i have spent a lot of time here on the floor speaking about sexual harassment and the epidemic of rape in the military and on college campuses. it's just as important that we bring the same scrutiny to our own house. the american people expect us to conduct ourselves in a manner befitting the responsibilities and duties that we hold as members of congress. not like we are freshmen in a frat house. it is an embarrassment to this institution that some members have sex with teenage pages. and others have groped and inappropriately touched their staff members. this behavior is illegal, unacceptable in the private sector and it is illegal and unacceptable here. this is not a democratic issue. this is not a republican issue. this is a house issue. just recall former congressman bob filner.

he pled guilty to felony false imprisonment for formerly sexually harassing a person in the california house. he allegedly sexually harassed several members of the armed force who is were rape survivors but none of the women ever said a word while mr. filner was still here. not one. if you work for a private company in my home state in california, it is likely you've had several hours of sexual harassment training to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace because it's the law. it's also the law in california that state legislators and their staff participate in a mandatory sexual harassment training every year. but that's not the case here in the house. in fact, congressional office of compliance staff say that when new members go through their three-day training, they are mostly counseling empty

seats by the end of day three. sexual harassment training is already mandatory for the executive branch agencies and has proven to result in a significant reduction in the number of discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims. but this training for congress is only voluntary. the congressional office of compliance provides sexual harassment training to offices but it's not typically requested until after an office reports an incident. it's time we take advantage of the valuable training the office provides. my staff and i actually have taken this 1 1/2-hour training, and as much as i know about sexual harassment, i learned additional things during that training. madam chairwoman, my amendment is simple. it appropriates $500,000 in additional funds for the office of compliance to be used to enhance sexual harassment training programs by implementing a web-based platforms. they will be used as an

outreach to inform house offices what their rights are, where to go if they experience sexual harassment. it's time to send a new message that we are here to serve and that we are not above the law. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition although i am not opposed and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you. i rise today in strong support of the gentlelady from california's amendment which would provide an additional $500,000 to the office of compliance. the funding is intended for the office to provide mandatory sexual harassment training for all congressional offices in the house of representatives. surveys find that anywhere from reported that they were sexually harassed, mostly by a supervisor. it creates dangerous working

environments, not only threatening the emotional and physical well-being, but also their job security. there's no reason to think that the house of representatives is immune to this problem. the house of representatives should not be exempt from providing proper training to identify, prevent and report sexual harassment as many private institutions undertake. additionally, this type of training is already mandatory for all zeck of it branch agencies. it's time we follow suit to ensure that the enfire federal government is setting a model example for safety and respect in the workplace. to that end i have co-sponsored representative speier's amendment to require that the mandatory ethics training to members, officers has the prevention and sexual harassment. i support this amendment and thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this issue and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california still has a minute and a half remaining. ms. speier: i'd like to offer

some time to the gentlelady from new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for how long? for the remaining minute in a half. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i was in strong support of the amendment. when i came to congress i was outraged by some of the behavior of my colleagues. in one incident, a woman member was told to share a seat with a male colleague when there weren't enough chairs at a committee meeting. while there certainly have been improvements, recent events embarrassing this institution highlight the continued need for training. we cannot allow mad man-style antics to occur in our offices. sexual harassment training will help victims, improve awareness of what is not allowed and what is necessary, fanned we want to be necessary about stopping inappropriate acts, i thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment, i encourage the support, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady

yields back, the gentlewoman from california. the gentlelady from florida. ms. wasserman schultz: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i thank my friend for bringing this important amendment, it's something we are more than happy to accept and appreciate her raising the issue very, very much. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back to the gentlelady from florida. ms. wasserman schultz: we thank the gentleman and appreciate his support and at this time i'd like to yield the balance of our time in opposition even though no one is speaking in opposition to this very important amendment to the chair of the committee on house administration, the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: thank you. and i certainly thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. i certainly thank my colleague from california for offering this very, very important amendment, which we are all very supportive of. this amendment has been explained, it provides additional funds for the

congressional office of compliance. this is the agency that really is tasked with making sure that members of congress and very importantly, most importantly, their staff are aware of what their individual rights are and how to protect against sexual harassment in the workplace. it seems like the members might be protected, but perhaps our staff was not protected as they need to be and in is certainly not a partisan issue. it doesn't -- we've seen incidents over the years of republicans, of democrats, both sides of the aisle here. actually, madam chair, this week i met with a senior staff at o.c.c. i met with all the board members there. we talked about what kind of additional training might be helpful when we put together our new members' orientation program in the fall, various kinds of things we can do. of course, they needed a little bit more cash to be able to step up, particularly on the internet, and various things and doing awareness training. this amendment i think is very important.

certainly, madam chair, congress needs to be held to the highest standards. at a minimum we ought to be held at the same standards we hold private businesses in the marketplace, in the workplace. every employee that works on this hill needs to work in an environment that they feel is free from sexual harassment and if they feel threatened in any way they need to be able to understand what their rights, what recourse they have to protect themselves without any fear of retribution. i think congress needs to be a leadership on this issue, a leader. and i certainly feel by conducting awareness training that will help stop any unfortunate situation, and if we don't stop it, certainly then allowing an individual to protect them self. that i think is an important thing for all of us. again, i thank the gentlelady from california for offering the amendment, and i would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from florida has a minute remaining. and the gentlelady from california has a minute remaining as well.

the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. speier: i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i also yield back the balance of my time and thank the gentlelady from california for her offering the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from florida yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-426. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: madam chair woman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-426 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 557, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a

member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chair woman. i rise today to speak in favor of my simple and straightforward amendment. my amendment would reduce funding to the united states botanical garden to the levels appropriated in fiscal year 2014. that money would be transferred to the spending reduction account so we can take one more step towards reining in federal spending. i will be the first to say that i appreciate the botanical gardens and its beauty. i believe it is a good program, and i am personally interested in botany. but members of congress are often faced with difficult choices, especially given our current fiscal crisis. there are programs that are constitutionally mandated and other programs that are nice but are not constitutionally mandated. this is one program na is nice but can be -- cannot be immune from the fiscal pressers facing our government. while the botanical garden is a wonderful attraction, congress must seek to address limited

spending in order to get our fiscal house in order. no line item must be overlooked, including our own office budgets, as we've demonstrated. madam chairwoman, so many families are tightening their belts during these trying economic times. congress must do the same and make cuts where it can. i am concerned that the architect of the capitol has proposed over $5.1 million in new capitol projects at the botanical gardens this year. rather than making minor repairs to a few small leaks in the roof, they are preparing to tear down the entire roof and replace it with a new vegetative roof system. with the federal debt in excess of $17 trillion, such expenditures are especially wasteful and we shouldn't be wasting precious taxpayer money on a new state-of-the-art vegetative roofing system. my proposed amendment is a fair cut. it does not gut the program but merely rolls back the appropriations back to 2014 levels. my amendment still allows for almost $2 million in new

capitol projects and repairs to take place in fiscal year 2015. a note about vegetative roofs. they are usually at least twice the cost to install and require much higher maintenance costs and in some cases have unintended consequences by attracting wildlife into urban areas. as an example, geese. i ask each member to vote in favor of the gosar amendment. thank you, mayor chair demeanor wols -- thank you, madam chairwoman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: i rise in strong opposition and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment which would strike $3 million to the office of the botanic garden. the people's botanic garden. i know the gentleman is trying to generate headlines to cut

funding from our nation's capital but this is not the way to fix our nation's deficit. over 200 years ago, george washington had a vision for our capital city to include a botanic garden that would demonstrate and promote the important role plant life plays in our nation. it may seem trivial but the botanic garden, established in 1820, is one of the oldest botanic gardens in the united states. it's also one of the most visited destinations on the capitol complex. in fact i know it's my own children's favorite place to visit when they come to washington, d.c. and often our first stop. our constituents sent us here to do real work and look for real solutions to the deficit, not to try to score cheap political points. the gentleman says no line item or opportunity can be looked over when it comes to reducing our deficit. yet, i urge the gentleman, if he's looking for ways to significantly reduce our deficit to urge the house republican leadership to address comprehensive

immigration reform which would result in a $900 million reduction in the deficit over the next 20 years. going after our garden isn't the answer. in fact, i think it's important to note that since president obama took office, our deficit has been cut by more than 50% as a percentage of our g.d.p. with that i urge the members to defeat this ill-advised amendment, and i yield back. sorry, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona has yielded back. the gentlelady from florida -- for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i'd like to claim time in opposition. ms. wasserman schultz: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. cole: i want to thank my friend too. i know the spirit in which this is brought is to save money and to make some tough decisions.

and i share that. it's worth pointing out that we did reduce the architect's request by $79 million. and frankly, we're spending about $40 million less than we did last year, so it's not as if we haven't been serious about this, but we did look at this particular area. my friend from florida made the point, not only is it a well-traveled destination point and very desirable place, but it's a pretty old building, and we really do have serious problems here that we think are potentially health hazard. we have chunks of the building five to 15 pounds that have fallen off from the height of 40 feet and that's a health hazard. so given the traffic there, given the fact we've been pretty tough across the board, we thought this was one of those urgent priorities that needed to be taken care of. but, again, i have no qualms with my friend's motives. i know he's trying to save money. i share that. we've made a lot of tough decisions across the board and

it's appropriate for us to look at. in this case our judgment as a committee and certainly my judgment is that we need to make sure that the facility that's this well used is kept safe and good repair so we don't risk liability, don't risk injury and frankly we do keep open and funking the most beloved of the capitol complexes. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. gosar: i ask for the yeas and nays, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in

house report 113-426. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. brown: madam chairman, i have a resk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 113-426, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 557, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. the bill under consideration today is probably the smallest appropriations bill that we see each year. at least in terms of the number of dollars involved. it funds the operations of the legislative branch, both the operational expenses of the congressional offices and the expenses which occur in protecting and maintaining capitol grounds. this bill decreases in several places and it holds the line in a number of accounts as well.

in total the bill provides funding which is in line with the amount provided just last year. i commend the appropriations committee for this, however, there are also a number of increases found within the bill. earlier this week i submitted amendments to the rules committee, all of which were meant to target accounts which receive seemingly inexplicable increases. i have been allowed one minute -- one amendment today, only one, which would decrease funding for the capitol visitors center by $243,000. and move the same amount into the spending reduction account. this move would result in the visitors center funding being equal to the amount which was appropriated last year. just keeping it at the same level. the capitol visitor center opened to the public in december of 2008. according to current congressional research service, it costs more than $600 million

to complete. while the visitors center received about $65 million in private donations, the rest of its cost was borne by the taxpayers. madam chairman, it has been less than 10 years since the visitors center has opened. and at considerable amount of public expense. i think given our current fiscal state, we can certainly afford to level fund the visitors center. hold the line and use this increase while just a small one to help reduce our federal deficit. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam chair. this amendment cuts the small inflationier increase -- inflationary increase provided

for the capitol visitor senter in this bill. this small increase is needed to keep up with inflation in order to provide the same level of service to our constituents next year as they are providing this year. when is enough enough? my colleague must not be aware that the capitol visitor center is 7% below the funding level they were at in fiscal year 2010. they have already contributed their fair share to deficit reduction. if my colleague is serious about reducing the national debt and deficit, i would suggest he stop voting to repeal the affordable care act because the recent c.b.o. estimate is that the net -- there would be a net increase of $109 billion to the deficit between 2013 and 2022 if the affordable care act is repealed. fraps he he could call on his own leadership to reduce the deficit by $900 million by taking up and passing comprehensive immigration reform. when i was compare of this subcommittee i inherited a fiscal disaster in cost overruns during the construction of the capitol visitor center.

we worked collaboratively and bipartisan way able to bring that project in for a soft landing and slow the hemorrhaging of federal funds for a project that a republican majority began. we recognize the responsible thing was to ensure that this facility had the tools necessary to succeed so that our visitors could have an informative and welcoming space to visit their government and understand our democracy. it baffles me we would see an amendment that goes after the very organization that interacts with our constituents nearly every day. i want those working in the capitol visitors center to know we appreciate the work they do. they are essential to the experience our constituents have when visiting our nation's capitol. with that i urge defeat of the amendment. madam chair, i'd like to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam chairman. first i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to thank my friend, too, because i know he is very serious about looking for places to cut cost. and indeed later on there are a number of items that members

have brought to our attention that we will accept. in this case we don't think it's appropriate. i do want to thank my friend from florida. i happen to be on this committee as a junior member when she did do, i think, an unbelievably good job in working us through what had been a bad process and cost overruns in the center. at the end of the day this is where millions of americans, it will be their port hole to the capitol. it's well run. it's well managed. i think maintaining access, keeping it safe and frankly keeping it welcoming, if you will, is very important. while this is a legitimate question to raise, i agree with my friend and would oppose the amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida reserves. the gentleman from georgia has two minutes remaining. the gentlelady from florida also has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. i didn't realize with this amendment we were going to get into a debate about the

unaffordable uncaring act, so-called obamacare. actually i've got the solution. we have been promised if you like your doctor you could keep your doctor. we have been promised if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. we know both of those are not factual. we know both of those were known by the president when he made those claims to america that he knew they were not factual also. i'm just waiting for the president to come out with this claim, if you like your gun, you can keep your gun. but the point is back to the appropriations process, let me fin you shall up about my -- i've got the solution, it's called the patient option act, which will actually make everybody in this country's health insurance less expensive. it will provide access to good quality health care for all americans, and it will save medicare from going broke. it's been endorsed by the association of american physicians and surgeons, as well as freedom works.

it will solve the problems that we all face of an out-of-control health care cost system which has all -- that burden has been placed on us by a government who has intruded into the health care system it sefment but, mad yucca mountain chairman, this country -- but, madam chairman, this country expects us to make cuts. we are spending money we don't have. we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend, and we just have to stop spending money we don't have. we have to restore fiscal sanity to the government. that's what i'll continue to do as a member of congress as long as i'm here. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the remainder of his time. the gentlelady from florida is recognized tore two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: madam chair. as a breast cancer survivor and one of the 129 million americans who live in this country with a pre-existing condition, i'm thankful for the affordable care act and the peace of mind it established on january 1 when

never again an insurance company in this country could drop us or deny us coverage. the coverage that the gentleman from georgia has repeatedly voted to take away for millions of americans. this amendment would cut the capitol visitors center by $243,000 when we need to make sure that they have the cost of inflation increase so that he they can continue to provide the good service that they provide to our constituents so we can continue to educate americans and everyone around the world about the finest democracy in the world. thank you. i yield back and urge the members to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from florida yields back the remainder of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. broun: madam chair, 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 georgia will be

postponed. it is now in order to consider armed number 5 printed in house report 113-426. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. duffy: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk u the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report number 113-426, offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 557, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: thank you, madam chair. first i want to commend the work of both mr. cole and ms. wasserman schultz in producing a spending bill that doesn't actually increase spending. doesn't actually reduce it but maintains it. for this institution i think that's a positive. i commend you both for doing that. i think it's important that when we talk a lot about our debt at $17 trillion that we have

deficits at, $1.5 trillion today down to a little over $600 billion, i think it's important that this institution lead by example. and look to places that we can cut, place that is we can be more efficient, when we look at spending on operations here in the house. when we do that, i think it's important to look at duplicative programs, programs that do -- accomplish the same mission through multiple agencies. i would submit to this chamber that one of those is the open world leadership center. with this program it's -- its purpose is to engage emerging leaders from post-soviet countries by expodsing them to american cultural institutions as -- has outlived its usefulness. listen, it's great that we should engage others from around the world. we should engage their leaders. i think that can help bridge the

gap. the problem with this program is that will since 2000 it's cost the american taxpayer $150 million. not only that, we have nearly 90 programs that try to accomplish this very same mission. just to name a few in the state department, over at the national endowment for democratcy, national republican institute, the national democrat institute, usaid, all with the same mission. this is a space where we can eliminate this program. the mission can still get accomplished with other agencies. and we can move over $3 million to deficit reduction. with that i reserve my balance. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank my friend. again, i appreciate the spirit with which he approaches this. this is an interesting point of discussion because we actually have members of both parties that really like this program. think it's very important.

and we have members of both parties to share your point of view. this is not a partisan debate in the least. but i would say there's a number of both contemporary points and a number of longer term points that ought to be taken into account. first, this was originally a $6 million item. we have cut it by 4 % aimed at russia. all the other participants in this program are the very countries that russia threatens right now. particularly ukraine which is the second largest participant. i think it would be a really bad signal for this country to actually cut programs that are supportive of democracy in the areas immediately around russia. frankly i think more or less plays into putin's hand. beyond that we have a unique institution, unique arrangement and unique person heading it at the library of congress, who is probably the country's -- is the country's, probably the world's foremost expert on russian history and culture and literature. this has been well placed as

long as he's been the librarian and well used. again i appreciate my friend's motives, but i would urge the rejection of the amendment. with that i would like to yield the remainder of the time that i have to my good friend, the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> coy not agree mr. moran: i cannot agree more with my friend from oklahoma, the chair of this subcommittee. and the idea that this program has outlived its usefulness, when the russian bear has hungrier than it has been in decades, when putin seizes crimea and now he's trying to take parts of eastern ukraine? let me explain what this program does. it takes emerging leaders in

russia and russia's satellite countries, former members of he soviet union who show exceptional talent and interest in speaking for themselves. and it brings them over to the united states and puts them in homes and communities where they will learn how our rule of law works. what equal justice under the law means in a truly democratic country, it shows them how to participate in the democratic process. it shows them how we have taken we orks of tolstoid and have implemented them in a country that respects individualism and puts individualism higher than statism. it's a direct threat to communism.

it's a direct threat to mr. putin, because if you do this mr. putin can't keep his $60 billion he's taken from corruption. he can't continue to make his people dependent on the state. this is disruptive to him. it's a direct threat to him. that's why it's important. so haven't we done enough for mr. putin's interests, to cut this program by 43%, by preventing these young emerging leaders from being able to come over to this country? do we now have to deny ukrainian leaders the ability to gain an understanding of what a country that is not corrupt, of what a country that respects individualism, respects democracy, respects equal justice under the law is all about? that's what this program is all about. we spend half a trillion dollars on military and yet

programs like this will accomplish more for sustainibility of peace among nations, by giving an opportunity for people to speak for themselves, to speak out for rule of law, to speak against corruption. that's what we as a nation want. we don't want to dominate anybody else. we want to be an instrument of our values and our vision. we want to be that beacon of light and hope for other nations. and this is one of the ways in which we achieve that objective. small amount of money but an enormously valuable contribution to world peace. i would at this point -- well, i think my -- can the gentleman now yield to mr. price? the chair: if the gentleman from virginia mr. suspend, the

gentleman's time has expired. mr. duffy, the gentleman from wisconsin, has three minutes left. mr. duffy: thank you, madam chair. with all due respect to those who may disagree with this amendment, i'm seeing some bipartisan disagreement. i know we have some bipartisan agreement with this amendment. but to my colleagues, there are 90 programs. there are 90 programs that are aimed at accomplishing the very same mission. when do we come forward and say, listen, let's pare this back? let's cut this back a little bit? the bridge isn't cut off, but we have programs that are doing the same thing. listen, we want to talk about what's going on in the ukraine and want to talk about what's going on in russia. this program didn't exist in the 1980's. ronald reagan didn't have this program to tear down the soviet union. he did it with strong leadership. so to come to this institution and say, listen, the $3.4 million in this program is

going to stop the aggression of putin? no. strong leadership will, though. but this is about, when do we come together as an institution and find programs that are duplicative, programs that we can look and say this can be scaled back and we can look to the one of the other 89 programs to accomplish this same mission? there's a constituency around every dollar, and that's it's so hard in this town to scale back because everyone will come forward and go, but no, no, no, this dollar is so important. and people come from our communities and say, no, don't cut back. we are $1.7 trillion in debt. this is unsustainible. so let's find this program that we can cut and look to the other 89 that can accomplish the same mission which i think is a noble mission. with that i reserve my balance. well, i'd yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-426. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hall: to make remarks to amendment -- to h.r. 4487. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-426 offered by mr. hall of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 557, the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i'd like to thank my good friend, chairman cole, and

the appropriations committee for allowing me to offer this amendment in conjunction with congressman mccaul. my amendment today simply prohibits disbursements from the house from diagnose grishted the old -- distributed the old-fashioned way, print. i have a facebook account, i tweet. and just this week my congressional website was singled out for the silver mass award, placing it in the top 6% of all congressional websites for transparency. case of use, excessibility of constitutional services. right now they distribute 441 keeps of its three-volume statements of disbursements of the house at a cost of well over $300,000 per year. this quarterly public report of all receipts -- it reports all receipts and expenditures for the u.s. house of representatives' members and the committees, their

leadership, the officers and offices were more than 2,400 pages long in the last edition. multiply that by 441 and you have 100,000 pages of printed material, all of which can easily be accessed on the c.a.o.'s website. to be clear, my amendment does nothing to prohibit the c.a.o. from making the statement of disbursements of the house available online to the members as they currently do so, but if i can learn to communicate electronically, i sure don't see why the federal government can't do the same thing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the remainder of his time. mr. cole: if the gentleman will yield a minute? the chair: the gentleman takes his time back and will yield to mr. cole. mr. cole: i want to accept this amendment. you certainly aren't behind the times. you're usually ahead of the curve.

in this case, the gentleman certainly is. i appreciate him pointing out an area where we can save $300,000. he's precisely right on this. and so we are more than happy to accept the amendment and, again, very much appreciate our friend for bringing it to the floor and for saving the american taxpayers $300,000. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas now yields back the remainder of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider mendment number 7 printed in house report 113-426. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? i wenstrup: madam speaker,

have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-426 offered by mr. wenstrup of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 527, the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio. mr. wenstrup: i rise in support today of amendment number 7. my amendment is simple. it would eliminate the daily delivery of printed copies of the house calendar to member offices. this multi-page paper booklet is currently delivered each legislative day to 441 representatives' offices. the document in my hand is about 100 pages, meaning that about 44,000 pages are wasted each legislative day, over five million pages a year. the information in these pages is readily available online and as required paper copies will be kept on record.

previously, the house took similar action by ending paper delivery of the congressional record a few years ago with no adverse effects. let's be honest, madam chair. no one sits and per reusses the calendar every -- peruses the calendar every day. they normally turn 90 degrees and place it in the recycling bin. hardly a good use of time or precious paper. ending this outdated practice also saves money. we can save hardworking taxpayers nearly $200,000 a year, according to the government printing office. madam chair, i want to note this idea came from one of my staff members, kate rollin, who repeatedly recycles these calendars and grew frustrated at the waste she saw every day. imagine if every staff member of this body had an idea or an amendment that would save the taxpayers about $200,000 a year. by my back of the napkin

calculations, those savings would easily top over $1 billion a year. when i worked in the private sector, we had to be mindful of excess costs and waste. the government must be held to the same standard and should reform outdated policies. we should not remain stuck in the past. if the daily cost of delivery came out of each member's personal office budget, how many of us would actually pay to get this delivered every day? i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and vote yeah. thank you and i -- vote yea. thank you and i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i ask if the gentleman will yield me 30 seconds. i thank my friend for bringing this to the floor. he's precisely right in everything that he says about both the cost and the functionality of the document in question. his staff member's to be

commended for bringing it to his attention and for you acknowledging them. i think staff people are grateful. we're delighted to save the money. again, appreciate our friend bringing it to our attention, pointing it out and saving the taxpayers $200,000. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from ohio yield back? mr. wenstrup: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-426. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-426 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 557, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair and i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: for 23 years, congress had an inciteful nonpartisan agency aimed at providing members of congress and their staff with expert advice on the technological aspects of public policy. it was called the office of technology assessment. from 1972 to 1995, it produced reports on topics that were striking in their relevance even today, computer software security, disposal of security weapons, bioenergy and many more. o.t.a. was part of congress, understood the congressional process. it spoke the language of congress, and it looked at the technological aspects of a large variety of issues and provided clarity where it was needed. congress turned out the lights on o.t.a. in 1995 with the thought that congressional agencies like c.r.s., g.a.o.,

also universities and private industry would fill the void. they have not. in the years since o.t.a. was defunded, our need for its work has grown only more acute. too often we have considered or not considered legislation in ignorance of the technological factors, so that's why i'm introducing an amendment to restore some funding to o.t.a. my amendment would reallocate to the o.t.a. $2.5 million appropriated from the historic house buildings revitalization trust fund. about 1.4% of the surplus in that trust fund. during its 23 years, o.t.a. produced an amazingly high return on investment with hundreds of millions of dollars in savings. a study on agent orange helped save the government $10 million. an o.t.a. report was the source of recommendations for upgrades in the computer system of the social security administration that led to savings of more than $300 million. studies on the send fuels helped save literally billions of dollars. when congress stopped receiving

o.t.a.'s counsel, technological topics didn't become less relevant in the political process. they just became less understood. and the scientific thinking lost a -- for the ways we legislate on all issues, not just those that are explicitly scientific. i urge a yes vote on this amendment to give congress a tool that we desperately need to do the people's work with clarity and reason. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i'd like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: my friend is one of the most thoughtful and best members of this body. there's no question about that. and so when we discuss this i took it very seriously because it was my friend's proposal. and i think any other member in this house would do the same. came at the end of the day to a different conclusion for a number of reasons. first we are in a very tight budget.

we have no increase at all. so funding this initiative means taking money away from someplace else, effectively. second, i looked at the long-term spending pattern in this program in the past. it actually peaked at $20 million. .5 is not rting at 2 likely where it will end up over time. third i looked at what some of my predecessors if my position had thought, both republican and democratic. as my friend knows, obviously the democrats had the majority four years after 1995 for a four-year period. relatively recently. they looked at this and made the same decision that was made in 1995 and i think we make today that there are other sources of information, the government accounting agency, office in particular has developed a capability here. we think there are other sources of information. you don't deny it's played a useful role in the past, i just believe given the constrained

circumstances we have today, given the possibility that this will grow, and given what at least to date has been a bipartisan judgment that this is something we didn't need to renew, reluctantly decided not to include this in the bill. for that reason i would also oppose the amendment. i would like to yield my good friend, the ranking member of the leg branch subcommittee, ms. wasserman schultz, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentleman, regret fully, because i know how -- regretfully because i know how passionate he is. i rise in opposition to this amendment which seeks to add $2.5 million to re-established the technology of assistance. which did have an important scope of congress during its time. unfortunately the amendment takes the funding from the house historic buildings revitalization trust fund. this fund is critical for the long-term maintenance of such items as the cannon office building rehabilitation which is an ongoing project. ed the fund was established so

we could bank resources over several years for revitalization of office buildings and stave off cost overruns that have plagued projects. i have been a supporter of this dating back to my time as chair of the subcommittee. in fiscal years 2008 to 2010 i included $2.5 million in this bill within the government accountability office for activities similar in scope to the work of o.t.a. i also supported an identical amendment offered by mr. holt in fiscal year 2012 as the cannon project had not yet commenced. now that it has, can i not support an amendment in good conscience that would take critical resource from a fund that supports ongoing rehabilitation projects on the capitol complex. perhaps if the gentleman found another source for his funding, we could have been supportive. i thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue but urge members to vote against the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from washington state who observed

o.t.a. in action in his time here in congress. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: i thank you madam chairman. i was one of the 16 people who was on that committee. it used to be a committee four republicans from the senate, four republicans from the congress, four republicans -- democrats from the senate, four democrats from the house. it was a balanced committee. it looked at the technological questions of what we are spending billions of dollars about. now, we have a choice where we get our information. g.a.o. looks backward. all the government organizations look backward. they don't look forward. that's not their role to imagine what will happen out there. what we need is an organization that can look forward as we proceed to spend billions of dollars in technology.

we can either get the information from a nonpartisan organization controlled evenly by both sides of the house and the body, or we can go to industry. they'll come in here an they'll give us all the information that they have the best thing since sliced bread. i think we need an o.t.a. and i urge you to adopt the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has three minutes left. two minutes left. and the gentleman from oklahoma has one minute left. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, my good friend, someone who has also observed o.t.a. in practice. a member of the appropriations committee, mr. moran. the chair: for one minute. mr. moran: i thank my friend representing princeton, new jersey, who has a doctorate in physics, a jeopardy award winner, perhaps one of the most academically advanced members of

the congress, it's interesting that he's the one that knows enough to know what we don't know in this congress. my concern is many of us don't know enough to know what we don't know. the size of computers is shrinking by about 50% every couple years, and its capacity and power and speed is doubling. and yet we can't understand the implications of that. which apply to all of our constituencies. we just mandated that 30% of the energy that the military spends billions of dollars has to be from noncarbon polluting forms of energy. do we know whether that's achievable? we just spent -- we committed $11 billion for computer interoperability for medical records.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: we can't understand the implications of our decisions the o.t.a. helps us to do that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the chair. i'll repeat. for almost a quarter of a century, o.t.a. was one of the most respected, productive, cost efficient agencies we have seen. producing comprehensive reports for the house and senate on issues related to health care policy, agricultural production, telecommunications, space polcy, electronic surveillance, national defense, and much more. it prevented decisions made in ignorance and ignorance is expensive. my friend from oklahoma and also the ranking member, the gentlelady from florida, talked about cost. what we are talking about here is taking, finding the low hanging fruit on making government more efficient. that's what o.t.a. did. that's what o.t.a. would do.

i was a staff member on capitol hill. this is the last legislative branch appropriations i will be dealing with. i know o.t.a. i worked as a staffer on capitol hill. i saw that it works. i saw how much it elevated the debate -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. holt: i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma has one minute remaining. mr. cole: thank you, madam chairman. again i want to thank my friend because i know he is indeed committed to this idea, but i think as usual my friend, ms. wasserman schultz, probably made the salient point of the debate. we are taking from our historic trust fund, which he preserves this building, and redirecting that resource. that's a mistake. that's simply a mistake. if there is another way to fund it i would still have great reservations about reintroducing it because i do think the information-s vailable elsewhere, but robbing your seed

corn is something we shouldn't do. we have established this fund. we have been able to maintain it. we are going to have these challenges going forward. i do not want to set the precedent of this becoming a piggy bank. we need to maintain our campus. this is an important way to do it. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. holt: on that i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed. pursuant to clause of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on the amendments printed in house report 113-426 on which further proceedings were postponed in

the following order. amendment number one by mr. nugent of florida, amendment number three by mr. gosar of arizona. amendment number 4 by mr. broun of georgia. amendment number 8 by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first series -- first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-426 offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report number 113-426. offered by mr. nugent of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this 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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 196. the nays are 221. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-426, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 113-426, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support. request for recorded vote will rise an be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219 the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 219, the nays are 9 , the amendment is adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number four offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 113-426, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be couldn'ted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 207, the nays are 212, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number eight printed in house report 113-426, offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 113-426, offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164, the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4487 and pursuant to house resolution 567, i report the bill become to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the

bill h.r. 4487 and pursuant to the house resolution 557, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them in gross. the question is on dppingsdppings -- on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current

form, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. ruiz moves to send the bill back to the committee with the following amendments, page two, line 11 -- >> mr. speaker. 130,000. : $1,181 page five, line 16 -- >> the house is not in ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he gentleman is correct. the clerk will read the motion. the clerk: mr. ruiz of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4487 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. age 2, line 11, strike

$1,180,736,000 and insert $1,181,236,000. age 5, line 15, strike 285,620,336 and insert $286,120, 36. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek reck snigs? mr. cole: we would be happy to dispense with reading of the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the motion is on suspending the reading -- is -- objection is heard. the clerk: page 19, line 12, relating to amounts made available for the blind and hysically handcapped, strike

$429,000 and entering $556,000. relating to amounts made available for the government printing office revolving fund, strike $11,348,000 and insert $10,581,000. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. here in congress we wrestle with some of the hardest choices about the future of our great nation, but sometimes these choices are very easy, some choices cut across party lines, define our values as americans, and give us an opportunity to stand together and fight for what's important. the easy choice today is to

either fund more wasteful and outdated printing services, or fund the wounded warrior program. the wounded warrior program in congress provides paid fellowships for injured veterans to work in congressional offices across the country to help serve other veterans and gain work experience as they assimlate back into civilian life. there has never been a more important time for the heroes who have defended our country to play these pivotal roles in haping our laws. i have the honor of working with a wounded warrior fellow in my office, and i have seen firsthand their dedication and greatness. chris is a marine from the first battalion in 29 palms, california, who served in iraq. he was raised on a farm by his

od parents, linda and david. david always told him, chris, do your best. and that's exactly what chris did. he deployed twice with the united states marine corps, his first was with the tip of the spear in the first invasion of iraq in 2003. chris was injured in an i.e.d. blast in his first deployment and still returned to iraq for a second tour in 2004, and again was injured in an i.e.d. explosion. chris served honorably and received the good conduct medal, the combat action medal, and the iraq expeditionary medal. chris' unit received -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. iraquiz: he was honored in

for serving this great country. chris received the good conduct medal, the combat action medal, and the iraq expeditionary medal. and chris' unit received the presidential unit citation. after serving in the marines, chris came home and dealt with traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. he told me he was in a bad place. he struggled to hold down three jobs while caring for himself. it was a fellow veteran in the wounded warrior battalion who reached out and helped chris get back on track. now chris does the same for others as a wounded warrior fellow. chris joined the wounded warrior program because he still firmly believes in the marine corps motto, semper fidelis, always faithful. always faithful to his brothers in arms and to this day always faithful to our great country that he he sacrificed for.

-- that he sacrificed for. in his short time in my office, less than one year, chris has helped over 300 veterans in my district alone receive the benefits that they have earned and the care that they need. chris' passion for helping veterans is an inspiration for me and i know for all of you. and that's the reason why we must fully fund the wounded warrior program. my motion to recommit would fund the wounded warrior program, adding an additional 30 slots for both republicans and emocrats, by redirecting $$767,000 from the government printing office. additional it would provide $267,000 for books for the blind and handicapped. we can do all of this with no new spending. so the choice today is clear and it is easy. would you rather fund more

printed outdated copies of the congressional record and house legislative calendar, or would you rather support our wounded arrior fellows like chris? this institution, this entire country, needs heroes voices like chris in every decision that we make. i urge you to vote yes and support our veterans and those with disabilities by supporting these critical programs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ruiz: i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: mr. speaker, after spending the last few hours debating and amending this bill, we have before us a bipartisan

piece of legislation that funds this house, its safety, and the agencies that support the legislative process, and all in a fiscally responsible and frankly bipartisan way. yesterday in nearly a unanimous fashion this house passed a bill that provided nearly $4 billion in funding that directly supports and assists our wounded warriors. i think most all of us on both sides of the aisle are proud of that. this includes $2.6 billion for the aid service, $560 million for the largest system of spinal cord injury care in the united states. $135 million to assist blind and visually impaired veterans. it includes $96 million for research that benefits wounded warriors in areas like prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries and the like. the total medical care budget of the v.a. for financial y. 2015 is $59.1 billion.

enough to care for 6.7 million patients. and again something i think every person in this house ought to be proud of and was more than delighted to support. this legislation as with all appropriations legislation that we bring to the floor makes every stride to ensure that the very best care for our wounded warriors and veterans is available. i know that i speak for this entire body when i say we deeply respect and respect the service and sacrifices of our troops and veterans and that the bill we passed yesterday is hard and fast proof of that. frankly had we wanted to do more i would suggest yesterday would have been the time to do more. because clearly everybody was willing to do this. and support this measure. keep in mind the bill before us now is the smallest of the 12 appropriations bills, but it's still incredibly important and advancing this bill gets us one step closer to completing our necessary work, our constitutional duty of funding the federal government.

motions to recommit like this one quite frankly are mostly political gotchas and both sides do it. i cast no partisan stones here. i have seen it happen on this floor many, many times before. i think both sides probably ought to stop and reflect if we are really honoring the veterans or if we are using it to make a political point. i would hope not the latter because yesterday we did the right thing. today we are trying to score points at one another's expenses. again, both sides have done this. i'm sorry it happens. my personal opinion is it shouldn't and i hope we'll dispense with it going forward. the bill in front of us has bipartisan support if it's allowed to proceed will pass overwhelmingly. over the past two days we have done some great work. kicking off the appropriations process at the earliest date in decades and passing our first bill yesterday with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. let's continue that good work today. let's pass this bill. let's reject the motion to

recommit. let's get to work of the people done. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question sont motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. ruiz: i demand 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 y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 193, the nays are 223, the motion is not adopt -- the nays are 222. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 194, the nays are 222. the question is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 402, the nays will 14. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. hoyer: thank you, and i yield to mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, votes expected no later than 3:00 p.m. the house will consider a few suspensions next week, the complete list will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition, they'll consider -- we'll consider h.r. 3348, the american competitiveness act of 2014, sponsored by reptive kevin brady. this bill will provide american businesses with the certainty they need to invest in good-paying middle class jobs and develop the technologies of the future. the house is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution

finding lois g. learner, former director with the i.r.s. with contempt of congress for refusing to comply with the subpoena issued by the committee on oversight and reform. lastly we'll consider the charter schools act authored by chairman kline. america does not work if our children are trapped in failing schools this bipartisan bill provides an opportunity for our children to attend schools which foster a quality learning environment focused on those students succeeding. with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information with reference to the legislation for next week. he leads with a bill that is entitled the american research and competitiveness act of

2014. as the gentleman knows, we have an agenda which i talked to him about briefly, we call make it in america, which is essentially about growing manufacturing, encouraging manufacturers to return to the united states and encouraging people when they want to go into manufacturing to do so here in america. not only will that provide for a made in america label all over the world but it will also provide the middle-class jobs and opportunities we need. part of that agenda, i will tell my friend, is to make permanent the research and development tax credit. this bill does that. this bill also costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion, maybe a little less, over 10 years. it is unpaid for. the series of bills that were passed by the ways and means committee will cost $310

billion. they are also unpaid for. i suggest to my friend -- and as he knows, i preach relatively regularly that one of the things that we need to do for the business community and for america is to get ourselves on a fiscally sustainible path. mr. camp offered a comprehensive piece of legislation, mr. leader, as you know which i think is an honest effort but it also made hard choices. it made hard choices not to increase the deficit and therefore provided offsets for tax cuts. i think that is absolutely essential for us to do. this bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition i think most of us support and that is giving businesses the insurance that the r&d tax credit will be in

effect not only for one year but in this case a series of years, i believe 10 years. what america doesn't need is making the deficit worse. as a matter of fact, mr. leader, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. this goes in exactly the opposite direction, and i think that's lamentable. i said $150 billion. it's actually $155 billion over 10 years. i would hope that the party that is demanding that unemployment insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the sustainible growth rate be paid for, and that the -- any change in the sequester be paid for ought to have consistency and not add $155 billion to our deficit in a vote next week on something that i think we're

all for and it is easy, mr. leader, as you well know to vote for tax cuts. easy. takes no courage whatsoever. i've been at this business 45 years. it's been my experience over those 45 years it is easy for members to vote for tax cuts. what is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. this bill does not do that. this bill makes the deficit worse. exacerbates the confidence that americans have in their fiscal responsibility of their country and puts us in a worse place. so i would hope, mr. leader, that before this bill comes to the floor that you and the rules committee and mr. camp, as he did in the bill that he offered to this house, which was frankly dismissed out of hand because it made tough

decisions. this bill makes no tough decisions. it has a tax cut. it has all the candy, none of the spinach. it is all good and nobody has to pay the price. nobody has to take responsibility. i think that's lamentable, and i would hope that before this bill comes to the floor there would be a way to pay for this bill. i want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for it. there is a way to pay for the other extenders that the committee wants and that is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill. mr. boehner indicated that that was not being done because it was tough and people didn't want to do tough things. i understand that. it's hard to do tough things. that's why they're called tough.

mr. boehner now says he was kidding when he said that. my view is he was deadly serious, and the reason we're considering this bill next week is because it's easy to do. the reason we're not considering comprehensive immigration reform is because it's difficult to do, but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of the tax cuts that are being proposed in these six extenders and indeed in the extenders proposed by the senate finance committee. they only propose that for two years, not 10 years, but it would pay for all of them. in fact, c.b.o. says if we pass comprehensive immigration reform it will mean $200 billion for next year -- excuse me -- for the next 10 years and $900 billion over the next 20 years.

in december the budget committee chairs mr. ryan and mr. murray were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. we ought to be able to do that as well. let me close this part of my comment with two quotes. one from republican secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, who said as a general rule i don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. and then mr. alan greenspan who initially said in 2001 and twee he thought the tax -- 2003 he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. however, upon review of those tax cuts, he came back when he was -- response to a question "meet the press" from david gregory, the question was, you don't agree with the republican leaders who say tax cuts pay

for themselves. mr. greenspan, they do not. so that all of your republican colleagues are being asked to vote for $155 billion increase the deficit, which they all y they want to bring down, i'm sure they'll get up and rationalize in 1981, 2001, 2003, that those tax cuts would magically grow the economy so that they would not exacerbate the deficit. in the 33 years i've been in congress that has not been our experience. so mr. leader, i very sincerely hope that we can join together in a bipartisan way and support this legislation because it's the right thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing and it's the right thing to do in bringing down our deficit to

pay for it and i yield to my friend. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that for 30 years-plus the r&d tax credit has been on temporary extension. this is nothing but reflecting reality, saying that this is a very important part of incentives so that we can fulfill the mission that the gentleman is on as well as we share which is more manufacturing here in america. if making it in america is important, the r&d tax credit's fundamental to that mission. this has been in place for over 30 years on temporary extension. and to hold it hostage, as the gentleman suggests, mr. speaker, is not the way to go

about facilitating growth in our economy. and i respect the gentleman's commitment to fiscal discipline. obviously we have different opinions about how to get to that goal, but both of us, i think, could agree, mr. speaker, that growth is something that has been too little, too tepid and we need to return to an era in which we can see some robust growth in our economy. it will help those who are chroniclely unemployed. t will help -- chronically unemployed. it will help businesses grow. families to get by easier so they can see a better future. this r&d tax credit is he thing the gentleman says supports. and to support means supported will s existed but this

be the policy for manufacturing and others in this country so we can continue to innovate and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the sustainible growth rate for doctors who are serving medicare patients. we do that every year as well. and the republican side of the aisle demands that be paid for. we do -- mr. cantor: mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: we do unemployment insurance. mr. cantor: if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: i'll be glad to yield. mr. cantor: the difference in the s.g.r. is we have consistently offset the expenditures on s.g.r. this tax credit is a tax credit. it is allowing businesses who invest to keep more of that investment, to plow it back

into research. the precedent is not there as it is on s.g.r. and the other items that perhaps the gentleman would point to. this is important to growth. this is important to manufacturing. we should all join together and support the permanent extension of what has been in place over 30 years on extension over a dozen times. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his observation, mr. speaker. the other side of the aisle laments the deficit. they lament the debt. we have the debt. we have the deficit because we don't pay for what we buy. that is why we have a debt. that is why we have a deficit. when we were in charge we put in a pay-as-you-go rule. that rule said if you're going to spend money -- this is

essentially a tax expenditure. it is a worthy tax expenditure. this is something i support. it helps grow the economy, but it is a tax expenditure and no one on this floor can say it does not make the deficit worse. no one. with any degree of credibility. the argument has been made, of course, though, that tax cuts, they'll grow so much you won't get the deficits. that's what mr. reagan, president reagan argued and his proponents argued in 1981. the debt increased 187% under president ronald reagan because they didn't pay for themselves. when the republicans took over, mr. speaker, they amended the rule so we didn't have to pay for things. so this bill comes to the floor without any necessity to pay for it. so we'll give a tax cut, assuming it passes, somebody's going to pay for it. my children, my grandchildren,

your children, mr. speaker, they're the ones who will pay for it because we are going to make a decision, apparently, not to pay for something that we know is going to increase the deficit. so the analogy when we want things paid for is not always followed, mr. speaker. for instance, unemployment insurance, almost invariablely not paid for, and every -- almost every economist says investing in unemployment insurance grows the economy will help grow the g.d.p., but practice ollow that here unfortunately. we have a bipartisan, paid for unemployment insurance bill that the senate pass had the can't get -- that we can't get to the floor. it's paid for and helps 2.5 million people who are falling

through the cracks. yet we bring a bill to the floor that has a $155 billion cost well, don't pay for it and the unemployment insured 2.5 million are ignored. mr. speaker, we don't think that policy is one we ought to pursue. we would hope again that before this bill comes to the floor, that it is paid for. i refer to comprehensive immigration reform, mr. speaker. i will yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would like to point out that the last time the gentleman's party was in the majority in the house in a lame duck session, we did extend the r&d tax credit on unpaid for. i hear what the gentleman is saying but i would point that out for historical accuracy.

i would say this, mr. speaker. i guess there may be a different view on how deficits are created. the disproportionate cause for our deficit is the fact that we have demographics in this country, 10,000 people every day turning 65, becoming eligible for our health care entitlement programs, and those programs are almost 50%, the medicare programs, almost 50% underfunded. that's the disproportionate cause of the deficit. i think all of us have said you can't tax your way out of it, you can't grow your way out of it, you have to change the structure of the program. and that's something that the gentleman's party, nor the president, will agree with us on. that's the disproportionate cause of the deficit. now an additional cause of the deficit is we don't have enough growth. we don't have revenues coming in to the federal government. and for some reason there's been an acceptance around here of a new norm. a very low and tepid growth.

the r&d tax credit is something that is growth oriented. it's certainty. the gentleman said so himself. the gentleman said that manufacturing in america needs certain r&d tax credit. we've essentially been allowing an a&d tax credit since 1981 in this country so let's call it what it is and make it permanent so that we can get back on the path to growth. addressing growth, addressing our unfunded liabilities connected with entitlement programs, that's the sure way to reduce deficits and reduce the debt burden. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i'm glad to hear the gentleman point that out and i've been trying to work with the gentleman and his party for some period of time now, starting with bowles-simpson and some other comprehensive suggestions. as i said, mr. camp, the chairman of the ways and means committee has offered a

comprehensive bill. i don't agree with some of the things in it but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the tradeoffs, the tough choices, that need to be made. this bill does not. that is my point. lastly, mr. speaker, because i know the majority leader has another engagement, comprehensive immigration reform. i said that it scores approximately $1 trillion positive for our economy over the next 20 years. but it's also morally the right thing to do to fix a broken system. a system that doesn't work, with which everybody agrees. i would again appeal to the majority leader, mr. speaker, to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. i understand that there are many on his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. fine. vote against it. but give this house an

opportunity, give the american people the opportunity, to have a comprehensive immigration bill voted in the people's house on this floor so that we can fix a broken system or offer alternatives to that which is proposed by the united states senate and passed overwhelmingly by the united states senate. if the gentleman wants me to yield to him, i will certainly -- if not, i'll yield back -- i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would just respond, we have had this discussion before, the majority is in opposition to the senate bill, the speaker has said as much, i've said as much, and i've also said, mr. speaker, to the gentleman, to the president and others, that we've got a lack of trust between this house and the white house. i've said to the president that what could help is we start

rebuilding that trust, which starts with an admission that it can't be my way or the highway. and it must instead be building trust, understanding where we can agree together. yes, we all agree, the system is broken. we have a system that is broken on the legal side and we have illegal immigration. there are things that this house has done before, like agreen card stape told a diploma, but the president says no we can't do something like that. they can't -- we can't do something like that without taking care of everything. and that to me, mr. speaker, is where the problem lies. there's not enough trust on the part of the members of this body to think that the white house and the administration is going to implement whatever it is that we pass so instead, why shouldn't we focus on where we agree and start from there? that's been the position that i've expressed to the gentleman

as well as to the administration. and so again, i just take issue with his insistence that somehow we can just do that and it'll all be fixed. and that's the fundamental problem here, mr. speaker, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the fundamental problem is not my way or the highway, it's no way. the republican judiciary committee has passed out a number of immigration reform bills. the homeland security committee headed by a republican chairman has passed out an immigration reform bill dealing with border security. none of those bills have been brought to the floor. it's not a question about liking the senate bill or trusting the president of the united states. everybody agrees, mr. speaker, the immigration system is broken. but there's no way no, bill, no option that's been brought to this floor to fix that system, to respond to what everybody

agrees is a broken system of immigration. as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, the prime minister of ireland celebrated st. patrick's day here with us, at luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing comprehensive immigration reform. now, they don't have to take our bill they don't have to take the senate bill, but mr. speaker, the american people deserve to have a bill on the floor to fix a broken system. it's not a question of whether they trust the president. it's whether or not they trust the word of the house of representatives that it can work its will. i would hope that we could work our will on this issue. it's important for the american people. i yelled back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn

to meet at noon tomorrow and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet on tuesday, may 6, 2014, when it shall convene at 12:00 for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: a recent monthly labor review report if the bureau of labor statistics reiterates that energy production and energy jobs are surging in parts of the country, including my home state of pennsylvania. the report, which reviews employment trends from twovepb 2012 reports, pennsylvania has

seen a surge in natural gas production resulting in substantial growth in employment and wages, end quote. other the report study period, pennsylvania went from being the 10th largest state by oil and natural gas employment in 2007 to being the sixth largest in 2012. the commonwealth also had the second largest employment increase over the same period positioning itself only after taxes. we talk a lot about what washington can do to boost growth and employment. well, mr. speaker, this report speaks to the fact that we should allow private innovation in states like pennsylvania to lead the way. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, yesterday chairman paul ryan held a hearing on poverty. a timely and necessary

conversation. but the problem is that not one single person living in poverty was a witness. -- was a witness at that hearing. and that's really a shame. there are plenty of men and women like bobby or tiana who are witnesses to hunger who should be invited here to describe what it's like to be hungry or cold because there isn't enough money to heat a house or buy enough food to eat. they could describe for mr. ryan how difficult it is to stretch a snap allotment for the entire month and most importantly how hard it is to make ends meet with a job that pays an inadequate wage. we need to hear from those who struggle with poverty, not just the think tank gurus. we need to hear what is working and what is not working on the ground in our communities. chairman ryan's hearing missed the mark and when it comes to issues involving poverty and hucker, mr. speaker, this majority that run this is house doesn't -- and hunger, mr. speaker, this majority that runs this house doesn't have a clue. i urge us to listen to people who struggle in poverty, perhaps

if we did we wouldn't be so cruel to poor people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. i rise today with a heavy -- mr. daines: i had the honor to meet donald on monday a day before he passed away. he was in washington, d.c. as part of the big sky honor flight, an incredible program that allows montana veterans to travel to d.c. and see their memorials. one of the best parts of my job is meeting with these montana veterans and honoring their service and sacrifice. -- sand sacrifice. it's -- and sacrifice. it's an honor to stand with them before the memorials honoring their service and shake their

hands. i'm glad donald was able to participate in this once in a lifetime trip to accomplish his lifetime dream. thank you, donald, for your service and cindy and i join all montanans in saying thank you for keeping your family in our thoughts and prayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: it is lunch hour here in washington, d.c. but for the over 840 million people around the world who are

struggling with hunger an adequate lunch is a luxury they cannot afford. instead of enjoying food, they are facing a terrible, gnawing pain in their gut right now by the time i finish this statement, six children will have perished because of hunger or inadequate nutrition. this week the world hunger program is asking everyone to try to live below the line. to put yourself in the shoes of the hungry. $1.50 o get by on only of food per day. the purchasing power of people living in extreme poverty as defined by the world bank. i and members of my staff are taking this challenge but for millions of people this is not about one day, or one week. this is about their everyday life. it should not be this way. as president kennedy said over 50 years ago, we have the ability, we have the means, and we have the capacity to

eliminate hunger from the face of the earth. we need only the will. in the past, republicans like bob dole and democrats like george mcgovern came together and led this battle against global hunger. today we have a moral obligation to continue that battle, to meet our responsibilities to our fellow man and woman and to our children. and to do what we can to end the scourge of hunger in our own nation and around the world. mr. speaker, let's take advantage of this challenge, let us end hunger in this generation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? . without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to recognize polk county sheriff michael severson, for his sacrifice in the line of duty on april 19,

1991. on that day deputy severson was shot in the spine and suffered paralysis from the neck down. also from that incident, his partner, deputy alan elleby, lost his life. he was a husband and father of two. and in the 23 years since that incident, deputy severson's life would change vufflet his injuries, but he would never give up on life. deputy severson traveled and shared his stories with others. he provided inspiration and hope for those struggling to adjust to the challenging life of paralysis and sadly on monday, april 14, deputy severson succumbed to his wounds and he passed away in his hometown of st. croix falls, wisconsin. mr. speaker, for the past 23 years, deputy severson persevered. for his bravery, his selflessness and his sacrifice in the line of duty, he is one

of our heroes and today, mr. speaker, i'd ask all of you to join me in offering our gratitude for his service on behalf of this entire body. we thank him and we extend our condolences to his family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute and honor to a great man, pastor raymond charles johnson sr., known in fort worth as r.c. johnson. pastor johnson moved to fort worth in 1953 where he began his work at the greater st. james missionary baptist church. he was ordained as pastor of the church in 1985 and dedicated 61 years of preaching the word. although many in the community knew that he was a pastor, he also worked at general motors

for over 32 years and was also a korean war veteran. in addition to his work in the ministry, he also was a precinct chairman for over 50 years in the same precinct. also, pastor johnson was so proud of his work in ministers against crime where they went to local schools and worked in communities. i tell you when they worked in those schools, they made a difference in the kids' lives in their behavior and in their grades. he really made a difference in the community. sadly earlier this year, i was at his wife's funeral. they had been married for 63 years and she died back in january, february time period and it was really, really tough on him and he succumbed just this past week. i want to thank pastor johnson for everything he did to help me and so many other people in the community. he's someone that the fort worth community will be proud of for many years. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, it is with a heavy heart that i stand before you today to honor the life of father of manos, the one of my staff members and her husband, ben. mr. wenstrup: he was killed at the hospital in kabul, afghanistan. he was a pediatrician, a man dedicated to his christian faith, who called to those in need. in 2005 this calling led him to afghanistan to treat patients and train afghan medical personnel. dr. umanos had a love of and a dedication to the people of afghanistan. a love that transcended the typical call to serve. his wife, jan, asked na we

honor her husband's memory by opening our hearts to the afghan people and everyone around the world that need to see christ love for all. dr. umanos caring for all mankind, regardless of country or creed or religion is inspiring. his death is a loss for his family and friends and the loss to all those touched by his selfless service. while dr. umanoa mission is complete, the positive effects of his works in this world shall never perish. god bless dr. jerry umanos and his family. you've made the world a better place. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house he following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. lewis on april 29 through april 30. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013,

gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. norton: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i come to the floor this afternoon because of interference in the local affairs with the district of columbia that is about to take place pursuant to a hearing that has been called by the government operations committee of the oversight and government reform committee. first, let me be clear. the oversight and government reform committee, led by chairman issa, has been respectful of self-government in the district of columbia. chairman issa has not only

observed the same self-government for our district that he insists upon for his, he has gone beyond that to encourage greater home rule for the district of columbia and budget autonomy. this subcommittee hearing is not done at the aegis of the full committee but is under the leadership of the subcommittee hair, john mica. the respect for local control lies at the heart of the formation of the united states of america itself. it was the denial of that respect that led to the revolution that led to the united states. essentially at that time, americans were saying, taxes is a matter for local jurisdiction. it meant the united states.

and when the constitution itself was drawn, the framers were at pains to separate out local matters over which the federal government would have no say and no control. mr. speaker, i understand that the house, of course, as well as the senate maintains some control over the district of columbia, that it does not have over other jurisdictions. i assert what should be clear that that is illegitimate control, but at the very least i respect and thank members who have not gone out of their way to violate their own principles of local government to exercise that control as the government reform committee under chairman issa has been clear to do. don't have hearings on the district of columbia.

that's for the district of columbia security council. well, the government -- city council. well, the government operations subcommittee has called for a hearing on wednesday on the recently decriminalized marijuana law in the district of columbia. it's important to note that there are federal and state implicated in this hearing. the subcommittee has held two arings on those implications because of the conflict between state and local law that is erging very rapidly on marijuana possession. but look at what the subcommittee did in its two prior committee meetings or

hearings. in one hearing it called u.s. attorney, that is a federal official. it was a u.s. attorney from a district in colorado and an official from the drug enforcement administration. in another hearing, it called only one witness, the deputy director from the office of national -- national -- my colleagues -- national drug policy. do note that each and every one of these officials was legitimately called as a federal official. why didn't any official from the state of colorado be called? why was no official -- strike that -- why was no official in the state of colorado called? no state official, no local official. only a federal official from the state of colorado. the reason is clear. colorado would have taken up

ridge at the audacity -- audacity of this body to dare call them to account on their local laws. well, be on notice. we take the same notice. silently t allow -- -- this congress to interfere in our local affairs and on this matter, we are standing on very solid ground. 18 states went quite ahead of the district and decriminalized their marijuana laws. decriminalization means that a fine, rather than prison, results from the possession of marijuana. 20 states proceeded to enact medical marijuana laws that

would enable people who have certain conditions to get medical marijuana. it took me 11 years to remove or to get the congress to remove an amendment that kept the district from allowing its own citizens to have access to medical marijuana at a time when we had a runaway drug problem. i was finally able to do that. o states of the union, washington and colorado, have legalized marijuana. how dare any committee or subcommittee call the district of columbia local official, local official, any local

official to testify on our local law. i'll get to why we enacted that law in one moment. but let me say who preceded us, who has not been called before this house or any committee or subcommittee of this house even though they have done either precisely the same thing or have gone even further. so i'm going to call the roll, mr. speaker, so you'll know the company in which we find ourselves and why we insist upon treatment without discrimination being held what we are, the equivalent of other american citizens. alaska.

going back more than 30 years years, 5, almost 30 decriminalized marijuana. no penalty in one's home. actually, that's further than decriminalization that legalized marijuana in one's home. california, 100 fine. some of these are -- california, $100 fine. some of these are quite old. more recently have come a flood of laws. colorado, no penalty. and of course there are different amounts involved and most of these involve people over 21. fine. icut, $150 maine, as low as $350 fine. as high as $1,000, depending on

the amount. maryland, $100 fine. massachusetts, $100 fine. minnesota, $300 fine. fine. ippi, $100 to $250 nebraska, $300 fine. that goes back to 1978, by the way. nevada, $600 fine. new york, $100 fine. north carolina, up to $200 fine. ohio, $150 fine. oregon, $650 fine. rhode island, $150 fine.

vermont, up to $200 in fines. and the state of washington, no penalty for those 21 or older. but what has the district of columbia done? its decriminalization involves a $25 fine instead of a criminal up to sixr punishment months in jail and as much as $1,000 fine. it prohibits law enforcement from using the smell of marijuana as grounds for stop and search -- stopping and searching a residence. the reason for the low fine is that the district faced the possibility, in fact a very real

possibility, that if it didn't have a low fine, it would end up with another disparate -- disparity, namely those who could afford the fine, would not go to jail, and those who could not, would. i want to say something about why going to jail becomes so important. first let me quote the president who said middle class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot. and poor kids do. a african-american kid and latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have resources and the support to void unduly harsh penalties.

well, what the president said in summary should be understood in particular in the district of columbia. i suspect in many states as well because this problem of disparity in enforcement is nationwide. the district of columbia is a very progressive jurisdiction, and it is very racially sensitive. we have a population that is about half black and half white, 10% latino. very progressive. and yet in the progressive district of columbia african-americans are eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. understand that in the district of columbia as across the country blacks and whites use

marijuana at the same rate. why, then, are african-americans eight times more likely to be arrested? i can only guess. sometimes they live in high crime areas where there may be more police out on the street. you will notice that the legislation bars arresting someone because you smell marijuana on the person. of course if that's the reason for an arrest, what you can do is take somebody in who has violated no law except possession of a small amount of marijuana, and all of the amounts we are talking about are small amounts, and what happened is that that african-american or white person has a criminal record for the rest of his or her life. for a african-american, that matters. we have a whole generation,

thrick of young men, who with that first arrest are essentially ruled out of the job market because they have a "drug possession arrest." that drug possession is a small amount of marijuana. that ruins that young man's life the ly for work but as world turns for the opportunity to have a good marriage, to raise children, and for african-americans to have a stable community. all because you begin with one marijuana possession arrest, the results may be to lead this person, frankly, into a life of criminal activity. you can't get work because you have a drug possession arrest on

your record. and if you can't get work and you need money, what can you do? what you often do is you go from possessing marijuana, as many young people do, to the next level to distributing it or otherwise being involved in criminal activity. don't have to go this way. i suspect that some of the jurisdictions that have decriminalized marijuana have done so and you'll notice they are very diverse simply because hey are more libertarian, more open to what they say around them which is that people engage in alcohol as much as he they do

marijuana, at least as much. we learn the hard way that you don't put people in jail when it comes to drinking alcohol. or even distributing it. and t to be clear i do not will never advocate the smoking of pot. don't think it's a good thing. on't think being high is fine. i also don't think drinking alcohol is a good thing. but i wouldn't want to put anybody in jail for it. if someone is unfortunate enough to develop a habit, i want to do what we do with people who have developed that habit for alcohol and try to get them off of that. look at the free society. we cannot keep everybody from every sin, but we don't lock them up in the jails. that's why you find state after state opening their jails and

allowing people who have been nvicted of drug possession out. on't want to ruin lives, particularly what amount to young lives. we feel very deeply about this. , and if i may say so i think every jurisdiction that's passed these laws feels deeply about it and would tell congress which way to go if it came anywhere close to their own local laws, i'm not gg to tell congress which way to go. i'm just going to tell congress don't mess with our marijuana laws. the reason i have to say that to the congress is that they can. this hearing could be the first step toward overturning d.c.'s marijuana laws. usually when they try to overturn one of our laws they don't give us a hearing. they try to do it in some sneaky

way. this hearing is for show. but it's a dangerous hearing. because it's about a real law and real people. and real racial disparity. and, yes, real discrimination against my district because we have been chosen out as no other jurisdiction has been. i want to compliment those members on the floor from the other side who were consistent with their own principles yesterday. there was a marijuana amendment on the floor because there was an amendment that would allow and the full details of it i don't have before me, but i recall it would allow prescription by the veterans administration of maryland cal marijuana for certain wounded veterans because of the finding that it has a beneficial effect on some of their concerns,

especially nausea and other kinds of conditions they bring back with them. now, the vote was divided but i looked at how the members of the subcommittee who will be hearing on wednesday about the district of columbia, there are seven members of that subcommittee and two republicans on that subcommittee, that seven-member bcommittee, voted to respect states' rights and voted in effect to allow states to do what is necessary when it came to medical marijuana for veterans. o, the parties are coming together on this issue, and for that reason it makes no sense hatsoever to have a divisive hearing that calls out one local

jurisdiction the weakest in the country because the district of columbia has no senators because while i vote in committee, whatever you do to my district or even for my district, i annot vote on on this floor. i can tell you this. as a result of this hearing and because this bill is still pending before the d.c. decriminalization bill, which has the layover here for 60 days before it becomes final is still here, i have alerted my allies throughout the country and particularly in those states which have decriminalized marijuana or legalized it. so if any member of this house ever gets this matter before it and theirs to vote that the district can't do what it did

even though their citizens have callpposite right, we will them out. i don't believe that kind of hypocrisy exists in this house, r do i know whether there is any attempt to try to overturn our laws. but i have to come here proactively, my friends, because they don't exactly come to he me ahead of time and tell me -- come to me ahead of time and tell me when they want to perform the legitimate act of overturning a law of the district of columbia. i'm calling them out right now, don't you dare to seek to contravene the elected, the democratically elected d.c. council which has decided what s best for its citizens,

particularly if your own jurisdiction, and i have called you out, has decided that some form of marijuana possession, decriminalization, or legalization should occur in yours. but even for those of you who come from parts of the united states which have not changed their marijuana laws, let me say to you i respect that your local jurisdiction, your state jurisdiction, has not acted in that way. there are real issues here. we don't want people smoking marijuana to end up where people who smoke cigarettes did. and a lot of what is being done now, the city is already holding hearings on this, is putting in place measures that would have the effect of not only alerting people to the problems of

smoking anything, but keeping this matter from being, sessive. it certainly has more of a chance of being excessive, at least among young people if it is barred. m not so sure now that it is allowed in so many states, a third of the stadse, that you will have -- a third of the states, that you will have nearly the excitement about smoking pot that you had before it was decriminalized. hatever is the result is not for a national legislature. not in america. where local matters get decided by local folks. yes, there's a conflict. -- conflict with federal law. that's for the federal government and it's implementation of drug laws to take care of. and if you want to somehow go

out against these states which are rapidly decriminalizing marijuana laws, and you got to come out after all of them. not just one. that's what i'm here to say. we don't intend to be the to iar that congress used prove its point about marijuana. we demand respect for the principles for which the constitution stands. nothing in the constitution says anything about respecting local control except for the district of columbia. he framers left some control but certainly not the kind of control that would be exercised here. nd the congress, on its own,

decided even the controls that the framers left in the would never exercise, when it was passed 40 years ago the home rule act of the district of columbia. the home rule act says that tters of local law are for the local jurisdiction of the district of columbia just as they are for the local jurisdiction of each of the 50 states. that was a landmark law. we intend that it will be respected. called, however illegitimate this hearing is, enough to override that law and its intent. , t law needs to be expanded not sat upon with a hearing

that picks out one local law. needs to be expanded so the 100% of local funds raised in the district of columbia don't have to come before a national body before we can spend our own money. as if you were the masters of our local funds. almost $4 billion of it raised from local citizens and local businesses. you want to bring us before you on federal funds, be my guest. don't come to the district of columbia when it comes to its own money, and don't come to the district of columbia when it comes to its own laws. nobody in this house can speak ith any credibility to the reasons -- and they are legion

-- but don't forget the most important reason that the district decided to decriminalize its laws. it didn't even legalize marijuana, as two states have done. it decriminalized them. it's a modest step. it's a responsible step, and it's a step taken in the face of horrific evidence, shameful evidence that showed that essentially the only people that got arrested in the district of columbia for marijuana possession are black people. that's an outrage. the council had to do something about it. just as the other states, for whatever reason, have decided reasons our ocal council has done for entirely local reasons, we ask you to respect that move especially what i'm t comes to

ure will be countless lives of african-american citizens in the district of columbia that to have a chance at least law from penalties of enforcement to live a fruitful life because they will not start off in life with these penalties that ruin their entire lives. we ask for equality of treatment. we are equal citizens under the law. if your citizens were treated unequally, each and every member of this house would be on this floor. i come in that spirit, and i come asking for the very same respect. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. this month marks the 20th anniversary of the rwandan genocide, which a million rished in a horrific 100-day span while the world stood idly by. as has been documented in print and film, including samantha reports ivetting book, of the vy license and the targeting of innocence received and yet the american foreign policy apparatus was largely conseemed, not with stemming the bloodshed, but rather than avoiding the use of genocide, lessen a response and so many

people died. of course, there is the now notorious negligence of the of the united nations which led to a catastrophic failure on the part of the international community. kofi annan, then head of the u.n. peacekeeping, was receiving on-the-ground intelligence for a canadian general about the impending tragedy and yet he repeatedly refused to authorize the general to seize known weapon caches until it was too late. what horrors could have been prevented? fast forward a few years ago. president clinton traveled to the airport in rwanda and issued what has come to be known as the clinton apology for failing to do more to stop the violence.

later, president george w. bush famously wrote, quote, not on my watch, end quote, in the argin of a report on the rwanda genocide. no president wants an atrocity on their watch. i venture this much is true of president obama, and yet every indication points to the fact that the crisis currently unfolds in south sudan is headed to the way of rwanda. in fact, yesterday the u.n. high commissioner for human rights characterized south sudan as, quote, on the verge of catastrophe, end of quote, but with the stakes as high as they are, the situation is simply not being met with the urgency it demands. it is time for bold action. president obama, who so far has

failed, he has failed on this issue, he should immediately dispatch former president george w. bush, who has a great reputation in africa, and former president bill clinton, who also has a good reputation in africa to help negotiate lasting peace and to convey in no uncertain terms that the fate of south sudan is the u.s. foreign policy priority. both of these men, president bush and president clinton, have done a great deal on this issue and remain invested in africa beyond their presidencies. this pair of statesmen, hailing from two different political parties, would send a powerful message to the warring factions and especially as it relates to the south sudanese president with whom president bush formed a lasting relationship during intense conversations involved with a comprehensive peace agreement, it would open

immediate lines of communications at a pivotal time. i first visited sudan in 1989, and years before darfur became a household word and i prayed for the day when the people of the lon-suffering land would enjoy peace and representative government. i have been five subsequent times, most recently in 2012. for more than two decades, a steady stream of sudanese activists, lost boys and girls who resettled in the united states, humanitarian groups operating in the region and others have visited my office. whether it was the seemingly intractable war between the north and the south, the genocide in darfur where in recent years set against the backdrop of a new nation, i have followed events closely in that part of the world, urging u.s. administrations of every stripe to engage vigorously in pursuit of lasting peace,

justice and rule of law. i asked president bush to appoint a special envoy and he appointed a former senator who did an incredible job with then-secretary of state powell. while i did not support obama's candidacy, i was heartened -- i was heartened and encouraged by his rhetoric on sudan during a 2008 campaign. i took further encouragement from some of the individuals who joined his foreign policy team. senior advisors with strong human rights credentials and a stated desire to see the united states lead in the prevention of crimes against humanity and other atrocities. sadly those words have not france lated in to action. as i noted earlier, samantha power, who rose to -- now represents the u.s. at the united nations in new york, i

wish her voice was stronger within the administration on this issue. i urge everyone to read her book. it was a profound book, so i urge her to take the message in the book and be a spokesman in this administration. today i stand before you as concerned as i ever have been about the state of affairs in south sudan and the potential for the recent violence, to spiral out into a genocide, a genocide that could defy even the horrors of rwanda given that oil reserves are in play. on monday i received deeply troubling reports from individuals on the ground about recent atrocities in south sudan and the lack of an effective u.s. or international response. i heard of civilians, including women and children, indiscriminantly targetted and killed. i learned that houses of worship turned from a place of a sanctuary into mass graves.

i read of ethnic divisiones that run so deep that it could a -- take a generation to heal. they belie what can only be characterized as an emergency need of and urgent high-level intervention. consider the following count of voice of america, april 21, quote, the united nations' mission in south sudan on monday accused opposition forces of carrying out targeted killings, including of children and inciting vengeful sexual violence against women after they captured the town last week from government troops. the u.n. also said that individuals associated with the opposition had been used in an f.m. station, to broadcast hate speech. sort of reminds you exactly what took place in rwanda.

will we never learn. the washington post, april 22, said, quote, gunmen in south sudan who targeted individuals and children and the elled leer upon children and the elderly left piles upon piles of bodies. the top official in the country said tuesday. cnn april 23 said, quote, south sudanese rebels separated terrified residents by ethnicities -- by ethnicities before killing them. hundreds residents sought shelter in churches, mosques and hospitals when the rebels raided the town. x news, april 23, as rebel forces entered the town last week, residents were led to believe that by entering a mosque they would be safe.

but once inside they were robbed of money, mobile phone and a short while later gunmen began killing both inside the mosque and inside the city hospital. nueer, re not a nothing could save you. the gunman killed wantonly including the children and the elderly. the economist, april 26, even in a civil war that has been rift with atrocities, the scale civilians in e of south sudan's oil hub on april 15 to 16 plumbed a new depth of hell. the rebel white army, so-called after the ash fighters sometimes smear on themselves, kill anyone who suspect support the government, including, in his report, 200 people in a single mosque and others in

churches and eight agency compounds. local radio broadcast helped to stir up ethnic hatred to direct violence at perceived enemies. no side is winning. hopes of building a new country from scratch are drowning in blood. i have a photo here and many others, a graphic visual image of what you just heard described. it was the most recent massacre this month. we see in the picture piles of bodies described in news accounts. and just yesterday morning, i received reports from someone on the ground that another that town could be imminent. where is the urgency from the obama administration? read is the outrage i with great interests in recent statements by the kenyan president in which he said during the 20th commemoration

of the 1994 genocide in rwanda -- the 20th anniversary is this month -- i expressed our region's disappointment at having done little to nothing at the time to end the , a ghter of a million million innocent victims, human beings in rwanda by a blood thirsty kabul. . i also pledge in the name of kenya, and the reason we will never again allow a similar genocide to happen within our shores. our return, he said, to the pledge today because of what is happening in parts of sudan. we are outraged and gravely concerned at seeing the killings of hundreds of innocent civilians. caught up in internal conflict of the south sudanese liberation movement. we are being witnesses to such

atrocities and remain helpless and hopeless in their wake. , president obama , vice resident biden president biden this is happening on your watch. will you allow it to continue? will you, too, refuse to be a witness to the atrocities? news coverage of these events have been sporadic at best. while most americans are likely unaware of the horrors being perpetrated in south sudan, people who are in a position to help know what is happening. yesterday i had a press conference with congressman pitts and congressman smith.

two members of the press, two members, only two members of the press even came. the room was empty. nobody's covering this story ardly. will it be like rwanda when they all had all the stories and you remember the movies that he they did on rwanda looking back? will the press then cover looking back? will they then say whose fault it was they didn't act? where's the media today? where are the networks? where's the obama dministration? cables are now being sent to washington, talking points are being drafted at the national

security council and the state department. these events are not happening in a vacuum. will we see the contents of the reports only after it is too late? when enterprising filmmakers and authors dredge up the documents and wonder, why no one mustard the will to act? -- mustered the will to act? a piece yesterday and john pender grast who has been on the scene who has done so much to bring the attention to these issues, opened with the following line, they say, quote, no civilians in the world are in greater danger than those in south sudan. again, here's what they said. no civilians in the world are in greater danger than those in south sudan. you see how powerful where they say even more than in the ukraine, more than syria?

the pair continue, quote, unlike the acie metric warfare which we have an accustomed to hearing about in iraq and afghanistan symetric warfare ensures heavy casualties and military confrontations, but victories and defeat now have more ominous consequences. for in south sudan the victors see a military victory as justifying civilian slaughter of the predominant ethnic group of the opposing forces. it was a terrifying momentum ethnic slaughter leads yet to greater ethnic slaughter. in short, crimes have been committed by both sides. there are no angels in this conflict. there must be accountability for anyone implicated in these atrocities. we have the technology, the

capacity, the eyewitness accounts to know who is involved and who is actively violating the cease-fire. they further warm of looming famine -- warn of looming famine given the planting season has already been disrupted with more than a million forced out of their homes and ominously they predicted that as many as seven million, seven million could face starvation this fall. the atrocities must stop. the suffering must cease. what is the end game? america helped give birth to south sudan. we have a moral obligation to do something. and something bold. so i say this, president obama, you must not allow this to continue on your watch.

i call on your predecessors, president bush and president clinton to immediately engage in this crisis before more innocent blood is shed. president bush would go. president clinton would go. and can you imagine the image if both president bush and president clinton there together . so i close with this last thought. , vice president , failure ure to act to act, and this will be in the congressional record for future generations to see, failure to act will be a stain on your blot, a tion and a

blot on your conscience. the speaker pro tempore: does he gentleman yield back? r. wolf: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to others in the second erson. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 42 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. chairman. one of the things that makes america great is that our country is a country that regardless of one's race, one's religion, or one's ethnicity we

as citizens of the united states make up a collective family, the a diverse mily, yes, family but one -- but a family in and of itself composed of all the people, the great variety of people we have here from every part of the world who have come here to live in freedom and enjoy the opportunity and the liberty and the justice that america represents. and here despite where one was born or whose ones parents are, or when one became a citizen, we are all equally part of that family. and just as many families across our nation have come to discover at one point or another, in a time when there are scarce resources, we are going through perhaps an economic crisis or trying to avert an economic crisis, it is not unreasonable

to provide for one's family before helping others. it is not selfish to watch out, thus, for our fellow americans. it's not selfish to watch out for our fellow merns -- americans above the well-being of foreigners, even foreigners who wish us well, and foreigners who would like to be part of the american family, but first and foremost those americans from every part of the world who are part tsh-who are citizens of this country or, yes, who have come here legally in the attempt to become a u.s. citizen, their interest must be our first priority. tonight i draw my attention and the attention of my colleagues to the dire consequences that we face if many -- and many people have been insisting we do this. if we implement the so-called immigration reform which, of

course, would legalize the status of those who are currently unlawfully living and working in our country. just as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. what the american people and my colleagues must keep in mind while debating this issue of immigration is the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. perhaps the thing that has disturbed me most in this debate is the attempt to blur the difference between the two. the difference even to the point where statistics are being used to say, this is what immigrants have done for our society. no, the statistics are what immigrants have done, but that does not include the illegal immigrants that are part of the equation. no, illegal immigration is on a

totally different plane than legal immigration and illegal immigration are in totally different planes. too often we have seen these lines blurred in this debate. i happen to be very pro-legal immigration. and there's no reason for most americans not to give their head up high and lift their head up high when we actually understand that our country admits more legal immigrants annual than all the other countries of the world combined. totally roughly a million legal immigrants every year. and while our immigration system certainly needs reforming or making it more effective and more he efficient in what it's doing, this controlled and open process of legal immigration has worked well for america and demonstrates the capacity for our people to have compassion

and generosity towards other human beings, other people who would like to come here to be part of the american family. coming here while obeying the rules. coming here not thumbing their nose at our legal system. coming there with respect towards the rest of us by obeying the laws and the regulations that are necessary for someone to come here legally. those folks have been a wondrous and in fact we all trace our roots back to people like this who came here and have contributed so much to the well-being of our country. and those million people who come here legally every year are a major positive asset to our country. despite our generous legal immigration policy, it is estimated that anywhere from 11 million to 20 million foreigners are unlawfully present in the united states today. and while i certainly understand

the positive motives and the essential goodness of the vast majority of these trespassers, these people who are here illegally, it does not negate that they are lawbreakers. nor does it negate the economic and social consequences of inundating our country far above that million person mark ever legal immigration, but inundating with our country with a large number of people thus to our a growing damage american family of people who come here and our u.s. citizens, the dire consequences are evident to average americans who see the decline and quality of their schools, their neighborhoods, the safety of their neighborhoods, yes, and their health care. he yes, even their jobs. they can see the de -- yes, even their jobs. they can see the decline in jobs

available to working people in this country. not only are citizens hurt by permitting illegals to cut in front of the line, but it is also slap in the face for those who continue to wait their turn to come to america. tryle -- when we give in to to placate and try to meet the interests of people who come here illegally, it is done at the expense of those people who are waiting in line and want to be american citizens and want to he obey our laws and want to come here legally. yes, the illegal immigrants hurt the american people and hurt legal immigrants. in the 2012 unilateral deep if you recall of deportation of certain illegal residents, it it hurt esty decree,

those who are here legally seeking green cards, seeking to have the government employees do their job and actually make the immigration system work, our government employees were serving illegal immigrants at he expense of legal immigrants . we got it totally backwards, and that's what the argument that we face today has things, a lot of things totally backwards. while it is concerning that the president's action and actions ppear to be political, which is the effort we saw to try to appeal to various segments of our population in order to conduct policy at the interest of illegal immigrants, i am most troubled by the fact that

basically he would defy -- meaning our president -- would defy the rule of law and congressional intent by unilaterally granting preferential treatment to those illegals and those people, those immigrants who are here illegally. and our president then, without congressional intent or any rule of law behind it, actually shifted the services of our government to service the needs of people who are here illegally at the expense of those people who are here legally. nearly 4 1/2 million mostly legal immigrants are currently caught up in the backlog of our bureaucratic immigration process. that's 4 1/2 million people we need to be concerned about. they are part of the american family. they've come here as part of that one million legal immigrants that we have coming

in, but yet they end up waiting decades, years and sometimes decades to make sure that their papers are processed so they can become citizens. the last thing we need to do -- and unfortunately this administration has been doing it -- is shifting over the work effort and the time and the resources that are necessary to help these people become citizens and shift that over to try to do the service to those people who are here illegally and have thumbed their nose at our law. a policy which hurts those who follow the law and hurts those who are u.s. citizens and then rewards illegal and dishonest behavior is going to have some pretty bad consequences. we are not fooled by the rhetoric, and no one should be fooled by the rhetoric that we need to have comprehensive immigration reform and that will in some way impact in a

positive way what i have been talking about this morning -- this afternoon. what they really mean when they talk about comprehensive immigration reform, what they really mean is amnesty. they don't want to use that word because the american people learned what that was all about. what they are really doing is rewarding those who have broken the law, and they do so at the expensive american citizens and, yes, at the expense of those immigrants who are here legally. as the saying goes, you can fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. mr. speaker, we have already been fooled once. amnesty has been tested and proven to be a failed policy. in fact, it has served only as served -- hich which has compounded many of

the horrific economic and social challenges that we face today. so we've already had an amnesty in the past, and we know what it has done to the challenges we had then. it made them worse, and now we have ended up, as i say, horrific economic and social challenges. i am, of course, speaking when i talk about the amnesty of the immigration 86 reform bill that when congress infamously promised president reagan they would enhance border security in exchange for an amnesty on the behalf of nearly three million illegal immigrants then residing in the united states. needless to say, border security was never enhanced. many more -- and needless to say, many more than the three million that we were supposedly talking about were legalized

through chain migration and millions upon millions more would continue to illegally flock to our country. why? because they saw that those people who had' come here illegally -- who'd come here illegally ended up becoming naturalized, ending up going in front of the line of those waiting to come here legally, thus, a major increase in the flood of illegals into our country. as common sense would dictate, the u.s. government cannot continue to send this type of mixed message and the message which basically says we're going to reward that person who's here illegally by making him a citizen, putting him through the process actually before those people who've come here legally and we'll reward anybody who gets here illegally, we will reward them with citizenship. they will then have the rights

of americans for education, for health care and the opportunities that are abundant here for american citizens and legal immigrants. well, if we continue to say anybody who could come to this -- get to this country illegally or not are going to get that, that is a mixed message if we expect that illegal immigration is going to be halted or in some way the people overseas who are considering it will hesitate to come here. in fact, we are rewarding those who made it here without expecting the legal invasion in our country to increase. we actually gave people the incentive to come here illegally. illegal immigration only dramatically, only dramatically jumped after the 1986 amnesty deal setting the path for our current predicament. and what is our current predicament? we have social and economic

dislocation that is harming the american people, especially middle-class working people like after the 1986 amnesty deal. those admitted in the united states under a new amnesty will surely have spouses, children, parents, even siblings back in their home country and that they will want to reunite. they will want to insist on reuniting with legally or illegally those people who are in the united states. so that's why we have ended up with a situation where we down people say, well, we have people in our home country. it's as if someone in the united states saying we have to reunite the families and they are here illegally in the first

place, that that's a reason we should legalize their status so they can reunite with the family that's been left behind. no, the other option is people who are here illegally should go home and be with their families that they left behind. it's better for them to do that. a this has been a really potential threat when we talk about family reunification and the rest, because there is a potential to triple the number of people who are currently here in this country illegally. let's get that right. triple. if we give amnesty and we legalize the status of those who are here illegally, we could be tripling the number of people and inserting this number of people into our system. if true, this abrupt population swell will fundamentally change america socially, economically and, yes, politically causing

consequences that we can even see across the board. we can see what those consequences will be because those people that are -- that now are swelling the ranks of our population will mainly be poorer people, people at the lowest end of the economic level. we will be importing millions, tens of millions of poor people. increasing poverty in america. owever, of course, the economy -- the stress that would place on our social services is one thing but our economy and what that does to the american people in the job market would be horrendous. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, every 1% increase in the labor force attributable to immigration tends to lower the

relative wages of all american workers. let's get that straight. what happens when you have an increase in the labor force by immigrants who come to this country -- and that's why we want to limit it to a million eople -- if we have 11 million, 20 million, 30 million, 40 million people coming in, we could expect major decreases in the actual wages that all americans receive. it's going to impact the american wages. surprise, surprise. when you have a flood of illegal immigrants into a country, they are bidding down the wages of the american people. to ver, those who stand lose the most are whom? when we say that these people are mainly people from lower income levels, so what we're talking about the people who are really losing by legalizing the status of illegals, by

having a plan that would eventually bring tens of millions of more people into our country, then insert them into our process, the people hurt the most are low-income, low-skilled american workers. one major study found that increases in immigration during range -- era 00 there resulted in an 8% decrease in wages for high school dropouts and a 3% decrease in wages for the average american worker. well, this is hardly surprising. not for me it wouldn't be surprising. during college, my college days i was a janitor. i worked as a janitor. and let's note, i worked as a janitor because i needed a job.

i was cleaning toilets, i was scrubbing floors, i was picking up trash. that was not my desired job, ut i needed the money. historically, right now, such jobs as these would be a steppingstone for those who perhaps lacked education or trying to earn their way through school. i was trying to help for my education expenses. but after decades of illegal immigrants who have been bidding down the wages and the businesses willing to exploit them, many of the jobs that we're talking about, like nitorial jobs, no longer pay the type, even the wages that were paid in real dollars then. i've gone back and taking a look at what a janitor makes. janitors are making basically the same pay as i made back 40

and 50 years ago. well, why is that? our economy has quadrupled. maybe tripled in this last 40 years. how come janitors make exactly the same amount of money? they have been left out. they've been left out because the job of janitor has been bid down the wages for people who would be janitors in our country have been bid down. bid down by people who flooded into our country illegally, willing to work for a pittance, willing to work in homes where you have three or four families to a house that's only supposed to have one family, and we have a situation where -- who's being hurt? the american being that janitor, maybe working his way through school, maybe not, who now can't take that job because it pays so little. people say, well, how will we be able to afford -- how can we

afford to take care of, you know, buildings if you're going to pay a certain amount of money, more money to those people who are taking care of the buildings? well, proportionately the same, the owners of the buildings are making a bigger profit now at the expense they're paying a pittance to illegals to take care of the building. but also we can -- rest assured that we -- technology would by now have developed that made the life of a janitor and the job of a janitor much more efficient. you probably would have had toilet bowl machines that would permit one person to clean 100 toilet bowls a night rather than 12 or 15. . that would me the person running that machine and making that machine would be an american citizen or legal immigrant who is earning a decent wage. there is nothing wrong with having people who are working

those jobs earn a decent wage so they could then raise a family, and, yes, maybe own their own little home someday. that's the way it used to be when you are a working person you could expect to earn enough to maintain a decent standard of living. but we have a flood of illegals coming in, and when we -- especially after we gave that amnesty, what we have done is bid down the wages of the american people as tens of millions of illegals are now present in our society. to this point between 1960 and 2012, a time when america was experiencing its highest levels of immigration, native born workers and legal immigrants lost an average of $402 billion in wages while native-owned firms profited, meaning american

owned companies, profited by an 437 billion. so thus we have wages being depressed by illegal immigration that actually lowered the amount of money by $400 billion in money that was paid in wages, yet the people running the business or owned the property were $437 billion richer. so what we have seen here is a uge shift of wealth to whom? to upper class and owners of businesses at the expense of the lowest level of americans. now, how is our country a safe country? our country is a safe country because all of us who are part of the american family are doing our part to protect our country. those people at the lower end of the economic spear, they are the ones who joined the military and

go out and defend us. they are the ones who obey the law. they are the ones who we rely upon in their good judgment to support the constitution and the rule of law. if he we lose -- if they lose faith in the system, we will suffer greatly. and that's one of the things that's happening is that the poor people are being left out and actually their standard of living is going down even as we have had, of course, our friends in the other party have provided very lucrative welfare abilities to give people -- to be on the dole rather than giving them a good job. while at the same time while pushing for more government programs to give the -- make thus, i endent and might say, lose their dignity of being able to be self sufficient -- self-sufficient. at the same time, folks on the other side of the aisle are pushing for amnesty for illegal immigration that would bring in

40 million new people. 40 million people, foreigners, inserted into our system. what is that going to to for the poor people of this country? why are the unions in our country not jumping up and supporting the rights of their working people not to be having o face illegal immigrant labor bidding down their labor? over the last 50 years there's been a massive transfer of wealth going on, and yet we see it. at the same time we see business wages -- business profits going up and workers' wages going down. t we have policies that seem to encourage that, especially that don't make any sense. you have people who use the rhetoric of trying to care for america's poor, the last thing they should be doing is bringing

in 0 million new foreigners, mostly poor, into our country. knowing this should be no surprise that big business has been a consistent advocate of amnesty. big business wants cheap labor. and this, i might add, is not being loyal to the american family. to be loyal to the american family, no matter who they are, whether they are poor americans, working class americans, we should be watching out for each other. lower wages, however, are not the only negative impact of mass illegal immigration into our country. similar structural breakdowns and strains can be seen in our education system. people in the lower income parts of town are seeing their education system fall apart. we see health care system in our country falling apart. we he see a variety -- as well as -- and a variety of other institutions that people rely on

because the strain of millions to legals and they want bring more in are destroying this social -- this economic and this infrastructure that our people depend on. all things considered if amnesty were being granted to the 11 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently in the united states, it would cost the american taxpayers an additional $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years. at least 45 million foreigners, mostly poor, would be inserted into our society. it's not going to make america a better place. the working people, people part of the american family going to be better off because of that? absolute not. -- absolutely not. the voices of the american people need to be heard because we have people posturing as if they are doing a favor for the for fortunate by advocating

amnesty for illegal immigrants which would bring in tens of millions of more poor people from foreign countries into our country. with our national debt approaching $18 trillion, a budget deficit of over half a trillion dollars, and two unsustainable entitlement programs that we need in order to maintain some sort of security for the american people, medicare and social security, these are currently on the road to bankruptcy, and if we bring in these millions more people, we could expect that the -- the expenses of our government will shoot up trying to provide benefits for people who now, by the way, now after making them legal, they are entitled to those benefits. someone who is here legally is entitled to every benefit and protection that people who are here -- who were born here. as we legalize the status of

illegals, we are taking tens of millions of foreigners here illegally and granting them the rights to all those programs. america cannot afford amnesty for those foreigners who are here illegally. we must take care of the needs of the american family, of american citizens, of legal immigrants into our society who have joined our family. their interests have to come first. over the interest of, yes, let me just say, there is no doubt that those people who are here illegally in our country, the vast, vast majority, 90% or more, are wonderful people. but they -- we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we can somehow take care of all of the wonderful people in the world. we can't do it. as we try to do it and try to open up our borders even more than the one million legal immigrants that we have, we are going to attract even a bigger flood into our country which

will put even more pressure on us. and what we are doing in that case is hurting our fellow americans. even if these people are wonderful people who come here and they come here illegally, they are seeking opportunity, i'm sorry, we can't take care of the whole world and we can't tell the world whatever good person comes here illegally we are eventually going to give them amnesty and they'll bele ingible for our programs. there's anlement called the dreamers, young people brought here by their parents, and they weren't here, they didn't come here voluntarily. their parents brought them here whether they were 2 or 3 and now they are -- they don't have legal status. there's a lot of obstacles in their way. they want those removed. they want themselves to be legalized. but you know wham will happen if we do that? if we say a young person going through school because they are young and have been brought here by their parents, what is going to happen? what will be the message if we

do that? if we legalize the status of just the dreamers, we are telling the people throughout the world, man, when you come here illegally to the united states, make sure you bring your children. we are telling people throughout the world bring your children to this country so we can take care of the needs of your children. we have needs of our own children in the united states of america. there are wonderful kids out there we care about, but we have to care about our own kids first. people who come here legally have that right. they are part of our family. american citizens are part of our family. but the well-being of children from foreigners and various countries throughout the world has to be second on our list. down on our list. way down as compared to the well-being of our own people. yes, we take care of the dreamers what's going to happen is we will be encouraging a mass flow of young people into our country. younger people who are in school, will have to cake care of their -- take care of their

education, etc., that is not right. you can't give the incentive of people to come here and expect we are not going to have many, many more people coming here. we'll have many more dreamers coming here if we legalize the status of those who have been brought here illegally by their parents. this issue continues to be presented as a humanitarian imperative. as something we could, without cost, we could help these people among us. we could do that without cost. there's nothing without cost. we are being presented -- we can have an amnesty, as if it's not going to cost the american people. it is costing us right now. what we have done in the last 20 of to ignore this influx illegals into our country has already caused great damage to the well-being, the standard of living of american workers at the lowest level. people think that they are

trying to -- they say they think they are appealing to mexican americans. by being for illegal -- amnesty for illegals. the hardest hit community in hardest hithaps the but certainly minority communities, including mexican americans, they know where their jobs are going. they know when they have a job and an illegal comes across the border from whatever country, asia or mexico or honduras or ireland or wherer they are coming from, if they are taking a job of an american, the mexican american community is the hardest hit. their education funds are the heartest hit. their neighborhoods are the hardest hit. and that's why i believe that americans of mexican descent are patriots. they are part of the american family. and that's why i do not believe that they want to legalize the status of every illegal that's poured into our country. it hurts their families more

than anyone. what we need to do now is make sure that as we discuss legalizing the status of illegals, of amnesty, they want to call it comprehensive immigration reform, that we keep in mind these things could have dramatic negative impacts on the well-being of the american people. are we on? de that's who you've got to ask. what are the answers to this? let me just say that the solutions are not easy. but i would suggest there is a simple but not easy solution. we should make sure that anyone who comes here illegally does not have -- does not get a job. we need to e-verify all the jobs that are here in the united states to make sure they are not going to illegals, and they should be going to americans or legal immigrants, and we should make sure that no illegal immigrant or the immigrant's family receives government benefits. whether it's health care or

education. i don't believe in deportation, actually. i think deportation is the wrong tactic. but unless you're going to -- e president obviously didn't fulfill his obligation for deportation, but he didn't take another step that would then deter illegal immigration. the step to do it is no deportation, it's dehumanizing, but don't give jobs and benefits that belong to the american people to foreigners who are here illegally. that's the solution. they will go home. they will go home in peace. they have our well wishes. but they are not going to have our jobs and our scarce resources that should be going to the american people. i would ask my colleagues to -- as this discussion on the legalizing of illegal immigrants takes place, that we be honest with one another, and yes, we be

compassionate, but that our compassion is aimed at the american people and legal immigrants and not just compassion for those who come here illegally no matter how wonderful these people are, we have to consider the american people first. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields back his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i don't know if my friend, my

dear friend from california had seen this but following up on his comments, this is part of the front page of the army times, april 28, says here, thousands more will be forced out. staff sergeants now on hit list. and it talks about the career killers. but because of the cuts to our military, we are forcing out thousands and thousands of patriots who wanted to make a career of the united states military. and i along with my friend from california don't think it's necessarily a good idea to be saying, look, if you're illegally in the country, all you have to do is go displace yet another american patriot and take their job in the military, force them out into the civilian sector where our

united states military veterans have a much higher unemployment rate than the general population. that's not a good idea. it's not fair to our patriots, and it should not be something that this congress passes doing to once again not only run out patriots who wanted to make the united states military a career but force them out with illegal immigrants using their -- taking their jobs, forcing them into an unemployment sector where their unemployment rates are so very high. shouldn't be high. people should be willing to hire veterans. they have phenomenal work ethics or they wouldn't have been in the military unless they got bumped out early for ot working, but otherwise,

from my four years in the army right after we turned to being a volunteer army, very difficult time. our military was not appreciated. went through officer basic at fort riley, kansas, it was a standing order not to wear your uniform off post because of the hatred for the military. if you got caught by yourself in uniform, there might be a gang beat you up. it happened. so we were ordered, standing order, you couldn't wear your of orm off post because potential violence upon our military by american citizens. so it is -- so it has blessed my heart to see america again appreciate those who answer the call of their country, serve their country and do so honorably and well in the united states military which

should result in our promises to our military and promises that to some helped induce them in the military of good health care, good veterans care. i was only in four years. don't have a disability. have never been provided any v.a. assistance or health care, but for those who need it, deserve it or promised it, we can't be having a socialized medicine system that ends up being like most socialized medicine systems become. and the way obamacare will eventually lead this country into being -- with regard to health care, you get put on a list. socialized medicine doesn't go broke because you get put on lists and you die waiting for your procedure in sufficient

numbers, at least we have people die who won't get the procedure or perhaps they need a hip or a knee, pacemaker, whatever it is, they don't get them because they're having to wait in line. we shouldn't do that to our nation. we should repeal obamacare outright before it takes us there. but for heaven's sake, for the ke of this country, we can't continue betraying our veterans and not ensuring that they have the best health care that is available. if v.a. clinics or hospitals aren't doing the trick, let's give them a card that lets them walk into any health care facility in the nation and get the best care they got and let's keep our promise to them hat we'll take care of that.

my dear friend, andrew c. mccarthy, has an article out in the national review online today, posted it at 4:00 a.m. i know andy's up that time of the morning because sometimes we exchange emails that time of the morning. e is a brilliant lawyer, constitutional scholar, patriot himself in as the lead prosecutor ensuring that the planner, the one most responsible for the first world trade center bombing in 1993 when president bill clinton was in office, he made sure that he was convicted. and if one actually looks at

al ents by the brother of aeda leader, find references to his brother saying, hey, you know, there's violence, there's going to be a lot more violence against the u.s., but i'll be glad to help negotiate this thing if we can get release of the blind sheik. morsi, that became president of gypt, a muslim brother, he made clear before he was even lected that he wanted to secure the release of the blind sheik who plotted, planned, carried out the first bombing of the world trade center which we can be thankful that didn't

result in more death and more amage. we didn't learn a lesson from it. we continued under the clinton administration treat it like it was some kind of civilian crime instead of what it actually was, an act of war. as an act of war it should have stired more of a response. so perhaps there was someone in the white house after the world trade center was bombed in 1993 who wondered out loud within the white house, well, what difference at this point does it make why they bombed the world trade center or what we might have done to provide more security? what difference at this point does it make?

because perhaps if that kind of thinking were not in the white house during the 1990's, rhaps we could have looked more closely at the causes of the 1993 world trade center bombing and look more closely t the forces behind it and determined, wow, this is really a group that is at war with the united states. radical islamists have been at war with the united states since 1979. we just didn't know it. there was a war going on, but it was one-sided because the other side, the united states, didn't know there was a war so they weren't fighting a war. they just kept retreating.

1979, an act of war occurred in .n attack against our embassy e man, the ayatollah islamist that al became the head of iran that president jimmy carter welcomed as a man of peace, that one of the top advisors right now in our homeland security partment spoke up for as a featured speaker at the yatollah khomeini man of vision ceremony that had been held some years back in this country, now this featured speaker on behalf of the man of vision, the ayatollah khomeini, he's advising the homeland security department.

not only that, f.b.i. in 2011 gave him their highest civilian award. some people do not understand there is still a war going on. this administration and some in the senate, some in the house may refuse to recognize it but there is still a war going on. mr. mccarthy writes, here's the main point. he rioting at the american embassy in cairo wasn't about the anti-muslim video. as argued here repeatedly, the obama administration's blame of the story was for the 2012 rioting in cairo ever bit as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in benghazi several hours later. once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the obama administration's dir elections

of duty in -- derelictions of duty in connection with benghazi becomes much easier to see. but, let's look at the exchange with the white house press corps. a new low in insulting the intelligence of the american people. mr. carney was killed about just-released emails that corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along. obama e video was an administration-crafted lie through and through. it was intended in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign to obscure the facts that, a, the president's foreign policy of empowering islamist supremacists contributed directly and materially to the benghazi massacre. b, the president's reckless stationing of american government personnel in benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by political campaign boip--- e to portray

obama libya policy as a success. and the jihadists that killed our ambassador and three other civilians. and, c, far from being disamated, as the president claimed during the campaign and even after the september 11 violence in egypt and libya, al lied jihadist al in muslim countries. indeed they had been strengthened by the president's pro-islamist policies. the explosive emails that have surfaced thanks to the perseverance of judicial watch make explicit what has long been obvious. susan rice, the president's confident and ambassador to the strategically chosen to have appearances on five different television broadcasts the sunday after the massacre.

she was coached about what to say by other members of the president's inner circle. one of the emails refers expressly to a, quote, prep call, unquote, that ambassador rice had with several administration officials on late saturday afternoon right before her sunday show appearances. the tangle webb of deception spun -- -- the tangle web of deception spun by the administration was to distance the white house and the president from rice's mendacious tv performances. thus, carney was in the position wednesday of trying to explain the prep call email as well as other messages that illuminate the obama white house's deep involvement in coaching rice. the email's manifest that rice's performance were campaign appearances, not the good faith effort of a public official to inform the american people about an act of war against our country. r instructions were, and i'm

quoting, to underscore that these protests were rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy, unquote. and, quote, to reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges, unquote. carney claimed the prep call was not about benghazi. it is about the protests around the muslim world. two points must be made about this. the first involves the administration's blatant lying, benghazi was the only reason rice was on the sunday shows. if the massacre had not happened, there would not have been an extraordinary administration offering of one top obama official to five different national television

networks to address a calamity that had happened a few days before. moreover, it is well-known to anyone who has ever been involved in government presentations to the media, to congress, to courts, and other fact-finding bodies, the official who will be doing the presentation is put through a murder board process. this is a free willing session in which the questions likely to be asked at the presentation are posed and potential answers, especially to tough questions, are proposed, discussed, and massaged. the suggestion that rice less than 24 hours before being grilled by high profile media figures was being prepped on something totally separate and apart from the incident that was he sole reason for her appearance. it's so far-fetched it's amazing carney thought he could make it

fly. the second paint brings us full circle to egypt. why would carney claim with a straight face that rice is being prepped about protests around the muslim world? because other than benghazi, the protests around the muslim world that americans know about is the rioting, not protest, the rioting at the u.s. embassy in cairo a few hours before the benghazi siege. when benghazi comes up, the administration, president obama, hillary clinton, susan rice, jay carney love to talk about the cairo protests. why? cause the media and thus the public have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those protests were over the anti-muslim video. obama and company shrewdly calculate that if you buy blame the video as the explanation for cairo, it becomes much more

plausible you'll accept the blame the video as the explanation for benghazi or at the very least you will awe -- you'll give obama officials the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered benghazi despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. you see, the benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the cairo fraud. if you are hoodwinked by the latter, they have a much better chance of getting away with the former. but the blame the video is every bit as much a deception when it comes to cairo. thanks to president obama's policy of supporting the muslim brotherhood and other islamic supremist -- supremacists in egypt, post-mubarak cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. that included al qaeda leaders zal with a mmad , ey and leaders, gama

islamia, the islamic group, the terrorist organization that was led by the blind chic -- shake -- sikh, the terrorist convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the world trade center and plotted to bomb other new york city landmarks. in the weeks before september 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the u.s. embassy in cairo. in fact, the blind chic's son threatened a 1979 iran style raid on the embacy. americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the blind sheik's release from american prison where he's serving a life sentence. thanks to andy mccarthy. other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground, a threat that was reported in the egyptian press the day

before the september 11 protest. the state department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on september 11. the 11th anniversary of al qaeda's mass murder of nearly 3,000 americans. it was well-known that things could get he very ugly. when they did, it would become very obvious to americans that president obama had not decimated al qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail, even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro-muslim brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al qaeda's capacity to attack the united states in egypt. the state department also knew that the obscure anti-muslim video, few egyptians if any had seen or heard about, but it had

been denounced by cairo on september 9. still the stir it caused was minor at best as tom has elaborated. the cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the blind sheik's release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy, and indeed they did storm it, replaced the american flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex. and it is important here, mr. speaker to note that the al he he eader's brother, was out there even after the attack on benghazi consulate basically saying, hey, there could be more rioting, more trouble, unless you work with me

and let's get the blind sheik released then we can avoid future violence. amid all that is what andrew mccarthy is pointing out are claiming it was all about a video. if his arctic many mccarthy says, nevertheless before the rioting began, but when they knew there was going to be trouble, state department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnation of the video, ignoring the real sources of the threat. that was the resurgence of jihadist in muslim brotherhood governed egypt. the continuing demand for the blind sheik's release which underscored the jihadist influence, and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy which demonstrated al qaeda was anything but decimated. the transparent purpose of the

state department's shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy, violent rioting, minimized as mere protests, were actually attributable to the anti-muslim video, not to president obama's policies, and pateant failure to quell al qaeda. because there was a kernel of truth to the video story and because the american media have abdicated their responsibility to report the predominant causes ever anti-americanism in egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion, a false notion, that the video caused the cairo rioting. that acceptance is key to the administration's blame the video farce in connection with the lethal attack in benghazi. at about 10:00 p.m. washington time on the night of september 11, after they knew our ambassador to libya had been murdered and while the siege of benghazi still raged, secretary

of state clinton and president obama spoke on the telephone. shortly afterwards, the state department issued a statement from secretary hillary clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in benghazi. that was the beginning of the benghazi face. a fraud susan rice was made to pedal on television but it wasn't the beginning. secretary clinton's minions at the state department had started spinning the video proud hours earlier in egypt. the sooner americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of benghazi's cover-up. and today our oversight committee was having a hearing to see a retired general on the verge of tears finally coming afrocom, hewas with

knew what was going on and knew the truth and he could not remain silent. so he came forward and said, yes, there was really much more we could have done. mr. speaker, i hope and pray that all of those who are part of the intelligence community will find courage from the general coming forward. some i know that have left our intelligence service and gone on he's d civilian jobs, broken the ice. they can come forward now. i hope, mr. speaker, they get the message. he's come forward, the ice is broken, you won't be the first should be the message. all of the hostility -- when i ave an intelligence officer,

former intelligence officer tell me when i ask where have you been, i have been scared, you've never been scared of anything. i have been scared since 9/12. l of those who have been forced to remain silent, i hope hey will come forward. imam with a -- a mom with a son in our country's service told me after 9/12 about where her son was and what he was doing, so i called him and it took a long time to get a hold of him. he wasn't forthcoming. his mom told me yesterday or this week that he'll be out of the u.s. service before long and he wants to talk and come clean. i hope more will start coming clean on the strength of this

retired general's courage. but in the remaining minutes it should not be lost that today is the national day of prayer. and for some that still are not convinced at what is at war here, we simply need to look at from rp sheik muhammad, the master mind who is at quantity quantity, -- guantanamo, thankfully, i'm grateful to president obama that he's kept him there. he is a threat to the world and particularly the united states. he was a master mind mind 9/11, and in the plead -- master mind in 9/11, and in the pleading he prepared himself, page four, this has been declassified so anybody can find it on the

internet, he said we do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons, nevertheless we fight you with an almighty god. so if our act of jihad and fighting caused you fear and terror, then many thanks to god because it is him that has thrown fear in your hearts which has resulted, he says, in your infidelity. he's not good apparent with our prepositions. should have been from your infidelity. he says, your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that god had a son and your trinity beliefs. other parts of the pleading he makes clear that jews should be destroyed and here he makes clear also anyone who has a trinity belief believes that god had a son, and then he quotes from the koran saying soon shall we cast terror in the hearts of the unbelievers for that they join companies with allah for which he has sent no authority.

their place will be the fire and evil is the home of the wrongdoers. he bases his belief that anyone who believes in a holy trinity should go to the fire and burn forever on that part of the koran. others have different interpretations. radical islamists believe that. that's why i think it's immensely helpful to go back to even before the declaration of -- after the declaration of independence, but before the constitution in 1783 the treaty paris, was entered in france, between american diplomats and british diplomats. britain was the strongest country in the world. and our american diplomats knew they had to come up with something that was so important that the strongest nation in the world would not quickly come

back after the new united tates. when i first saw this document, i was shocked at the first words. and then it made sense, the beginning of the treaty that forced great britain to acknowledge united states' independence starts with these words -- in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. they believed in the holy trinity. they knew that great britain believed in the holy trinity. they wanted something that the brits would swear that would be so important that they would not dare break that oath. that's why it started with in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. that's where we got our start. that's why radical islam is at

war with us and i hope and pray on this national day of prayer that we will humble ourselves, admit our wrongdoing, turn back to the god who's protected us and he will bless our land. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned

>> the amendment passed i voice vote. live house coverage on c-span when members return on tuesday. almost 5000 students entered the student camp video competition. we talked with the top five winners about their documentaries. the moment we decided this was topic, there was an article in a newspaper that said how fracking was happening two miles from our house. it is also a local problem. we were very passionate about this and it seemed obvious that is what our topic should be. essential to our

life. a lot of people did not know what is being done to our food supply, and they just eat this food without knowing what is inside it. i found that concerning, so that is why i chose the topic. that youis a lot more do not know and it is hard for the average person to know what is going on because they do not know what is going on. do you value your security over your privacy or your privacy over your security? and is calling on john kerry to testify before .ongress the house oversight committee held a hearing about the tax today. perhapsissa said it is

criminal for the administration to withhold these e-mails. politico writing house republicans seized upon newly released documents from the white house and republicans have used this attack against the white house. the latest revelations are in reminder that the gop is not going to let the issue fadeaway, especially before the 2014 elections. another take from "usa today," a general told military personnel knew early on that the benghazi attack was a hostile action and not a protest. this contradicts what the administration said in the early days following the attacks, which left four americans dead. you see a tai chi there of the guard standing outside the consulate in 2012 days after the

tech -- the attack. we're going to watch the hearing today now with darrell issa he getting ready to gavel in and give his opening statement. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the committee will come to order. benghazi,g on instability, and a new government, successes and failures of u.s. intervention in libya. the oversight committee's mission statement is that we fundamentalure two principles. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent,

and, second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. work inr job to partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the fax to the american people and bring reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission. today the oversight committee convenes a fourth hearing related to the security situation in libya before, during, and after the september 11 terrorist attack which claimed the lives of four americans. the committee has previously brought forward important witnesses who offered new and likening testimony on security

failures that forced the administration to walk back false claims about the nature of the terrorist attack. witnessesof previous thetified key questions in inner agency process that only this committee has the jurisdiction and the charge to investigate. in theuch of the effort investigation has focused on the department of state, we have recently conducted several joint interviews of her relevant military personnel with the house armed services committee. we had requested that these interviews be conducted as unclassified, the pentagon leadership insisted that they occur at the inexplicable and unreasonable level of top-secret. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have

called for an end to this investigation. these calls are clearly premature and only raise public concerns about the political agenda to stop an important investigation before it is completed, -- it has completed gathering facts about this debacle. in particular, the committee seeks insight into communications and directions that flowed between the state department, the department of defense, and, yes, the white house. it is essential that we fully understand areas of responsibility before, during, and after the attacks. it is my hope that today's hearing will help us add to our investigation's expanding body of knowledge, and i am pleased that we will be proceeding on an entirely unclassified basis.

we do so because the american people among more than anyone else in this body, have the absolute right to know why four men are dead in an attack that could have been prevented. distinguisheda panel of witnesses before us today that will bring expertise to us about the current situation in libya. one of our witnesses, retired force states air pretty their general robert l ovells brings first-hand knowledge of u.s. military -- in libya. u.s. african command is sometimes called africom. in the military command lingo, this is the organization that had responsibility, not just for

libya, but for the entire continent of africa. unit's mission included both the libyan revolution and the september 11, 2012, terrorist attack on a mimetic attack -- diplomatic compound in benghazi. l as the deputy commanding general of joint task force odyssey guard. in this assignment he was tasked with helping the state department reopened the u.s. embassy in tripoli after the fall of gaddafi. we appreciate all of our witnesses taking time to testify and enlighten the public about the situation in libya and the effects of u.s. decisions. in addition to pursuing the relevant information about the libya,y's involvement in

we continue to receive documents from the state department. alone, we haveh documentsver 3200 new , many of which have never been seen before by anyone outside of the administration, and all of which, and i repeat, all of which should have been turned over more than a year and a half ago when the committee launched its investigation. some of these documents which were brought to light only days ago three request -- through a request by the relation called judicial watch show a direct white house role outside -- i will repeat this -- the documents from judicial watch which were pursuant to our request more than a year and a half ago show a direct white house role outside of talking

points prepared by the intelligence community. the white house produced the talking points that ambassador the intelligence community. in pushing the false narrative that a youtube video was responsible for the deaths of four brave americans, it is disturbing and perhaps criminal that these documents, the documents like these, were hidden by the obama administration from congress and the public alike, particularly after secretary kerry pledged to walk operation and the president -- pledged cooperation and the president told the american bit ofin 2012 that every information we have on benghazi has been provided. this committee's job is to get to the truth.nd i for one will continue to chip

away at this until we get the whole truth. the american people -- the americans who lost their lives in benghazi, those who were wounded, and the american people deserve nothing less. so today's hearing is critical for what our witnesses will give us, and i welcome you and i thank you for being here. but it comes in a week in which the american people have learned that you cannot believe what the white house says, you cannot believe with the spokespeople say, and you cannot believe what the president says, and the facts are coming out that in fact this administration hasn't knowingly withheld arguments pursuant to congressional subpoenas in violation of any reasonable transparency or historic precedent, at least

since richard nixon. i now recognize the ranking member. >> i think the chairman for yielding. in 20,011 the people of libya rose up against their dictator, two and his oppressive rule which lasted more than four decades. at the time republicans and immigrants alike strongly supported helping armed rebels in their efforts to overthrow gaddafi. senator john, mccain traveled to libya and met with rebels after which he heroes.ed they are my during a national television appearance on july 3, 2011, senator mccain warned that to remain inafi power would be far more dangerous to the united states than the alternative. he stated this notion that we

should fear who comes after or what comes after gaddafi ignores that if gaddafi stays in power it is a direct threat to our national security. senator lindsey graham agreed that taking the fight directly to gaddafi with protect our national security. quote, "yound i cannot protect our vital, national security interests if gaddafi stays." he also stated, "the focus should now be to cut the head off." as the revolution grew stronger, gaddafi embarked on a crackdown.