take place. those are not easily proven. >> in terms of preclearance, is there a way you can stick those with preclearance and you cannot stick those with findings under the shelby case? >> it would be difficult, and what we tried, up with was a process by which the ambit of

the voting rights act would be spread beyond those states that have been covered before and would focus on a represent number of violations over a set time that would move over the years, so they would not become old in nature. >> what can be done to improve he in juncture up -- >> the time of the general and has expired. the attorney general can't answer briefly the gentleman's question. the record. if you could comment on how we can improve the process of injunction so localities do not have to suffer irreparable harm. if you could respond i would appreciate it. timem having a hard hearing some of the questions. i am not sure, maybe the mikes are not on. >> we will check on that.

the chairman recognizes the general of california. >> can you hear me ok? >> i can always hear you. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. attorney general. that theou would agree sanctity and the importance and sanctity of the inspector general act is one that is important to all of government. would you agree? >> the sanctity? >> the independence of the inspector generals is clearly an intent of congress. have a goodo inspector general, you need some degree of independence. yourchael hurwitz, inspector general, you would inspector? a good >> general yes, a good inspector general. i have known mike for a number of years. at last week he said at subcommittee meeting that he has been interfered with.

he has had to go specifically to you or your deputy to get permission to have access to records, and that has taken time, although he -- why you woulde require your inspector general access tocific materials on his investigations and the delays that come with it? >> it is important note that as he knowledge that the i.g.'s have gotten all the documents that are necessary -- >> he said into cases that he thought were helpful to you that you approved it. isn't it a form of soft intimidation to force an independent individual who is supposed to have unfettered access to these documents in their investigations, could even include an investigation of high-ranking individuals working for you, you have to ask for that by definition requires him to disclose and essentially beg

for permission have access to documents? is not a correct. >> this is not a policy choice. there are legal restrictions to what the department can do with information that are unique to the justice department, such as wiretapping or grand jury information that require the attorney general, even the deputy attorney general, to grant the inspector general access to that information. it is a legal research and. >> you can grant him broad access just as you grant certain individuals brought access. it is not something where he needs to apply or needs to go through a process, is it? >> i'm not sure what the process is, but i do not think it is anything that has had a negative impression -- negative impact. >> it has caused delays. ultimately he was granted in the two examples. i think it speaks for itself but this is not the treatment that i.g.'s normally fine and is

inconsistent with cap. i would like to mix go to director jones'testimony last week for my committee -- before the committee in which although under thed that the department of justice observation that the atf had used mentally disabled persons, with some consistency, around the country in their investigations, often having to train them for example on what a themne gun was and send out to buy the machine gun after they have taught them what it was, and then arrested them for in factt, he said that his agents were not able to tell that somebody had an iq of 50 and as a result it really was not something that was a target, it just happened. first of all, have you looked abusings pattern by atf mentally disabled individuals in their investigations? >> i am familiar with that in what we have come to call these

store front operations. >> correct. >> really troubled by them. the head of the atf is asking us to look at these. there are no longer storefront operations in operation, and the content you talked about is troubling. >> i appreciate that. would be possible to have a civil rights division be the one that lead looking at the question of the use of mentally disabled? >> i'm sure the ig will make determinations and they will typically make repetitions. i appreciate their independence in that matter. lastly, the investigation into the irs' targeting of conservative groups, my understanding it is being done by the civil rights division. is that correct? >> what? >> under the some rights division? divisione civil rights and others. >> why would it be appropriate to have it done under public entered the -- public integrity, that is considered to be one of

the premier him and why wouldn't they have the lead? >> public integrity section is involved. >> would it be appropriate for them to have the lead, since the actions of lois lerner and others go to the question of public integrity? >> it is hard to say who is in the lead. as i have been briefed -- >> you have never told us was doing it so it is hard for us to know who is in the lead. >> i just said criminal, civil rights, fbi, treasury, i.g. as i look at the investigation and think of who is in the lead, i think of the criminal division as having the primary responsibility, and i talked to the assistant a.g. of the criminal position, and the people who are doing the work on the ground are the people in the public integrity section. >> do you have access to these 6103 information? have you been granted as necessary to tax commission that would allow you to go to the

individuals that are targeted and so on? ve that not sure i ha degree of granularity. >> the time of the settlement has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you, and i have great regard for you, but i have questions. we will do a lightning round. there are a lot of issues. as politics is local, shelby county has an election coming up. voting starts april 16. we have had a whole list of problems with the election commission. we have written you over the last couple of weeks. will have a letter with my staff member will give to one of your staff members. we would like to have your shorts you will look into having monitors, because there have been elections turn out that have allowed people to vote that have not the right to vote. lookou assure us you will

into having monitors in shelby county to see the elections are run fairly? letter lasted a week regarding the upcoming election, and we are reviewing that information, but we will look at information you provide to us. >> an individual have not gotten the letter. it was two weeks. going back to policy, as you know i am concerned about our drug policy in a country and the way it affects minorities and the way it takes away people's liberties by incarcerating them. i appreciate what you have done, and some of the statements you been forward moving. you talked about changing marijuana from schedule one and said you would like to work with congress and congress should take the lead. that we suggest you it is my understanding under title 21 that you have the authority to initiate a request to the secretary of health and human services to do a study to look into marijuana schedule one and that you could then change it.

in my humble opinion, and i think the majority of people in this country, there is no way that marijuana should be scheduled one because it is not in the same class as heroin and lsd as it is in the code, which breeds contempt for our laws. there's medical paces. pta has shown this in his broadcasting and people have voted in 20 states, so has medical benefits, and to be schedule one it says it has no medical benefit. that is fallacious. is a highhat there likelihood of abuse, it is nothing like harold. that is absurd. i would like to ask you, why will you not act as the president suggested that where congress will not, and i predict congress will not act in this area, because congress is generally like tortoises until it is clear they are not going to put their head out there, that the administration has acted on the immigration act and on wages and minimum wages,

etc., why won't the administration act with the pen and the phone to help people out with taking this out of schedule one so it can be studied because we are favor of research? >> we have acted in a responsible way in how we have made a determination that we will use our limited resources. the policies i have announced, the directions i have given to people in the fields. reflect a sensitive his third resource restraints we have, division between federal 'sd local law enforcement possibilities, and we have acted appropriately. >> in those areas you have, but in schedule one, you have to ask the secretary to make a scientific and medical evaluation and after that you can go further and make a determination whether it should be schedule one. schedule one says you cannot do research on it. why will you not ask the secretary under title 21 chapter 13 to initiate that program to get marijuana out of schedule one?

it is obviously not schedule one. >> wel, was obvious to one is perhaps not obvious to another. i think as i said even there's possibilities that i have-- >> the secretary would make that study to determine it. why not initiate the opportunity for the scary -- for the secretary to make the city and paces outside of -- make the study and decided? >> in the world in which i have prime responsibility, we have acted in a way that is appropriate. >> in those areas you have. the attorney general shall remove a drug or other substance shall request from the secretary of scientific and medical evaluation. that is all you have to do is requested. that is not take away from your limited resources. >> i'm satisfied with what we have done. have you look at having a group of commutations of people

who were convicted under crack, the old determination of 100 to and havingf 18 to 1 all of those people in a group commutations be put forward? >> time of the german has expired. the attorney general is permitted to answer the question. >> i do not think we are looking for a group commutation. we are looking for individuals who would be deserving of clemency connotations. given the nature of their conduct, their lack of ties to violence or to drug dealing gangs or cartels. initiative toan identify initiative -- additional clumsy recipients, which is important to the president's and we are trying to can up with ways we individualized determinations about who should receive comity. >> thank you.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you for taking time to be with us. i think it comes as no surprise that a great many members of this body i think a great many in vigils across the country believe and are very concerned about the overreach they perceive coming from your office among the internal revenue service, and the white house. suggested perhaps today that the house budget may in some way curtail that if in fact that is the case. many of us who would vote for that budget will not just vote for it but embrace it because we get so frustrated in not being able to get answers and to control some of that overreach. one of the areas is what you have just been talking about, the clemency situation and pardons. i know you're deputy attorney general on generate 30 actually solicited -- on january 30 petitionso solicited

for pardons and comes a in a speech he gave to the new york state bar association. he referenced the fact that overcrowding in our prisons. he also mentioned that some of these individuals are truly dangerous people who threaten the safety of our communities and need to be taken off the streets for long times. my first question is, can you cedent ofny pre previous attorney general's offices who have done this limited to a particular category of crime? he did not mention individuals who have been convicted of white-collar crime or campaign finance laws or host of other areas that have been over criminalized. all we also do the overcrowding that we are very concerned with, but have a much lower recidivism rate. part in the attorney's office that deals with a whole range of federal crimes for which people have been convicted and then seek relief. but the concert

is he was actively soliciting, the barctually asking association to bring forward those petitions, but he only talked about drug offenses. he did not budget any of those others, and my question is, any dent you know of that any other administration has solicited petitions for some voted - four committees - clemencies? >> we are dealing with a particular proper, and that is the pendulum swung a little too far and in 1980's. when this was the murder capital went a little, we too far with regard to some of the sentences. >> one of the things he goes on to list is this -- he says we are looking for petitions for individuals -- these are his quotes --

nonviolent, low-level drug offenders who were not leaders or had significant ties to gangs life orls who faced near licenses. my question to you is, give me an example of someone who would fall in that category, because 3f thatknow, under 18355 category would not have been subjected to mandatory minimums anyway, and that was put in law in -- and anybody at that time would have been subject to parole. notn example who would be a a leader, involved in organized answer cartels, nooks since a criminal history, who would have been facing a life or near-life sentence? >> a drug mule who would bring drugs from new york and got stopped at the bus terminal here, in washington, d.c., where there's a whole bunch of drugs in a bag to get charge, not only

possession of those drugs, which would have resulted in a huge sentence, but could have been of being part of a conspiracy with all the drugs involved with that conspiracy. engaget person did not in a violent crime, he could have gotten a license. >> but he would not have had a mandatory license, with he? my final thing-- >> in 70 years -- >> [indiscernible] >> here's my question-- >> [indiscernible] >> the prosecutor them of the jury, and the judge were actually handling that case would have had a much better opportunity to determine that sentence than somebody in your office i've years down the road. >> except that the jury and the judge's hands were tied by the sentencing guidelines that were tied to the amounts that were involved as opposed to the conduct that that person engaged in. that is the wrong we are trying to address. >> if you look again and give me

some examples -- i know my time is about to expire -- that would have complied under 183553f which would have gone him out of that mandatory sentence, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman of virginia. we recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you today, sir. the u.s. has the highest .ncarceration rate in the world your budget, your budget request for the department of and $8.4or 2015, billion isthat $27.4 for federal prisons and detention facilities, is it not?

>> i believe that is correct. budget is/3 of your to incarcerate people at the in the world, not world, but inized the world. that is disturbing. people who are incarcerated, about 40% of them are african-americans. is that a fact? would you disagree with that? >> i think that number is about right. i do not know the precise number. >> about 20% are hispanics. >> i believe that is also correct. >> yeah. now, has that line item in the budget, that he $.4 billion billionral -- that $8.4

for federal prisons, has that been increasing or increasing? >> it has been increasing. goes 1/3 of our budget now to our bureau of prisons, and given the state of our system, that is deservedly so. we have to support the people who work in those facilities. as he spent more money, it means we have less money to hire agents, prosecutors will provide grant money to our state and local workers. say hi amount of money that we more and more as that goes to the federal bureau of prisons, the less we have to do the other things that people want the justice department to do. >> as it goes to the federal whatu of prisons, percentage of those funds go to private four-private detention facilities? >> i do not know the number of

that, but we can get you a percentage. >> approximately. would it be about 1/3 ror 1/4, 1/2? >> i do not know. i will have to get you that information. i do not know. >> i think that is pretty important. to the private for-profi facilities house federal detainees and inmates at a higher cost than the federal government can do it or at a lower cost, in general? >> i am not familiar with what our relationship is in terms of numbers when the funding stream that goes to any private facilities that we might use. i do not know the answer to that. >> let me ask you this. the agency -- your agency is responsible for investigating

not just blue collar criminals but white-collar criminals as well. but with the white-collar , corporate theft -- let's take, for instance -- those corporations have a much greater ability to fight back, because they have resources. your agency's at budget been trimmed over the past four, three, four, five years, this trimming or budget, or cutting of it, actually, has it affected your ability to go criminals? corporate no, would say>> to date, but i will tell you if

sequestration were to reappear in 2015, 2016, whenever it might show up again, the capacity of the department to do that which the american eagle expect us to do from a range of things, national security, to white collar enforcement, to violent crime enforcement, would be negatively impacted. we have to at all costs -- at all costs -- avoid the mistake that was sequestration. >> i thank the gentleman from georgia. at this time we will hear from the javaone from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you coming here. i recall a previous exchange in a previous hearing between us. i asked a question the effect of your priorities, are they or ared by the president you independent, and your response was i was independent. i do not take direct direction under the president. test generally the sponsor

the response that i recall. you're not your head in agreement. >> i have been here too long. you guys can quote things that i have said previously. i think that is right. that is an appropriate response. i would like to go to revisit some of the things that pop into my head that i'm thinking about. one of them is new. it has been back in the news recently, and that is the senator ted stevens issue, understand that prosecution to place for you and office, but it was reported in march that an fbi agent was really designed and this one was imposed for improper actions in the investigation and prosecution of centered ted stevens. it is clear that it is likely he lost his senate seat over that investigation, over the convention, and was killed in a plane crash. that is one piece about the discipline within the fbi that i would like to know about. second, the overreach by

allegedly carmen ortiz in the chwartz.aaron s we have seen a knockout game has been reported at least in the news to be primarily back on white crime. i do not know of any crushing anyons there -- prosecutions there except for the prosecution of conrad derek who was the anomaly as a white on black crime of the knockout game. a person transferred 20,000 dollars that showed up in a u.s. senate campaign targeted for the investigation. i would presume there are thousands in america who are likely engaged in similar act and not prosecuted. governor bob mcdonnell, charges brought against him, now five warmer u.s. attorneys general have come out and said this is overreach and outside the definition of the law. then i'm thinking about governor chris christie, who, when the

situation of the bridgegate came up, within a week there were federal investigators investigating the hurricane sandy issue. it is what i put down here listening to this estimate. lack panthers -- lack panthers prosecutionhers' discontinued when you took office. smallestt was the penalty provided. you have heard jim sensenbrenner ring up james clapper -- bring up james clapper and his conflicting testimony. i'm thinking of jon corzine, one $1llar billion -- one billion missing. then i am thinking about entire classes that have been exempted sent to the point i understand this is immigration enforcement.

any 9.92% of those who have been removed are not removed because they are unlawfully present. are because classes of people have been created why this administration, exempted from law. marijuana companies exempted from enforcement of the law as well as -- a suspension of the laws.ement of marijuana i take you to the texas issue where texas said i want a voter id, they get labeled as a poll tax and a racist plot. have you prosecuted anyone in this administration, have you ,mpaneled a grand jury because it looks like the other side of the isle are getting extra scrutiny and those on your side of the aisle are getting utiny. >> i will not comment on any

cases that are pending. we have followed the law and making are prosecuting determinations and our investigatory decisions. this is an administration, the justice department that i have read that i'm proud of. the men and women who are career employees or in the department for lesser times make their decisions based on only the facts in the law and conduct themselves in a way that is in the best traditions of this department. i will stand, but my record up against any other attorney general, any other justices apartment, and any hint that we have engaged in anything that is partisan or inappropriate in nature. i totally 1000% reject. >> but you have not responded to the question of whether you have investigated -- gentlemen.the time has expired. they could.

at this time i will recognize the member from puerto rico for five minutes. -- thankyou, matt mr. you, mr. chairman. it is good to see. i have two questions that will give you the opportunity to respond. to --responsive p toequires ombc thedinate a strategy with focus on puerto rico and the usdi. it will outline the steps the government is taking and recommend additional steps. to reduce the supply of drugs toering puerto rico and lower violence associated with the drug territory in the territories. the strategy is essential, but not enough. the strategy must be

implemented with the right personnel. i have made no secret of the oj's spotsi think dl notnot been -- response has been sufficiently strong. at the same time doj deserves credit for educating -- for so that other crimes are tried in federal court instead. often using state prosecutors deputized by doj for that purpose. j hasou satisfied that do appropriate personal to combat trafficking and violence crime in light of the severity of the problem there? the second issue i am raising involves the consolidated

appropriations act, because it includes-- >> this hearing is scheduled to last until 2:30 issue. the house gaveling in. aker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. if long ago all people had taken your holy word seriously, make justice your aim, how different history might be. each day would be filled with promise and hope if all of us upon rising would make justice our aim. lord, if we as a people and as a nation were to make justice our aim, how would this change our priorities? could we change that much? in every age, your impeling spirit called our ancestors beyond their wishfulhi