selection term, end quotation, as the basis for production. critics are correct, this is not as clean or straightforward as the definition approved by both -- by the intelligence committees and judiciary. nothing in the definition explicitly prohibits the government's -- the government from using a very broad selection term like area code 202 or the entire eastern seaboard. . but that concern is largely theoretical. the type of collection is not likely to be of use to the government. ms. lofgren: if the gentleman will yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman wish to reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: i'm going to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has three minutes. the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. the definition of specific selection term includes a phrase -- pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of information -- and that's intended to keep the definition within the four corners of the statute. in will now be an amicas the court to have the expansive

reading of this text. ke reading that took relevance in section 215 to mean all called detailed records, end quote, are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the law. under this bill any fisa court opinion interprets this definition -- interprets this definition must be declassified and released to the public ithin 45 days. if the government tries to expand this authority, the public will know it in short order. the house, the house is poised to prove the first significant rollback of any

aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act in 1978. we must seize this opportunity if this bill is not approved today, we're giving our intelligence people in n.s.a. a green light to go ahead. i cannot imagine that happening in this body. and i support h.r. 3361 yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. speaker, 86 years ago, justice lewis brandize wrote in s dissent in holmstead vs. the united states, secure conditions favorable to the

pursuit of happiness. they recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect. they knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. they sought to protect americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensation. they conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone. the most comprehensive of right and the right most valued by civilized men, end quote. after the horrific tax -- attacks on september 11, 2001, the country was determined not to allow such an attack to occur again. the changes we made then to our intelligence laws helped keep us safe from implaqueable enemies. today we renew our commitment to our nation's security and to the safety of the american people. we also make this pledge that the united states of america will remain a nags whose

government answers to the will of the people. this country must be what always has been, a beacon of freedom to the world, a place where the principles of the founders, including the commitment to individual liberties will continue to live, protected and nourished for future generations. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

>> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time pursuant to the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd yield myself as much time as i might consume, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to recognize mr. goodlatte, mr. sensenbrenner, the other judiciary sponsors, leader cantor, for their continued hard work of forging a compromise with the intelligence committee while preserving operational capabilities. it's commendable we have found a legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program so we may move forward on other national security legislative priorities. our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the traitor or

traitors who leak classified information that put our troops in the field at risk or those who fear monger and spread mistruths and misinformation to further their own misguided agenda. following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last june, section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject of intense and often inaccurate criticism. the bulk telephone metadata program is legal, it's overseen and effective in saving american lives. no review has found anything other than that. all three branches of government oversee this program, including congress, inspector general, privacy and civil liberties offices in the executive branch agencies. despite the effectiveness of the program, an immeans -- and immense safeguards on the data, many members of this body have concerns about the potential

abuse. the debate has been about the potential of abuse, not that abuse had occurred. the legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflect hundreds of hours of member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise. in march the intelligence committee ranking member, mr. rupp ersberger, and i -- mr. ruppersberger, and i had legislation that accomplished these main priorities. we committed to ending bulk metadata collection. we committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put america at risk. we committed to provide and even more robust judicial review that exists today and process for that program. and we committed to providing more transparency into the fisa process and the decisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the revised u.s.a. freedom act accomplishes the same goals as well. the u.s.a. freedom act provides

the meaningful change to the telephone metadata that members of the house have been seeking. if we had the fortune of having a commander in chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. with that not being the case, and i believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world. i urge members to support this legislation. i want to thank all of those who came together to forge something that has been certainly a difficult process along the way. but at the end of the day, something important happened here. a better understanding of the threats by i think more members of congress that posed every single day to the lives of american citizens by terror groups around the world. and that rise in threat level is getting worse. the matrix for that threat

level is getting worse. and it was important as we forged and i think met the concerns of so many and educated i think many on the misinformation that was out there that we protect the core capability to detect if a foreign terrorist on foreign soil is making a call to the united states to further advance their goals of killing americans. i think we accomplish that today. it's not the bill i would have written completely, but i think we protected those operational concerns and met the concerns for those who had a mistrust of that metadata being locked away with the national security agency. so with that i would reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker, and look forward to a thoughtful debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise in strong support of the u.s.a. freedom act. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: on may 8, the house intelligence committee passed out of the committee the bipartisan u.s.a. freedom act. the identical bill that the judiciary committee passed out of may 7. i especially want to thank chairman rogers for his years of leadership on the house intelligence committee. i also want to thank chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers and also congressman sensenbrenner and the staff of our intelligence and judiciary committees for the hard work they did on this bill. we have worked together in a bipartisan manner and we have come a long way. after our committee markups, chairman rogers and i have continued to work with the judiciary committee and the administration to iron out some remaining issues which we have done and which is represented in the current bill. the bill represents the productive efforts of bipartisanship and working together for the american people. just yesterday, the administration stated that it strongly supports passage of our bill. again, the administration said that it strongly supports

passage of our bill. it also stated that the u.s.a. freedom act, quote, ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authority they need to protect the nation while further ensuring that individuals' privacy is appropriately protected. the u.s.a. freedom act contains important measures to increase transparency and enhance privacy while maintaining an important national security tool. first, we have ended bulk collection of telephone metadata and ensures the court reviews each and every search application. the database that contains phone numbers of millions of americans will go away. it will be replaced with a tailored, narrow process that allows the government to search only for specific connections to suspected terrorists to keep us safe here at home. there is an important emergency exception when there isn't time to get prior approval from the foreign intelligence surveillance court, also known

as fisc. second, we have expanded reporting for court decisions to improve transparency without threatening sources and methods. third, we are creating an advocate to provide outside expertise for significant matters before the fisa court. fourth, we have established a declassification review process of court opinions to ensure the public has access to our national security legal rulings in a manner that still protects our sources and methods. the u.s.a. freedom act is critical to our country's safe and our intelligence community -- safety and intelligence community. it is focused on a logical bill that will protect our citizens through important legal tools while strengthening civil liberties. i was opposed to the original u.s.a. freedom act because it sets high a standard. in short it would cut off the building blocks of foreign intelligence investigations.

we have worked together in a bipartisan manner and created a solid bill. now, it ends bulk collection of all metadata by the government. those that say this bill will legalize bulk collection are wrong. they are trying to scare you by making you think there are monsters under the bed. there aren't. we end all collection of metadata records. i'm again saying, read the bill. that's what the bill says. there's nothing else in the bill. it states that we will end all bulk collection by the government. the u.s. freedom act includes the necessary checks and balances across all three bruverages of government. it protects our -- branches of government. it protects our nation while protecting the nation's privacy and civil liberties. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit a longer statement for the record. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker.

i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, who has been incredibly important, not only on forming this piece of legislation to find the right balance but his work across northern africa on boko haram before it was even popular and bringing attention and resources to important intelligence problems around the world in difficult places, a good friend and a great member and a great patriot, mr. lobiondo from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. . mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. let me start out by thanking my colleagues for bringing together an incredibly complicated and difficult issue that probably as recently as a couple months ago no one thought possible. tremendous, tremendous accolades to chairman rogers, to mr. ruppersberger, to mr. sensenbrenner, to mr. conyers on a whole host of issues that, again, are critically important to our nation. you have heard the chairman and mr. ruppersberger outline some of the key portions of this, but

i think it is critically important to stress that the protection of american civil liberties must always be a top priority and always will be a top priority. and this bipartisan bill underscores the importance of that while keeping our nation safe. the u.s.a. freedom act increases transparency. that's something that people have demanded. increased transparency to the american people and allows for greater oversight. something else that we listen to that people wanted to see. it firmly, as mr. ruppersberger and mr. rogers have stated, ends bulk collection records. this is critically important. and it reforms the foreign intelligence surveillance court on fisa to ensure greater checks and balances are placed in such sensitive national security programs. but as we discuss this, let's not miss the bigger picture. i have had the opportunity to see firsthand in some pretty dark and remote places on the earth how our enemies are plotting not just on a daily

basis, but on a minute-by-minute basis on how to find a chink in our armor. how can they find some gap which will allow them to attack our homeland, to attack our citizens. this is a constant and ongoing threat. this bill strikes the balance to allow that transparency for civil liberties, but while it underscores the ability of our intelligence community to be able to do their job. and having been, as mr. rogers indicated, firsthand in some very remote places on the earth, we've got some incredibly dedicated people who are putting their lives at risk every day to protect this country. this is a good bill, let's pass it. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan continue to reserve. mr. rogers: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield one minute to ms. jan schakowsky, a very important member of our intelligence committee who focuses very strongly on issues of privacy and constitutional rights and people's rights.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. as a co-sponsor of the u.s.a. freedom act and a member of the permanent select committee on intelligence, i have been committed to reforming these laws. no bill is perfect, including this one. the u.s.a. freedom act we are voting on today is quite different from the original bill i co-sponsored. it has changed significantly from the version recently passed by the house intelligence and judiciary committees. on its path to the floor several of the bill's proposed reforms have been watereddown and many of us would like to see more meaningful change, however we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i want to congratulate all those who have been part of this bipartisan compromise. the bill we are considering today includes real reforms and the intent of congress is clear. we are putting an end to the bulk collection of metadata, and ensuring that important fisa court decisions are declassified for public consumption.

these reforms are important and future interpretations of fisa must reflect our intentions here today. i support the act and i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with my colleagues to make even more improvements in the in you ture. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired -- in the future. -- improvements in the future. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to mr. reed of new york for a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise today to commend your efforts along with those of the judiciary committee in bringing this legislation to the floor of the house. as you and i have met and discussed on fume russ occasions along with my good friend from indiana, mr. stutzman, this issue is important to not only many of my constituents back in western new york but also to our country. provisions in this bill such as the reforms made to bulk data collection and enhanced declassification requirements

are specific ideas that were shared with me by constituents in western new york and brought to here in washington, d.c. as you know i'm happy to report through our work with you these provisions were incorporated into this legislation. mr. chairman, as this bill moves forward, i hope i have your commitment to continue to work together to assure that a balance between national security and the protection of our personal freedoms is achieved. thank you again and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. mr. rogers: actually if i may continue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i would thank the gentleman from new york for his diligent work on this issue since last summer. mr. reed's work along with mr. stutzman from indiana was critical to ensuring we struck the right balance on this legislation. would not have been able to find that sweet spot that got us to a strong bipartisan agreement without input from these and other members interested in finding a solution.

again i want to thank the gentleman from new york for his interest, his time, and his effort to help be a part of the forging of this important piece of legislation. with that, sir, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan -- maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to mr. langevin from rhode island, an expert in cybersecurity. the years i have been in congress i worked with mr. langevin on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the u.s.a. freedom act and want to thank and congratulate all those who had a hand in crafting the legislation before us. particularly chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger. changes to our national security program should not be taken lightly. this compromise legislation is the result of a vigorous debate

and careful consideration. as chairman rogers pointed out, with all the reviews and investigations that have taken place with respect to the bulk collection program, no violations of law were found, but there was concern that there could be abuses in the future and the american people wanted a better balance to be struck between national security and protecting privacy, sib liberties, and more accountable. many of my constituents have expressed concerns about the sanctity of their civil liberties and i share their concern. i firmly believe this legislation protects that privacy by ending bulk metadata collection while still safeguarding our national security. i'm particularly pleased this legislation includes provisions very similar to those that i championed in the intelligence committee which allows the foreign intelligence surveillance court to appoint an independent advocate with legal or technical expertise in the field such as privacy and civil liberties, intelligence collection,le ity communications

cyber, or any other area of law necessary to ensure independent checks on government surveillance within the court's process w that i urge my colleagues to support the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland continue to reserve. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you. i just want to briefly thank mr. langevin who has done not only incredible work on this particular bill but his work on cybersecurity should make americans proud of his effort to move that ball down the field. without his and other effort and expertise on these matters, the united states would be a little worse off when it comes to national security. i want to thank the gentleman for his work on this bill and cyberand other national security issues. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. adam schiff, a very important member of our committee. does his homework and has helped me a lot and advised me on a lot of issues important to our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the u.s.a. freedom act. this bill ends the bulk collection of americans' telephone records and puts in place reforms to surveillance authorities to protect privacy and increase transparency. i have long advocated that the telephone metadata program should end in favor of a system in which telecommunications providers retain their own records so they could be queried based on a court approved, reasonable standard. that's precisely what this bill puts in place. it allows us to keep the capabilities that we need to protect the nation from terrorist plots while protecting privacy and civil liberties. there are many ways the bill can be improved and i hope as it heads to the senate there will be opportunities to do so. in particular, i'd like to see provisions to introduce an adversarial process in the fisa court. the fisa court and public trust would benefit from an independent advocate in the limited number of cases that call for significant statutory interpretation or novel legal issues.

i hope that the senate will include such provisions which would be both wise and actually sound. with that i urge a yes vote. i compliment my chair and ranking member on the extraordinary job they have done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i have one ore speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gallon lego: -- thank you, mr. speaker. i serve on the house armed services committee and through that assignment i have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with soldiers and airmen and marines and sailors and their families. like all americans i certainly

want our sons and daughters to be safe when we send them into harm's way. we want to take as much care of them as we possibly can. the media has talked some about some of the documents that were released by mr. snoweden, but there were at one point seven million documents that were released. many of these documents didn't even relate to the n.s.a. so when those files are disclosed in the press and they are disclosed to our adversaries, that naturally puts our sons and daughters in harm's way. it should say something that the first place you go is china and the second place you go is russia. that should say something to the american people. this memorial day i want the american people to focus on those men and women, our country's sons and daughters, who have honorably served our nation and stood by their brothers in arms and protected one another as we have asked them to fight for us. mr. speaker, thank you for -- mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, thank you for your work

on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is advised he has two minutes left. the gentleman from michigan is advised he has two minutes left. mr. ruppersberger: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for closing. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the u.s.a. freedom act is a bipartisan compromise that is strongly supported by the administration. our bill protects privacy and civil liberties while also protecting national security. i urge members to support the u.s.a. freedom act. nothing in this bill will legalize bulk collection. unfortunately, there are those members that are saying this will legalize bulk collection. it is clear that this bill, read the bill, states there will be no more bulk collection by the government. that's what the bill says. end of story. this bill balances the issue of taking care and protecting our country from people and

individuals who want to kill us and attack us and our allies. yet it also does what's so important to americans, to make sure that we protect our actual rights and -- constitutional rights and prifecy. it is a balance, republicans, democrats, left, right, middle coming together doing what is right for this country. this is what this body should do and we are asking for a yes vote on the u.s.a. freedom act. i also in closing want to acknowledge the leadership of chairman rogers and his important leadership that has allowed us to get to this level, along with the judiciary committee. the chairman goodlatte, ranking mber conyers, and also mr. steinbrenner. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2086, cited as the

reliable home heating act. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. thank you very much, mr. speaker. in the comity of the moment when all the love extended and the group hugs and the high five's, i think it's important for america to understand how much effort and how proud i think they should be about the intensity of the debate and discussion over what this bill looks like. because i believe everybody involved in this cares about civil liberties and prifecy. they do. wherever you fall on it. i do believe that everybody who is involved in this cares about our national security. and this debate, this fierce, intense debate that happened off of this floor in committees, in

negotiations over every word and every paragraph and every period resulted in the bill that you see before us today that did get bipartisan support and buy-in for a very critical issue. at the end of the day the national security of the united states and the public's trust in the intelligence agencies that have the responsibility, each and every day, in some very dangerous places around the world to collect the information that keeps america safe. i think at the end of this i hope that people take away from this debate that those who believe that the first round of negotiations meant that our national security was in peril and those who believe the first rounds of negotiation that our civil liberties and privacy were in peril found that right balance today. it's that important for our country. mr. speaker, i only bring that up to talk about the republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee, the

republicans and democrats on the sblell committee and all those that were involved in this negotiation, i think have done america a favor today and they've brought back the institutional notion of negotiation and intensity of debate that brings us to a better place today. i think this bill is the result of that. america should be proud. and now we can move forward on other national security priorities that will serve to protect americans and our allies' lives around the world and with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 590, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. 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 to reform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information athering for foreign

intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. sensenbrenner: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 303, the nays are 121. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 590 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4435. will the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4435 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities and

for military construction, describe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, may 1, 2014, the second set of modified by mr. mckeon had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 113-460, on which further proceed wrgs post-ened. mr. mckinley of west virginia, amendment number six by mr. shimkus, amendment number 10, amendment must remember 11 by mr. smith of washington, amendment number 15 by ms. jenkins of kansas, amendment number 21 by mr. schiff of california, amendment number 24 by mr. blumenauer of arkansas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electron exvote in thiser is keys. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote by the gentleman from west virginia, have mckinley, on

which further proceedings were post-end on which the yeas and nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment number one printed in house report 113-460, offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in forth of the request for a rored vote will rise. 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 230, the nays are 192.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 231, the nays are 192. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 113-460 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 113-460, offered by mr. shimkus of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 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 245. the nays are 177. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 134-460 by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, object which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in part a of house report number 113 - 450, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 177. the nays are 277. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 11, printed in part a of house report 113-460, by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in part a of house report number 113-450, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 191. the nays are 230. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request forward recorded vote on amendment number 15, printed in part a of house report 113-460 bly the gentlelady from kansas, miss jenkins, on which further

proceedings were postpone and on which the ayes prevailed by voice report. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15, printed in part a of house report number 113-450, offered by miss jenkins of kansas. the chair: recorded vote's requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 179. the nays are 244. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 113-450, by the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17, printed in part a of house report number 113-460, offered

by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 233, the nays are 191, the amendment is adopted. correction the yeas are 233, the nays are 191, the amendment is adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote for amendment number 21 by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report 113-460, offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 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 191, the nays are 233, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote printed in house report 113-460rk by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-460, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a surm -- 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 224, the nays are 199. 24e dement -- the amendment is adopted. amendment urther being in order, under the rule,

the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4435 and pursuant to house resolution 590, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments. 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. 4435 and pursuant to house resolution 590 reports the bill as amended by the russ resolution 585 back to the house with sundry further 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? hearing none, the chair will put

them in gross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. the third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to describe military personnel strength for such fiscal year, nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: does -- is the -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed nits current

form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. peters of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4435 to the committee on armed services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of title 10, thead following new section, section 1082 provisions relating to wages, discrimination, outsourcing jobs, student loans authorized he funds appropriated by this act or otherwise made available to the department of defense may be used to enter into any contract with any entity -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. peters: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? hearing none so ordered. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. peters: thank you, mr.

speaker. s the final amendment to h.r. 4435 which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee and if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, as a member of the house armed services committee, i'm proud of the bipartisan work we did this year to craft the 2015 national defense authorization act and i want to thank chairman mckeon in his last year leading the committee for his leadership and commitment to bipartisanship. mr. peters: mr. speaker, in san diego we are proud of the role our region plays in national security. my district alone is home to

seven military installations including the marie corn recruit depot, naval base coronadoer and others, san diego county is home to more than 235,000 veterans. this year we launched the national model military transition support project which will provide nonprofit and volunteer help for service members transitioning to the workplace in the private sector. san diego is a military town and proud of it. defense is also a big part of our economy. responsible for more than 300,000 jobs in the region, accounting for almost $25 billion in direct spending last year. and we were the homeport of 53 ships with an economic impact of $4 billion. it's fair to say when the government makes an investment in our military or sharp cuts like sequestration, we feel it locally. this amendment would ensure that as we make our investments in national security of nearly $600 billion in san diego and across

the country, we use that money to foster economic opportunity and equality here at home. my amendment assures that the jobs we are creating are good jobs and pay the same minimum wage standard of $10.10 an hour as we are moving towards statewide in california. those working full-time to support our national security mission shouldn't be in poverty, struggling with the choice of food for their children or keeping the lights on in the house. my amendment would also ensure pay equity. it's not news, mr. speaker, that the women across the country continue to face pay inequality. in san diego, women still make 75 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts on average. the amendment would prohibit defense contracts to companies that don't provide equal pay for equal work. that's not a women's issue, it's a family issue. families in san diego and across the country increasingly rely on women's wages to pay bills, educate their children, and save for retirement. along with working to close the wage gap for women, this amendment codifies into law the

department of defense policy that's already in effect to allow women in combat. and the amendment keeps our promises to sr. viss members to the g.i. bill. recently sallie mae agreed to pay $97 million to settle an allegation that military service members were charged excessive interest and fees on student loans. that's appalling and unacceptable. the amendment would require an investigation of these scam practices, ensure that they are stopped, and would require in the future that borrowers are informed of their rights. our men and women in uniform and our veterans deserve our protection against fraud and to see that their g.i. bill supports a high quality education that leads to a high quality job and nothing less. finally with the drawdown in afghanistan and the rebalance, many of our service members are traveling extensive distances to and from gloiments. during this travel men in uniform are being charged excessive baggage fees by commercial airlines. the amendment would prohibit

airlines from collecting these fees, much of which is being charged on lifesaving equipment that sr. viss members are buying and bringing in on their own because the department doesn't supply what's necessary. while it may seem like a small change, it will ease the burden on service members in charging baggage fees is not the way we should send off or welcoming home our troops. today's bill we are authorizing nearly $600 billion. as we support our national defense and security and defense abroad, we have the chance to promote economic opportunity and equal rights here at home. our war fighters and all americans who work to support them deserve nothing less. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you colleagues for the warm round of applause. that was a great to hear those

-- your feelings. mr. mckeon: and we on the armed services committee and here in congress have the responsibility to provide for our national defense for our interests around the world and the commitments that we have made to our friends and allies. we do not have a defense to provide jobs. we have a defense to provide for our national security. fortunately the jobs that are provided through defense are good jobs. with the cuts that we have had in our defense, a lot of those jobs have gone away. and our defense has been weakened. colleagues, we have had a vigorous debate on this measure. this bill was marked up by six different subcommittees.

then the full armed services committee considered the legislation. 195 amendments were offered during our markup alone. 95 by democrats, 100 by republicans. we adopted 154 of those, and the bill passed out of committee with unanimous support, 61-0. then we moved the bill to the floor following regular order 169 more amendments were made in order. 39 bipartisan amendments. 57 by democrats, and 73 by republicans. nobody can say we haven't had ample opportunity to consider everybody's ideas, discuss them, and vote. to everyone i say thank you for your help, for your support. it's important to get this 53rd consecutive ndaa passed because of the important authorities in the bill. let's oppose this motion to recommit and go home. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. wowed, the previous question is ordered -- without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question son the 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. peters: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. 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 is a five-minute vote on the motion to recommit. it will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage. if ordered. [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 194. the nays are 227. on this vote the nays -- and the motion is not adopted. the question now is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requested a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 325. the nays are 98. the bill is passed. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h.r. 4435, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles and the insertion of appropriate headings. and that the mandatory instructions for amendment number 35 be changed from after line 21 to after line 9. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of making an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i wish to announce to all members of the house that the permanent select committee on intelligence has ordered the bill, h.r. 4681, the intelligence authorization act for fiscal years 2014 and 2015

reported favorably to the house today with an amendment and will file its report on the bill in the house next week. the bill is currently expected in the house ed next week. mr. speaker, the classified schedules of authorizations and the classified annexes accompanying the bill are available for review by members at the offices of the permanent select committee on intelligence in room hbc-304 at the capitol visitors center. the committee office will be opened during regular business hours for the convenience of any member who wishes to review this material prior to consideration of the house. i recommend that members wishing to review the classified annex contact the committee's director of security to arrange a time and a date for the viewing. we will assure the availability of committee staff to assist members who desire assistance during their review of these classified. i urge interested members to review these materials in order

to better understand the committee's recommendations. the classified annexes to the committee's report contain the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 and related classified information that cannot be disclosed publicly. it is important that members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of house rule 23 which only permits access to classified information by those members of the house who have signed the oath provided in the rules. if a member has not yet signed that oath but wishes to review e classified annexes and schedules, they can administer the oath and see to it that the form will go to the clerk's office. the rule requires that members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement. it indicates that the member has access to the classified an annexes and they're familiar with the rules of the house and the committee with the classified nature of the information and the limitations

on the disclosure of that information. and with that i would yield back and thank you, again, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from virginia -- the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session in observation of memorial day. on tuesday the house will meet in pro forma session noon. on wednesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on 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 for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list will be announced at the close of business tomorrow. in addition the house will consider h.r. 4660, the fiscal year 2015 commerce, justice and science appropriations act, sponsored by subcommittee chairman frank wolf. members are advised that general and amendment debate of the bill is expected after the 6:00 p.m. vote series wednesday night. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 4661, the fiscal years 2014 and 2015 intelligence authorization act, authored by chairman mike rogers. providing the tools and the oversight of the intelligence community is a vital role of congress, as we've shown earlier today. we should remember the intelligence community serves a vital role in warning senior policymakers about looming threats and is absolutely essential to meeting the needs

of our military. sustaining our military and our intelligence capabilities are core interests of the united states. i look forward to swift passage of this bill in the house, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i note the appropriation bill, the c.j.s. bill, will be on the floor next week. let me pursue, if i can, mr. leader -- mr. speaker, the progress that the appropriations committee will be making. am i correct, mr. leader, that this will be an open rule on the c.j.s. bill? mr. cantor: i would say, mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman that the rules committee has already done its work and the house has already passed the rule bill which provides for an open rule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i understand in addition that the appropriations committee continues to mark up bills this week, passed their fourth bill, the transportation-h.u.d. bill out of the committee.

the question i would propound to the majority leader, mr. speaker, is whether or not we nticipate completing the markup of the 12 appropriation bills before the august break, and i yield to the majority leader. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman that the committee certainly has expressed its desire, as our conference has, as the speaker has, to move all 12 appropriations bills and we'll move towards that goal with expeditious nature as much as we can. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, for the information. obviously one of the bills that i am particularly concerned about is the labor, health and education investments that we have been making. there is a substantial cut proposed in the 302-b allocations which is the allocations of the larger

number to the 12 subcommittees. a substantial cut in the labor-health bill well below historic levels, and i hope as we continue to work through the appropriations process that we can address that issue and not double down on the cuts that have already occurred and what i think the leader and i both believe is a very critical bill which includes funding for the national institutes of health. we have 31 days left to go before the august break, legislative days, 43 days until our break in october so time is of the essence and i would hope we could address these bills and debate the priorities that these bills represent before we leave for the august break. and i yield to my friend if he wants to comment on that. mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman just briefly, there's $1 billion cut to $155 billion bill. it represents .9% decrease,

according to what the committee has set forth as far as the 302-b's are concerned. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the $155 billion, of course, is a gross figure, and includes items beyond discretionary figures in that bill. the fact of the matter is that n.i.h. is cut by a very substantially higher percentage than that. somewhere in the neighborhood of 6%. maybe 5%. and so it's a substantial decrease in the ability to pursue grants, both external grants and internal research by the n.i.h. on the afflictions that confront our people, whether it be heart disease, cancer, pediatric research, diabetes, alzheimer's, all of

those that will be affected to a much larger extent than would be projected by the gross figure of $155 billion to which -- mr. cantor: mr. speaker, if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: i certainly will yield. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. just to clarify, the amount of $155 billion is a 302-b. that's the discretionary amount. so i would just underscore the fact that that $1 billion cut applies to the $155 billion discretionary amount. the gentleman knows, he's worked on issues of n.i.h. funding, knows that i am very committed to making a priority out of funding medical research at n.i.h. we've been successful in the house, the president signed into law the research act which was just the first step towards making a priority out of medical research in this instance for pediatrics and to doing away with spending in other areas that are not as much of a priority. i believe, mr. speaker, that leadership is about assessing

priorities and making sure taxpayer dollars are being allocated as such. we also passed bills out of the house having to deal with graduate medical education and making sure that pediatrics and the need for more pediatricians to deal with children is there. so i share the gentleman's overall concern that we make a commitment long term to finding ultimately t we can save lives but also save taxpayer dollars as we would like to arrest the increase in health care costs, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, for his remarks, and i'll look forward to debating what he says is an important responsibility in this house and that is to set priorities. and when the labor-health bill comes before us and the 155 is

the gross number that goes to that committee, the $30 billion-plus is what n.i.h. has and the $1 billion goes to n.i.h., not to the gross figure of $155 billion. i understand the figures, but we will have an opportunity to debate that when we come to the floor on the labor-health bill if in fact we ever come to the floor on the labor-health bill. we didn't come to it last year or the year before. hopefully we will come to it this year. to additional things i would like to ask the leader, mr. speaker. earlier this week i had an opportunity to meet with the dreamers, a number of dreamers who want to join the armed forces of the united states. there is a bill called the enlist act, introduced by one of our republican members, that essentially says we're going to allow dreamers to enlist and true their service they could

-- and through their service they could establish their path to citizenship. now, mr. speaker, that's an important bill for me because my father came from denmark. he came here in 1934 at the age of 32. he served in the armed forces of the united states and became a citizen through his service during world war ii in the armed forces of the united states. the sponsor of the enlist act wanted to offer it to the defense authorization bill that we just passed. last year when the house considered defense authorization bill, an amendment similar to the enlist act was made in order. unfortunately, it was not made in order this time. so we didn't get an opportunity to vote on that. one way or the other. the majority leader knows, mr. speaker, that i've been asking in almost every colloquy, when we're going to consider legislation that will deal with the broken legislation system

that confronts us. this was one opportunity that was again rejected. not missed, rejected. so many colleagues, mr. speaker, on the republican side of the aisle, mr. schock, said we need a clear path to citizenship for workers who are already here. adam kinser -- kinzinger said we have the opportunity to grow our economy and we must work hard to come to an agreement and bring undocumented workers out of the shadows. john shimkus said we have to address the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are them y here by moving legally into the work force. chamber of commerce, afl-cio, growers, farmworkers, faith groups across the spectrum, all urging us to pass immigration re form, yet, frankly, we are not addressing it in any way, even

on this which i think, surely we could have gotten consensus on the enlist act was itself rejected. i would urge the majority leader, mr. speaker, to perhaps give us some sense beyond, we don't trust the president. we know that hardly anybody on the other side of the aisle trusts the president. if the issue is simply trusting the president, let's shut down. let's not do anything which essentially is what we've done, as a matter of fact. as i say that. let's not do anything. let's not pass any new laws. that's not what the american people expect but that seems to be the premise. now presuming we pass the defense authorization act as we expect the president to pass it, but if we don't trust him, why pass the bill? that's not an excuse. that's not a reason. in fact, it's a derogation of our responsibility, mr. speaker.

i would hope that the majority leader could tell me when, if ever, we're going to address the broken system that he and i agree is a broken system. i'll yield to my friend the majority leader. mr. cantor: the gentleman knows i'm one who consistently says that the immigration system is broken. i've also said that i am -- i'm mindful and support the fact that if a kid who is brought here by his parents, his or her parents, unbeknownst to that child, has never lived anywhere else, or remembers hiing anywhere else, and wants to serve in our military should be able to do so and it is my position that that child should have a path to citizenship after such service. however, the ndaa bill was not the appropriate place for the discussion on that issue. i have been consistent with that

position over the last several weeks and months. i remain committed to what the intent of the enlist act is trying to achieve. there are members involved who are working on the necessary language to see whether it is possible for us to move forward on that measure. beyond that, on the issue of comprehensive bill that the gentleman refers to, he knows we've stood here many times before, we are opposed to the senate bill. i've had substitutions with the white house and continue to say i'm opposed, we're opposed to a comprehensive bill. and whether the gentleman likes wedoesn't like the fact that -- there's not a lot of trust on the part of this house or this majority and the president, frankly it's about the american people. what they've seen is unilateral action being taken by this white

house and the president on bills passed by congress. and it is at a minimum frustrating for us in the house to watch what goes on in the flouting of congress, the ignoring of congress, when it comes to decisions made to implement a law according to what the white house thinks it is. not according to the statutes. and this is the fundamental problem. i've expressed that myself to the president and if we could see our way toward discreet, incremental steps, toward strengthening law enforcement at the border, toward doing things like the green card on the diploma or the enlist act without the introduction of the insistence of a comprehensive attempt, then i believe we may be able to make progress. but to this day, it has been my way or the highway, all of nothing. that is not going to work.

i've told the gentleman that publicly and privately, mr. speaker, and i will just say so again. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments but very frankly, we can't impose my way or the highway in this house. mr. speaker, as you well know, the republicans are in the majority. we can't impose any way. we can simply ask for some way to be brought to the floor. it can be brought forth individually, the enlist act, i would ask, mr. speaker, whether the majority leader believes the enlist act is going to be brought to the floor? i would ask him whether any of the bills that are passed out of the republican judiciary committee are going to be brought to the floor? they passed out over six months ago. a bill out of the homeland security committee to deal with border security passed out of the committee some four plus months ago. has not been brought to this floor. so we're not looking for my way, we're looking for any way.

some way. we're looking for a path, a way to get to addressing this issue. and there has been no way. he's correct. but it's not us who are imposing no way. it is the failure to bring a bill to the floor, mr. speaker, that we can consider. in a transparent way, the house can work its will, which of course was the commitment that speaker boehner made when he became the speaker of this house. so that's the problem. not what the president does, not what the senate does but what we are not doing on this house floor. that is bringing options to the floor that we can vote up or down and maybe we'll lose, there were four bills out of the judiciary committee that we didn't largely support. but republican leadership in the committee supported those bills, the majority of republicans supported those bills, they're not to the floor. so it's a question of not doing it your way.

we're doing it no way. so i continue to be frustrated and the majority leader, mr. speaker, responds to me that somehow they don't trust the president. presumably, they trust their committee chairs, presumably you trust yourselves, presumably if you bring something to the floor you trust that you will vote the way you believe, as we will do on this side of the aisle, and maybe some on our side of the aisle will agree with you, maybe some on your side will agree with us. if we don't bring it to the floor it's no way. we're not going to get much progress there. two other issues i'll discuss briefly unless the majority leader wants to respond to that. the voting rights act, he and i have had brief discussions about that, i know he's expressed himself publicly. mr. leader is there any possibility of us making progress on the voting rights act dean now and august -- and the august break? and mr. speaker, i yield to the

majority leader. mr. cantor: as the gentleman knows, i am committed, remain committed to upholding the very sacred right to vote for all americans. all american citizens. act as the voting rights something that has historically afforded that ability. with the recent actions of the supreme court it has raised some issues, obviously in the minds of some in the house. we've been working with our members on our side of the aisle as well as the gentleman's. i know the senate is undertaking hearings across the way and it is still my hope to try to resolve this in an acceptable manner. i do know that there's still a lot of differences and the gentleman knows as well, but i remain committed again to making sure we uphold that sacred right to vote for all american citizens. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i want to thank the majority leader for his continuing comments, positive comments with respect to assuring that every american

not only has the right to vote but has access to vote and we facilitate them casting that vote. i look forward and my office looks forward to continuing to work with him toward that objective. time, of course, is of the essence on this, so i'm hopeful we can move forward sooner rather than later. the last subject i would bring up, we've also had brief discussions on this, mr. speaker, the majority leader, the export-import bank authority will expire in the not too distant future and we believe on this side of the aisle this is a very, very important piece of legislation. we have an agenda called make it in america, one that is important for the make it in america agenda is to encourage and facilitate the exporting of goods overseas. we think the export-import bank does exactly that. i would ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, if there is any prospect of bringing that to the

floor? i might observe that the majority leader and i worked very, very closely and effectively in a bipartisan way when we authorized the export-import bank the last time. i'm hopeful we can continue to do the same and i yield to my friend the majority leader. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, i have said to the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. hensarling, that i will look to him and his leadership on that issue as the committee works its way through the very issues and the member positions that are out there and look to see what the financial services committee does. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand that comment, i also understand that the chairman of the financial services committee is opposed to the export-import bank, he said that publicly. so i would hope that at some point in time, again, the majority of the house could work its will.

i do not believe the chairman of the financial services committee represents the majority of this house in this instance. and therefore i'm hopeful that we can move forward and i can work with the majority leader's office as we did in the last authorization to reach that objective and unless the majority leader wants me to yield, i'll yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. when the house adnourns on -- adjourns on that day, it adjourn tuesday, and:00 on when it adjourns on that day, it adnourn -- it adjourn to meet at noon on wednesday and 2:00 p.m.

for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to congratulate four members of the pennsylvania national guard who placed among the top four teams in the national sullivan cup armor competition held may 11 through 15 of this year at fort benning, georgia. mr. perry: sernlt first plass brian bailey, sergeant michael chultz, specialist timothy zachary, d specialist represent the brigade that came in fourth out of only 17 u.s. army, marine corps and canadian tank crews. the toughness, skill level and

experience demonstrated by our guard soldiers is further proof that the 55th armored brigade not only is one of the elite brigades in the entire u.s. that ut also more proof the guard is, absolutely is, ready trained -- ready, trained, and capable. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to continue to call for action for problems we face at v.a. clinics across the country. this action hits home for folks in georgia where three veterans have died and many more have seen their condition worsen because of inadequate health care. mr. barrow: this issue won't go anywhere until we hold someone accountable for what went wrong that should start with secretary eric shinseki. he's done a tremendous service

for this country. while he's tried to do good thingers in v.a. in his time, our veterans aren't getting the most basic benefits they've earned. months have passed and no one has been held responsible new york solution has been found and getting information from the v.a. is like pulling teeth. the folks i represent want answers. the secretary stepping down should be the start of a nationwide effort to rebuild the v.a. because that's what our veterans deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? . mr. thompson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i'm proud that language that representative tim ryan and i introduced in march, h.r. 4305, the medical evaluation parody for service members act, was included as an amendment in the national defense authorization act. this bipartisan legislation passed the full house this morning. where our military has made

great strides to address medical illness, given the challenges in light of the tragic events such as those in fort hood, we must and can do more. today, military recruits must undergo comprehensive physical evaluations, some are surprised or even shocked to hear is currently no similar exam includes to mental competency. it will have a mental assessment. this bill will offer our military to an approach to suicide prevention and detection. i applaud my colleagues to support this amendment and this bill and encourage the senate to take important action on this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hahn: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize national maritime day, an opportunity for us to celebrate and salute our mariners who have protected

this great nation. since the early days of this nation, the united states' merchant marines have been the found ace of our economic security, serving as our fourth arm of defense in both peace and war. they've been essential in bringing food to the world's hungry and delivering supplies to our brave men and women overseas in times of war. they've done so much for our nation, and today on national maritime day, we take this opportunity to honor their service and sacrifice. over 200,000 merchant mariners served in world war ii and more than 8,000 lost their lives in enemy waters, a rate higher than any uniformed service. fortunately, these brave men were not eligible -- unfortunately, these brave were not eligible for the g.i. bill. that's why i introduced the honoring our world war ii merchant mariners act of 2013. this bill would provide just $1,000 in monthly benefits to the nearly 10,000 surviving world war ii mariners. and i'd like to give a shout

out to the committee in san pedro that is honoring our national maritime day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman seek unanimous consent? mrs. blackburn: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i rise to thank airman mckeon for supporting the dot-com act as an amendment to our national defense authorization act. i support a free multistakeholder model of internet governance and in a rfect world and i can and we would be full of privatization. we know full well that china and russia have a different view of perfection and are willingly to aggressively pursue it. their end goal is to have i can

to migrate to the u.n. i.t.u. the passage of enda and the inclusion of dot-com gives the multistakeholder model a chance to succeed. but it does so with congressional oversight. however, if we begin to sense even for a minute that model isn't working, i'll be the first member to call on this body to take even stronger actions. again, i thank the chairman and my colleagues for bringing this about today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, after more than a decade of war, the loss of 2,178 american heroes, thousands seriously injured and the expenditure of nearly $2 trillion, we must end our military presence in afghanistan now. bring our troops home and begin

to if he cuss on the challenges we face here in america. a long-term peace in the region can only be accomplished if the people of afghanistan assume responsibility for their own security. yesterday, our colleague, jim mcgovern, offered an amendment that directed the president to rapidly accelerate the transition of u.s. combat operations in afghanistan to the afghan government by december, one that would require congressional approval if the president sought to keep military forces in afghanistan after that. unfortunately, we were denied the right to have a debate and vote on this amendment. we owe the brave men and women in uniform a clear plan to bring them home safely and soon and to end this war now. after more than 12 years of war and the killing of osama bin laden, it's time to end the war in afghanistan and instead focus our attention on creating jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, providing care for our veterans and focusing on the serious fiscal challenges facing our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to extend my deepest condolences and those of florida's 13th congressional district to the family, friends and fellow police officers of mr. douglas h. kerry who tragically lost his life earlier this week. mr. jolly: officer kerry began his service with the clearwater police department as a patrolman on december 9, 1968. for nearly two decades, he assisted the people of clearwater as a patrolman, a field training officer and eventually as a detective. but his retirement from police work in 1987 was hardly the end of service. following his retirement, officer kerry served on the security staff of morton clant hospital and in 2010 he rejoined his brothers and sisters in the police department as a school crossing guard. he lost his life doing what he loved and doing best,

protecting and serving his community. officer kerry was 70 years old. i wish to honor the life of officer kerry, who is survived by his wife, his son, his daughter and his young grandson. officer kerry will be greatly missed, but his spirit lives on through the many, many lives he's touched in our community of pinellas county, florida. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, last week i had the opportunity to meet with a bright young boy who was diagnosed with tourette syndrome and is working to bring attention to this disorder. his passion is an inspiration and i want to share his importance of raising awareness. dr. congressman lujan, i live in rio rancho, new mexico and am 14 years old.

i grew up with a neurological disorder called tourette syndrome. it causes me and about 200,000 others in the united states to make sudden movements and uncontrolable sounds. this disorder affects me daily and is a life-long condition and there is no cure for tourette syndrome. i have oto live daily with painful neck and body >>. others with this disorder have different severity levels and different types of movement. it is notable to others but i do not know that i am doing this movement sometimes. there are not many doctors that are experienced with tourette syndrome and it took me four years to be properly diagnosed. may 14 to may 15 is national tourette syndrome month and i am writing to tell you the awareness of the challenges people face with this syndrome. any help you can give will be greatly appreciated to me and all those who suffer from this disorder. thank you. thank you, alexander, for your voice, and i look forward to working with you on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. most important function of our government is to provide for the common defense. mr. nunnelee: that's why i'm pleased that the national defense authorization act blocks the administration's in strength reduction proposal as well as redistribution of national guard, aviations a pecks pekts. but i do have specific concerns, specifically to the misguide and shortsighted proposal that the impact on the mississippi national guard 155th heavy brigade combat team. this unit has a proven history of defending freedom abroad, but recently when our state was hit by devastating tornados, these were the first responders. they provided vital security of search and rescue. i commend these men and women that make up the 155th and express my concern for the support of their mission. congress cannot balance our budget on the backs of women men and women who volunteer to

support our nation. we must look at all forms of federal spending, not just the discretionary spending alone. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, our veterans risk their lives in service to our nation and when they come home they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, especially by those they count on to provide them with essential medical care. mr. fitzpatrick: the disturbing reports of the unethical treatment of our military men and women at the v.a. is not only an affront on those who we count on to protect our freedoms and liberties, it shows the systemic lack of accountability, starting at the top and permeating throughout the agency. mr. speaker, no veteran should pass away waiting for the care they need or the benefits they deserve. the ineptitude of the v.a. is

an affront to the sacrifice of the veterans who are turning to this agency for assistance and the taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars should be funding this worthy cause. while this week the house took action to empower the v.a. to rid itself of those who fail to meet their responsibilities with the passage of the department of veterans affairs management accountability act, there is still much work to be done. and i firmly believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, will continue to shine a bright light on this situation until we assure that the v.a. provides the service and respect that our veterans deserve. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. rise today mr. speaker, to highlight the sermon this sunday at the church of the

jerusalem.proca in they are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the first historic meeting between their predecessors, pope paul 6:00 and he can minutecal patriarch in 1964. sunday's meeting in the holly land shows respect and admiration between the two churches that was reignited 50 years ago. and it's fitting that it takes place at the birthplace of christianity, jerusalem. i commend the leadership of pope francis and the patriarch bartholomew who both glorify god and demonstrate that christianity is characterized by love, peace and compassion. thank you and i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. all that we do and all that america does is to the greatness of our constitution and to the men and women who we'll honor this coming monday, memorial day. i call today upon americans, wherever they may be, to stop for a moment to honor them. few years ago i passed a unanimous legislation on this floor to honor all of those who had ever served in combat. but we honor those who fell in the line of duty. this coming week we will we should m as every year. as i go home i'll be visiting one of my veterans' hospitals to be reminded of those who still stand and to commit that we will fix every problem that denies or undermines the health care system of our veterans.

i've introduced the heroes act, to ensure that veterans who have gained many good skills in service can equate those skills to civilian work, that they're treated with respect and dignity as managers and leaders, because that's what they were when they served in the united states military. and so we honor our fallen soldiers and their families. we'll gather together as americans this weekend. we'll stand united under the flag saying thank you for you have shown all of us that freedom is not free. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. under the speaker's policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority eader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to comment about the

work done on the national defense authorization act. i know chairman mckeon has done a tremendous amount of work. i know it's from dealing with the uring this week on defense budget, it has been extremely difficult for him. . our main concern where we have an administration that has kept our people in afghanistan with less than favorable rules of engagement, but we have people harm's way and constantly being called on to be alert, be may be ons where they the m's way, and yet

authorization ends up being $45 billion less than the president's own projection for fiscal year 2014 budget request, and $30.7 billion less than that that was enacted for fiscal year 014 in the ndaa public law 113 -66. ck in the summer of 2011 i ld our leadership that the deficit was a major problem, of course, as all of our conference realizes as those on the other side of the aisle are used to talk about until they got into the majority and blew the lid off the deficit. but to raise the debt ceiling, set up a supercommittee, that i

knew was going to fail, said it was going to fail because the senate democrats would never allow an agreement because they wanted to be able to blame republicans for not getting a deal in the mainstream media always buys whatever they said, even when they shut down the government, as harry reid did last september 30, by refusing to take up even the most extreme compromises that this house was willing to make. so they know it will get covered from the mainstream media, and even some amazing examples of complete abandonment of any type of journalistic integrity. they knew they would be protected, so they did refuse to

allow an agreement even when senators, republican senators reached out, indications were they thought they could get a deal, but i knew they were not going to allow the supercommittee to reach an agreement, no matter how far they bend over backwards. that's what happened. that meant the sequestration would occur and i had no problem with the amount of cuts in the sequestration. i had a problem with the number one job of the federal government being to provide for the common defense, taking the biggest devastating hit in the sequestration. that was the problem. and so because of that i am still very concerned about the massive cuts to our defense when we are more hated than ever, trusted less than ever, our

previous friends are now reaching out to china and russia because they can't trust us. in trips abroad i know the administration doesn't like members of congress to go abroad because we end up talking directly to people and finding out what they really think so we don't get indirect misrepresentations, and you find out around the world people don't trust this administration. our allies are saying, are we going to be the next ally that you throw away as you have been doing in recent years under this administration? as i have said before the elderly african and west africa who told me how excited they were when we elected our first african-american president, but ever since he had been president he said, the united states keeps getting weaker and weaker, and you've got to stop. please tell the people in washington to stop allowing the

united states to get weaker. as christians they knew, they said, where they would go when this life was over. but their hope, as he said, for a more safe and free life here, even for west african, would be when the united states does not get weaker but stands against tyranny. and stands against any threat bokeo keo had a ram -- would be a o haram, threat to christians everywhere. i'm also very concerned as one lincoln ves as abraham says, as is inscribed in the north wall of the lincoln memorial as parts of his second inaugural address, that, as he

quoted from scripture, the judgments of the lord are just and righteous all together. and i'm very concerned that when ur nation is the most powerful nation in the world, at the time when christian persecutions by number, not necessarily by percentage, but by number are probably the greatest they have ever been in history of the world, since jesus was on earth. and we do nothing except watch . e persecutions grow and grow there will ultimately be some accountability if, as abraham lincoln said, as he and i believe, the judgments of the lord are just and righteous altogether. when someone is given much of them much is expected.

we have an obligation, we have been put in a position of where we can stand up for righteousness. and it did take a while for this nation to get to the point where the constitution meant exactly what it said. but what helped us get there was what was originally in the declaration of independence, a belief that we are endowed by our creator, not endowed by government, not endowed by a monarch, we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. and when we fail to acknowledge that creator, when we fail to stand up for those who acknowledge the creator, when we to stand up and provide for the common defense, then there

will be a price to pay. israel is feeling it. the mainstream media doesn't talk about it. israel doesn't want to be considered a whiner, but they are being constantly under attack from rockets. why? because they are jews. and because they are in the middle east, in the same location that was called the promise land where around 1,600 years ago or so before muhammad lived, king david was ruling in the land where they now are, and in the location in hebron for example where he ruled the first seven years as king of israel, some say, well, clearly that's not israeli land. people that worship muhammad that came along 1,600 years after christ -- i'm sorry, after king david was ruling if that

town, other 600 years or so after christ, surely they have a better claim. and yet we tell israel that they have to constantly be giving up and be -- even have our secretary of state saying that they are guilty of apartheid, they are risking that guilt if they don't do everything that our secretary of state says. where he's previously warned if they don't do what secretary kerry said they may bring another wave of murder upon themselves. it sounded like a threat. i mean there are consequences our friends ho put in jeopardy. and for those that think, well, just because we have leaders making bad statements, making bad decisions, doesn't mean it will reflect on us in the country. but for those who believe what's

in the bible as the huge ajority did of our founders, those who wrote translations of the bible, those who taught sunday school. one of the founders started the sunday school movement in america. i mean it is amazing the strength of ties. even though some teach today that ben franklin was a deist, his statements made clear that was not the case. as he he himself said, and then recorded in his own handwriting of the speech he gave, he said i have lived, sir, a long time. but the longer i live, the more convincing proofs i see of this truth, god governs in the affairs of men. a spare row cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible an empire could rise without his aid? frankly said to the constitutional convention as he went on, we have been assured,

sir, in the sacred writing, that unless the lord build a house they labor in vain to build it. he said, and firmly believed this, i also firmly believe that without his, god's concurring aid, we shall succeed in our political building no matter than the builders of babble. t when god was telling josea why he was mad at the children of israel, i looked at different ranslations, one basically had him saying because they have chosen leaders who were not my choice. a nation is responsible for the leaders they select. it doesn't matter that john kerry was rejected by the nation to be the national spokes penn -- spokesperson and national president because when he he is

secretary of state -- when he he is secretary of state and he makes statements that hurt our dearest allies, then we as a nation will be accountable for his missteps and mistakes in judgment. we have an obligation to demand better from our leaders. and in the -- it is a scandal with regard to the veterans administration, and for anyone to stand up and say, wow, i had no idea that these problems were ing on, stretches the bounds of credibility when that same person said back in 2008 in condemnation of the bush administration that they were not doing enough for our veterans and condemned the bush administration and made clear that when i get in office i will clear up these problems.

i will take care of our veterans. so as a former judge, those statements, prior statements against interests, would be allowed into evidence to show that something that was said yesterday was not truthful. wasuse the mental awareness shown in 2008. it was also shown by statements in 2009. 2010, and then we find out there was a document reflecting that there were these problems with the veterans administration. our veterans deserve better. i was in the army for four years. i don't deserve better. i never saw combat. i still think we should have in 1979, i still feel guilty that because we were not sent to respond at all to an act of war

in 1979, that thousands of americans have died because we didn't take a stand in 1979, so they got stronger and stronger and stronger until they have gotten to the place that the taliban takes over afghanistan. in have a renegade regime iran that president carter welcomed in the ayatollah khomeini as a man of peace. and of course it makes sense that the policies of this administration are as they are when you have someone who is a featured speaker. in which they were

bragging about the top officials in the obama administration who are members of the muslim brotherhood. perhaps that explains why this administration has remained so loyal to the muslim brotherhood abroad. such that moderate muslims as you travel abroad ask you, why are you supporting your enemy? the muslim brotherhood wants to eliminate everything but radical islam in america and in the world. why are you helping them. . they are your enemy. they are behind the attacks made on the united states. why are you helping them? in as i speak, mr. speaker,

former terrorist pporter had reigned, since twee, some israelis said -- 2003, some israelis said he was the best help in identifying radical islam and terrorism and yet you took him out and we did with our air cover and providing weapons to rebels we knew had al qaeda in them and turns out they were far stronger than we even knew which is why some of us were saying, don't be helping the rebels in libya. we knew we had al qaeda in . em, and yet we helped them as you travel abroad, you'll find people saying, you're still helping your enemy, we're worried you're going to turn on

us next. you turn on your allies, you punish your allies and you reward your enemies. what kind of foreign policy is that? it never works. you will not win over people that hate you by giving them money and arms. they don't think you're a wonderful country because they're giving you money and arms. they know you are crazy and you need to be wiped off the planet because you don't deserve to be a superpower. you're too stupid and you give your people too much freedom which allows them to choose some other religion than radical islam. moderate muslims around the world do not want radical islam reigning over them and that's why the people of egypt rose up, an if this administration -- and if this administration would do anything to show a owerful support for the nearly

double of the people that voted for morsi to be president, that came out in time to partition, the two or three times as many millions came to the street in demanding his removal as he said voted for him. there were fraud allegations, but from talking to the egyptians apparently morsi had made it clear that anybody -- that if anybody objected to his win of the election, they would, as they said, burn egypt down. the people that are in charge in egypt don't want radical islam's return, but when you talk to them you find out one of their biggest problems -- well, two big problems or biggest problems is on their est, the eastern area of libya

, since this administration made sure gaddafi was eliminated, now terrorist training camps, like the taliban had in afghanistan, are now in libya. and they come in and out of egypt. and because of this administration's support for morsi, he was able to militaryize and weaponize the sinai like it had never been weaponized before, making it more of a threat to israel and making it more of a threat to lovers of peace in egypt. there are consequences, even for those in this country, who object to what the administration has done when they don't rise up and use their voices to make clear to this administration through vocal ns and through objections that they're making a huge mistake.

and if they don't support lovers of liberty and christian that and jewish allies there will be a great amount to pay in the next election. and when that's made clear, i find my friends across the aisle get very responsive to the american people because apparently something that is a truth in america, as in other places, when someone's elected to a position they pursue, they like to stay in that position. some of us wonder at times if been orth it, but as i've told before, you got to say this is where the fight is. well, i also submit that the fight is across america. people need to wake up, stop the apathy and make it clear to those in this administration in going to t you're not

stand for the kind of things that are going on. and when it's made clear that we will not as a nation tolerate what this administration has been allowing and looking the other way on in the veterans administration, then things will change, not until then. nd when it's made clear to this administration that obamacare is a threat to seniors, it did cut $716 billion from medicare, which means they are not going to get when alth care they need, you're spending billions of dollars to hire i.r.s. agents and navigators, more bureaucrats, then that is billions of dollars that will not be saving lives of people that need life-saving medications, need life-saving procedures. americans have got to wake up

and demand better, and when they do they'll get it. but i also want to touch on the u.s. freedom act, as it was labeled. i had an amendment because i applauded -- though i applauded the work that was done by this -- by those, my friend, mr. sensenbrenner, to negotiate an agreement, i still had the same concern i had back in 2005 and 2006 as a freshman. and i brought it to the attention of the bush justice department, gonzalez justice department, i brought it to the attention of the bush administration that i'm concerned about this part in the patriot act where it says, like in section 215, that you can go after anybody in an

investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information that is not concerning a united states person. i'm quoting from the law. -- then the disjunket disjunctive or that would allow for another independent phrase, it will allow to protect against international terrorism. so in both of those cases, they have to involve foreign entity, foreign agent, foreign country, you know, foreign group of some kind, international terrorism, those have to be involved for the patriot act to apply. apparently as congress was told when the patriot act was passed back in desperation after 9/11/01, we have got to protect against international terrorism, foreign agents, people who are dealing with foreign agents, that's what it was for. so this third part concerns me

because it says, or to protect against clandestine intelligence activities. clandestine intelligence activities, what does that mean? it's very vague, and it doesn't say foreign. it doesn't say international. and since we were told that we're not allowed to just go gather information about american citizens, then this should have the word foreign or international in there. so my amendment to the u.s. freedom act that would amend this put that in there. it dealt with that. the amendment that was fought against by my friend, mr. sensenbrenner, and was -- they had two perfect of a cake that ey had baked, and they, as mcarthur parks said, will never have the recipe again, oh, no,

they couldn't allow a change to their recipe so they didn't allow any reference to any foreign or international. and the other references within the patriot act and the other references like in 18 u.s.c. 1842 talks about to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a united states person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. so it needed the word foreign or international somehow in there, provided that, but the proponents of the u.s.a. freedom act didn't want it in, although my amendment originally passed in committee. was revoted on a voice vote quickly after we were coming back from a vote on the floor and taken out, and although a majority of those in the rules

committee said my amendment needed to be in the law to protect it -- protect american citizens, when the rule came out the rule said my amendment was not going to be aloud to have a -- allowed to have a vote so i had to vote against the u.s.a. freedom act because this is a gaping hole that allows the federal government to go after and spy on american citizens who have no contact with any foreign government, any foreign agent, have no ties at all to international terrorism, haven't necessarily even thought about terrorism but this, if they can be alleged to have engaged in any type of clandestine intelligence activities, you can go after them and spy on them. i've t means that, gee, asked the question and i've not gotten any satisfactory answer,

any answer, really. does that mean if anyone looks over a fence on a federal clafe that that is trying -- enclave that that is trying to get information or invoke this patriot act? or if someone mistakenly goes to a website, does that invoke this provision that allows you to go after them? and i haven't gotten a good answer and i haven't been told how this has been applied. i was hoping to get an answer that it's never been used, but i haven't gotten that either. as a result, i had to vote act t the u.s.a. freedom because i didn't want my name on a bill that leaves a hole this large, allowing the federal government to go after american citizens who've never been even thought about terrorism and have never had any contact with a foreign agent. so, mr. speaker, i want to we erate again, i think

ll suffer if having been given so much, more freedom, more assets than any nation in the history of the world, if we do not stand up for jews and christians being persecuted around the world, we've clearly gone to war and lost human life, limb on behalf of protecting muslims in the world it is time that we also stood for christians and jews around the world. never thought i'd see anti-semitism arrive in my lifetime like it has. on college campuses, they've become anti-smetic and racist. - anti-semitic and racist,

anti-israeli. we got to demand better from this administration, and we got to stand up for those jews and christians who are being persecuted and oppressed in greater numbers than ever before. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, is recognized for the balance of time of the hour as the designee of the majority eader. thank you, mr. speaker. this is a conversation that's been a long time coming. i'm in my first term here in the

house of representatives, and soon after becoming a federal representative it became very apparent to me that our veterans in california and our districts and all across the country really need a lot more of our help as members of congress, as our staff, and our district, and even in d.c. can do for us, for the veterans. you have seen the revelations here lately that are finally taking the attention of the american public. it's what's been going on in arizona. previously pittsburgh with legionaires disease. many other revelations about how poorly our veterans are being treated in this country once they served for us and have come home and expect the things that they were promised before they made that service for us. for example, revelations about secret waiting lists in the veterans administration, as we have seen in arizona, that shocked most americans here in recent weeks. today i speak out on an even

bigger crisis within the v.a. system, this, the monumental failure of the oakland, california veterans benefits administration. most of our veterans must run through this nightmarish gauntlet before they could even hope to be added to the secret waitinglies at a veterans administration medical facility. here on the floor we talked a lot about claims backlogs often and we have seen mountains of paper files. our inevitable solution always seems to be give them more money to fix the problem. well, congress with the american taxpayers' dollars have funded v.a. pretty adequately. we have made an effort here recently. to try to help catch up the backlog with the funding required. we were then issued cheerful responses of decreases in processing times that are systematically manipulated by upper level officials of v.a. in

order to show progress to make us go away. right now the oakland office boasts that they have no claims over 125 days old. in reality tens of thousands at the oakland v.a. are trapped in a cycle, many veterans call delay, deny, and wait until they die. one main trick is to omit key information that would help the veteran and his or her claim, whether it be the exams, timelines, what have you, then deny the claim, ship it off for two or three years' worth of review and appeal process, in the meantime we'll deem it processed. the management is more interested in the open number of claim stats on the reports than processing them accurately or in a timely fashion. and then reaping bonuses by

posting a savings to the government, to the taxpayers, by denying these claims and these payments. how many veterans are homeless because their claims or benefits have been sitting on a cart or in a janitor's closet or the hallway by the director's office for years or even decades? benefits that would help them to not be homeless, to have shelter, to have better health. to even be in a place where they could then seek employment and be in a much better way? how many veterans have suffered and died waiting years for their claim to be handled so they could seek medical treatment? some of it needing to be very timely to have exams and treatment. how many of our veterans have given up hope and committed suicide out of desperation and

despair that comes with years of waiting because they don't feel like anybody cares about them anymore and that they don't have any value for our society? yet on weekends like we have coming up we glorify them, as we should, those who have fallen on memorial day, and later in the year on veterans day. yet this is what our government does to them. we know we have veterans that take this ultimate step of suicide. we know they exist. i submit that many of our nation's veterans are part of a backlog that exceeds the most extraordinary numbers we currently have on file. for example, for this past year my own office has been assisting for the full year a veteran with 36-year-old claim due to management practices, if you call them practices, at the

oakland regional office, this veteran still suffers this day from not having his claim properly handled. remember, he's not even eligible yet after 36 years to make it on to the secret waiting list for medical care as in arizona. to then finally graduate to the real list. atlanta even made that -- hasn't even made that, 36 years. the veterans administration declares, our values are more than just words. they affect outcomes in our daily interactions with veterans and eligible beneficiaries and with each other. taking the first letter of each word in their code, integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, excellent, creates a powerful acronym. one that says, i care.

that reminds each v.a. employ hee of the importance of their role in this department. these core values come together as five promises we make as individuals and organization to those we serve, end quote. now, let me underscore we know there are many, many very hardworking, caring v.a. employees out there that want to get results for the veterans. many of them have been veterans themselves. so this isn't to impugn all them. this is about upper management on a topic that's been even -- the president has focused on this week, not getting the job done and trying to snow us here in the congress and the american people about the results they have been claiming. thanks to a growing group of employees who understands these core values i just mentioned, and now feel empowered to step

forward because they see there's people that really want to get behind this and get behind them, i have been given a multiple number of signed sworn statements by employees on what is happening behind the curtain at the oakland veterans benefit administration. right here on this easel is a statement i received from one of them in the letter, just one of the few examples. i'll read that for you. i'm an employee of the veterans administration regional office in oakland. i took a photo on may 19, 2014, showing stacks of paper piled on a cart. this paper's actually claims going back to the late 1990's and 2000s. these claims are not reviewed until november of 2012, these claims continue to this day to be a pile of paper on a cart no one wants to deal with. i was part of the initial project reviewing these claims. my initials are on there from

november 2012. this is an employee from the oakland center. congressman lamalfa, i want you to know i'm a proud navy veteran of 10-plus years and welcome the opportunity to work at the veterans administration to help veterans. in the five years i have worked there, i know i have helped people, but there is so much more that could be done. the management at the regional office is concerned about the numbers not the veterans. terminal and homeless veterans wait far too long for their help that they need. i believe there are a lot of wonderful employees that truly want to help but are being directed by management to worry about number control. what i don't understand is why they can't be more transparent about the number of claims and the need for more resources. we need more employees to do the job. we don't need new carpet and desks like they just gave us when veterans die waiting for us to do our job. this job is literally -- has literally made me sick. i go to work knowing that during my day i will have to help the

veterans in a low-key way and not what i have been told is needed to get the veterans' numbers down. this makes me physically ill. i think about all the letters begging for help and we seem to do so little. i believe oakland needs new eyes. i believe we need more oversight. i believe far too many veterans die each day while we worry about what our numbers look like. these veterans go home each night in my thoughts and regrets of the day because we seem to do so little. this is a small sample of what is happening here and we have additional statements as well. what's going on inside the oakland v.a. and maybe an xample across the country. in this photograph the example of the files.

right now these are waiting in a hallway. before that they were found in a broom closet. they had been stashed for years. some of these claims go back to the mid 1990's. untouched. only recently discovered, yet they still get walked past and not handled. stacks of them. he filing cabinet. the next letter, from an oakland v.a. employee, real employee. we are keeping their names back for now because we want people to know that we are going to help them if they come forward with this information. on november, 2012, myself and several other individuals were given a special project to work. the project consisted of approximately 14,000 claims dating back to 1994 that had

never been worked. these claims are considered informal claims because they had not come in op a prescribed form. informal claims are worked differently. a letter is sent out with the correct formulater for the veteran to fill out, and when the form is returned the claim is actually opened to work. if the form is returned within one year, if the veteran receives compensation, their benefits then would go back to the date of his first correspondentence on the -- correspondent -- correspondence. we were given these claims to analyze and very quickly we began to roolize these are not all informal claims but actionable ones, not to mention how old some of them were. so many of the letters that came in were from veterans or their surviving spouses who are begging for help at the end of their life and they never got a reply because they died by the time we got them. i went home so many nights or ng because a veteran widow had begged for help and we stuck the requests in a

, r-drawer lateral cabinet kind of like so. with 14,000 other ones. each day we are required to report back to our supervisor on the numbers and how they were broken down. if the veteran had already died, it is considered nonactionable and put aside whether it actually made it to the veterans folder is unknown to me. this is an oakland employ hee. if it was an informal claim and the claimant was alive those were put in another pile to review again and maybe do the letters. if the document received came from a veteran who already filed a formal claim, then these would be considered actual claims and be reviewed by another person before being acted upon. so each day we would record our numbers and separate out the documents. we would begin to speak up about how old these were and why hand

we acted sooner on them and we were very quickly removed from the project. for speaking out. these claims are within feet of the assistant service center manager. she literally walked by them each day. yet they remained untouched until november, 2012. word was that a staff member from v.a. headquarters had actually been the one to find doing le she was there an on-site inspection. yet several long-term employees have told me that management knew they were there. either way, either one, most were very old. i don't know how many veterans or spouses died before we responded, but i personally know several hundred that got nothing and doing nothing -- and thought of not helping these veterans in their most desperate times is haunting me.

signed a v.a. employee. addressed to me. dear congressman lamalfa, i cannot thank you enough for the work you and your staff have done. big credit to my staff who worked very hard on this. for the veterans in the northern california area. one particular case should have been decided with the evidence on hand last year. today and examination found that the exams have been in the system, and there have been no action on that claim for what the system states is waiting for the examinations. the information is there, and the rating should be completed based on the evidence on hand. please keep advocating for the veterans. i cannot thank you enough. i'm a have the ran myself who served honorably for over nine years and was not he provided the benefits from the v.a. per the law until i, the veteran, who is now and oakland employee,

started working for the d.v.a. myself. and found out everything i was not informed of. i left the u.s. marine corps after serving honorably as a military police canine officer and member of the swat team. i worked hard and as a result of my disabilities required several surgeries and recently due to the hostile work environment at work have become progressively worse. i have tried to report this to management, but they do not like hearing the truth, and started to make my life at work miserable two years ago. . the news is starting to pick up regarding the unethical conduct in the v.a., prior to the news picking up on the real problems at v.a., i've been reporting this information to the senate, to the congress members in the bay area, districts. i have reported this at the v.a. office inspector general on two different occasions. i reported this to the g.a.o. i reported the problems to the federal labor relations, office

of general counsel for two years with no assistance. i have three e.e.o. claims with three more in the works that has not been processed by the oedca in and clubs washington, d.c. i'm begging you to please open a formal investigation into the unethical conduct of the v.a. oakland regional office. the unethical conduct is the fact that the oakland v.a. management has not been held accountable for the misconduct or several felony violations that has recently been reported by me. since coming out of the whistleblower i had many employees discreetly discuss some extremely disturbing information with me regarding what is actually going on in the v.a. and why the management is trying to stop me at all costs. the unethical conduct goes far beyond my employment at the

oakland regional office. i found out that the oakland regional office is not only lying to congress about their numbers but the oakland office is hiding claims that were received in 1999. i've seen these claims in the office as late as may 20, 2014, just two days ago. these claims should be in the claims file but it is not action because the veteran died in the process, not still sitting in the office for over 15 years. there are a number of claims that are over a year old. there are many more that have been lost in transit to the scan sites, often in some other state. the v.a.'s ethically challenged, this is unacceptable to lose a veteran's claim and not tell them and try to make the situation right, just ignore them and hope they go away or to not process a claim properly for over 15 years. this is a real letter from a real oakland v.a. employee. the claims have been sitting for over a year after being screened last by a group of

v.s.r.'s and no action taken because they were sitting in someone's office, then in some storage closet by the director's office on the 17th floor of the oakland federal building. again, i've made multiple statements to many agencies of the u.s. government to hope that the illegal and unethical conduct by the management would stop but the parties i reported to with ample amounts of evidence provided have explained that the corruption cannot be stopped without some sort of ethical investigation conducted. please initiate some type of ethical investigation by an agency that is not going to try to cover up what they find, rather report the truth and do the right thing. i've been a law enforcement officer in the u.s. marine corps. i know what's going on at the oakland regional office with me and with other veterans. it's wrong per the law, not my opinion. please, congressman lamalfa,

please, whatever you can do. the veterans deserve better. simplerify, usmc, disabled. fi, usmc, disabled. that's what it looks like, unfinished piles sitting in the hallways previously found in a room closet. and another letter from a person who stepped forward. finally see somebody fighting back at their different levels there. our veterans committee, it's a shame to see this brought upon our veterans and with that our country. this letter says, there are huge amounts of these claims that are quite old but because they are reclassified is not worked expeditiously. a lot goes back two years but

they don't work because they are under a different group and that's not considered a priority. a lot of these claims, the 930 series, are review claims created because we found something wrong we did. usually it's not logging in evidence in time before the claim is closed. let me say that again. something happened incorrectly in the v.a., not logging in evidence in time before the claim is closed. i personally logged in evidence on may 16, 2014, that was received by a regional office and date stamped august 1, 2013. the claim had been closed months before, but because this evidence had not been logged in, it also had not been considered in the decision. hich was a denial of benefits. this happens like this every day. now we open a review claim that will not get worked for months and sometimes a year or more. we have veterans that are terminal and asking for aid in

attendance and you would think these claims, along with the older date of claims would be worked first but a lot of times they are not. if the regional office can do several easy claims like hearing loss, tenitis, then they'll do that because more claims will be taken off the books, even though they may not be the veterans with the most need. so you see, manipulation of statistics, manipulation of timing, making the numbers look better, not making the veterans feel better. i hope that image is one that will stay with you all who have seen this or will see this. ll across our country. so much more needs to be done. not just pretty words. not just a press conference.

not a we'll look into it. not a we'll throw money at it. the congress stands prepared to make sure there's adequate money to make sure it's done right but we want to make sure that the money that the taxpayers send in to the government is used wisely and efficiently. not for bonuses for people that are not acting just ineptly but i believe corruptly. it's time to stop rewarding this bad behavior with more accountability. americans seen these stories, these horror stories, are demanding a fix to the veterans' health care system and their benefits. we almost -- we need to end phony claims, phony numbers, decades of waiting. it isn't just ineptness or miscues or errors. someone who is very deliberate.

i think worthy of prosecution. as fraud. i thank those v.a. employees who've been bold enough to step forward and let us know about what's going on in the back rooms behind the scenes. good employees that just want to see veterans served all across the country. so we want to hear more of these stories from anybody who might be watching or see this all across the country. contact your own congressman, contact us, contact whoever will listen and seek remedies that mean something as we celebrate our fallen veterans this weekend. this isn't about barbecues and skiing and picnics and things like that. let's remember and honor these people.

the system is broken but it doesn't have to be if we're willing to demand accountability and demand it immediately. that's what i'm about, what my office will be about, my staff, but also many of my colleagues that either serve on the veterans administration committee or don't -- veterans' administration committee or don't. we'll continue to spotlight this and make sure that the stories heard all across the country and those that are doing this to our veterans, these criminal acts ultimately will be held responsible. so thank you to the whistleblowers, those v.a. that do care. we know there's many, many of you and thank you for your effort. god bless our veterans who have suffered and are still waiting

and know that you have allies in this place that will see this through and get you the service you deserve. god bless you all and god bless america. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor and privilege to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and i come to the floor this afternoon, mr. speaker, to address you and bring up the topic of the dialogue that has been i'll say flowing forth on the floor of the united states senate over the last few weeks. as i listened to that dialogue and listened to the way they

lewinsky's l rules for radicals and decided they'll implement them and deploy them on the floor of the united states senate, it occurs to me when out of the mouths of people like senator schumer and senator reid and senator durbin come these allegations and sometimes allegations that name and target members of the house of representatives, it occurs to me when i came to this congress, mr. speaker, in 2003, there was a rule that existed here that prevented a member of the house of representatives from naming a united states senator here on the floor. it was kind of a i guess shield of protectionism so the senators could not be directly criticized in the dialogue we have here on the floor. my good friend and then member of congress, tom feeney from florida, read through the rules as a good, honest, lawyer newly

elected to the united states congress would, and he saw that rule and wondered why can't we utter the name of a united states senator on the floor -- senator on the floor of the united states house of representatives and could come up with no reason why we shouldn't be able to do that. so he brought an amendment to the rules that struck that prohibition and thereafter, thanks to then congressman tom feeney of orlando, the rule has been gone and it was amended and that's a good thing because now i can actually name the people who are attacking me on the floor of the united states senate. and let you know, mr. speaker, what's going on in that other body, that body that constantly calls for bipartisan work and bipartisan cooperation. and this is what i get from senator chuck shumer, new york. may 1, 2014, on the floor of the united states senate. he decided that he would target me and blame me for the things

he believes are failures of the entire house of representatives . here are some of the quotes chuck schume called me, an extreme outlier on the issue of immigration reform, closed quote. i would direct chuck schumer to the republican platform, you'll find there language in the republican platform that supports the position that i held on immigration. and that's this, we need to respect the rule, we need to secure or borders, we need to have an immigration policy that's designed to enhance the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the united states of america. it can't be for the democratic party in america because they are so closely aligned and in fact they have enveloped the entire progressive party, the progressive party comes to this

floor on a regular basis and gives speeches and presents their position. their position could at one time be found on the democratic ocialist of america's website. dsausa.org. and there socialism was celebrated as progressives celebrates socialism, they're wrapped up inside the democratic party, we don't adhere to that on my side. we adhere to the rule of law, the constitution, a secure border, a sovereign united states of america and a policy for immigration that's designed to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the united states of america. and we have enough common ense, mr. speaker, to know that our country is limited in size, scope, however it's a large country. we cannot simply be the relief for all for all the poverty in the world. there are seven billion people on the planet, and if they all have good sense, they'd all want to live here. we need some of them in those countries to rebuild those

countries and establish american principles so that they can enjoy the prosperity that we enjoy. we build, reconstruct around the principles and the other countries around the world. we need to lead the world. we don't need to necessarily bring all the world to feed all the world here in the united states. and so extreme outlier, not so. chuck schumer represents the extreme outliers and they are socialists, marxists, progressives, liberal democrats. i'm sure one of the laboralists will be one he's embraced, mr. speaker. second quote, senator chuck schumer of me, steve king. it is beyond the pale. i'm certain the majority of republicans in the house will see their stomaches chur when they hear him spew that kind of rhetoric. that's not dialogue, mr. speaker to see that kind of thing and what i wonder is why

would chuck know he would know when the stomaches of republicans might churn. i think they might churn when they hear him say those things. . my doesn't. i take this with good humor. i understand it's a tactic. it's designed to bring out a goal. and it's not necessarily to raise me up to the point where he assigns me with the full sense of responsibility and authority to determine immigration policy here in the house of representatives. i wish it were so, mr. speaker. i don't believe it's so. yes, there is some influence there. history will decide how much. not he me, not chuck schumer. but here's his goal. i believe that senator schumer has concluded that he could taunt the leadership in the house of representatives, and that includes our speaker of the house, into brigham necessary at

this legislation to the floor of the house because if it does, and if it should pass, the senate would conform with any amnesty legislation because they are controlled by democrats. and i have long known and long been restrained by people in my own party, mr. speaker, from laying out the argument as to why almost every democrat i know wants open borders and amnesty and a never-ending supply of illegal aliens in the united states of america. it's a pretty easy formula to figure out, especially if you sit here for 10 or a dozen years engaged in hearings and debate on a weekly basis, you begin to hear the threat of their conversation and you begin to understand the real truth behind their motives. and it works out to be this. of course there are a large number of illegal immigrants in the united states. we have been using the number 11 million since we stopped using the number 12 million. but they didn't stop coming into america. i don't quite understand why we would think that there are fewer

illegal aliens in america today than there were 10 years ago. i believe there are more. if they come across the border at the rates that the witnesses from the border patrol and other witnesses and the hearings have been testifying, they will say that they will stop perhaps 25% that try. when i go down to the border and ask them, they say 10% has to come first. it's probably not 10. some will say, well, a little smirk, 3%. but if i take the 25%, 25% effectiveness on our border and you look at those whom they do interdict on the border, and you do the calculation, that turns out to be a number that's equillent to 11,000 a night. on average, 11,000 a night coming across our southern border. that would be at some of the peak levels that we have, mr. speaker. i would think it's more objective for us to dial that number back down to somewhere in the neighborhood of about half of that. so half of 11,000, 5.5,000 a

night. 5,500 a night is pretty close to the last reliable information i have found on how many are coming across our border illegally. well, so i ask this question, what was the size of santa ana's army? about that, about 5,500 or 6,000. so it gives you a sense the size of santa ana's army coming across our southern border every night on average. i don't say day and night. most is at night. i have sat down on the border at night multiple times. i have traveled on the border and done multiple trips to monitor what's going on. it's gotten a little better in arizona. it's gotten worse in texas. we don't have control of this border, but that doesn't trouble most democrats because they recognize that the millions of people that are coming into this country illegally are counted in the census. and -- if you would go to a district in california like maxine waters' district, she

only needs about 40,000 to 50,000 votes in her district to get re-elected to the united states congress. if you go to my district it's well over 120,000 votes for me to be re-elected to the united states congress. and the difference in that is two things. one is, i have a very, very high percentage of real american citizens that do vote in my district. she has a lower percentage. and i have a higher turnout of people that are responsible enough to vote. she has a lower percentage. but illegal aliens are counted in the census all over america, and when new district lines are drawn, those district lines treat people the same as citizens. the constitution doesn't say, count the citizens and then reapportion. it says count the people. so democrats are happy enough to see the country filling up with people that they get to count when they do a district because they get a democrat district that is another vote here in the house of representatives, mr. speaker. they want to turn this country into a single party state.

single party country. when you think of what happened in california, they are trying to bring about the same kind of transition in texas. if they can turn texas from a red state into a blue state, there will never be another conservative elected to a national office in this country again. they know that. that's why they have thousands of their operatives working in texas, trying to turn texas over into a blue state. they know that illegal immigration is an essential key. back in 2007 or so, when they bused in tens of thousands of demonstrators, many of them self-professed illegal aliens in erica, many of them airing identical t-shirts that were issued to them apparently on the bus, then alive senator teddy kennedy stepped out to the west lawn of the capitol and stepped up to the microphone and through an interpreter said to the group of people who was interpreting to them in spanish, he said,

deported.report to be i say report to become an american citizen. that was the democrats' clarion call. the call out to illegal aliens in america to migrate toward the democrat party, to those that are outside of america to come into america and migrate toward the democrat party. they operate in those neighborhoods doing voter registration drives and signups and organizations. a lot of it funded by federal dollars that ma trick cue late down into their organizations. they do know what they are doing. they have built a cultural eddie fast around much of the minority community in america and much has been because, mr. speaker, they have been telling them lies. they have been telling them lies about their political -- about the political opponents of the leftists that are engaged in those neighborhoods. and we have seen this flow, mr. speaker, as far as the white house. the divisions that have been , iven between americans

divisions driven down the line of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national originalin -- origin, prosperity those wedges have been driven in a calculated way for the political gain of the people that sit over on this side of this chamber. i have seen too much of it to believe that i could be off by one degree and the statement that i made, mr. speaker. i'm going to -- continuing onward, senator schumer of myself, quote, steve king, a far right way out of the mainstream outliar doesn't just spew hatred, he calls the shots. i don't think that he can point to any hatred that i have spoken to and identified as spewing. calling the shots? i hear the wisdom of the republican conference. i have to hear what they say and what they think and where they anchor their thoughts. we coalesced on this, mr.

speaker. whatever we might do to change immigration law, we can't trust the president of the united states to enforce anything he doesn't like. it doesn't just have to be immigration law, it could be anything. the president of the united states picks and chooses the laws that he will enforce. essentially tells us i'm not going to enforce this series of laws because i don't like them. and i'm not going to enforce these series of laws because i don't like them. it's not just immigration. although that was some of the first examples of some of the most egregious examples, mr. speaker. and we saw them come through as memos. i'll circle to that in a moment. we saw the president by executive edict, not always executive order, sometimes a third tear notice on a website of the united states treasury. sometimes a verbal statement that he makes before a press conference in the rose garden at noon on a friday the president of the united states will step up and say, for example, when he was speaking to the churches who objected to their religious

freedom being taken from them, their conscience protection that was to be assured to them, written into the obamacare law, after, after they took that religious freedom, conscience protection away from our people of faith and in particular the catholic churches that filed multiple lawsuits and other religious organizations did the same, the president was taking two weeks of heat and criticism as the faith communities rose up. he decided to put an end to that. he held a press conference at the white house at noon on a friday. and with the presidential seal in front of the podium he stood there and said, i'm going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations in america and now i'm going to require the insurance companies to provide these things for free. these things were, contraceptives, and sterilizations. contraceptives, mr. speaker, we understand what they are.

aborta patients are pills that bring about the abortion of a little innocent unborn baby. sterilizations are those things that might come with tuble ligations or vasectomies. those were the things that were obama care that are particularly egregious to the principles of the catholic church. the president decided would he make an accommodation, written in the rules, not the bill, into the rules, the president said i'm going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations and now i'm going to require the insurance companies to provide these things for free. he repeated himself and said, provide these things for free. for free. and i thought, huh. how is it that the president can step up and give a press conference and change a law or change a rule that's been published by kathleen sebelius' health and human services, how does the president have the authority to simply speak and make those changes? surely there must be a rule

that's amended. surely there must be a bill that's been introduced that has a lot of responsible co-sponsors that has the prospect of being passed. maybe he's got an agreement with our speaker and majority leader here and harry reid over in the senate. we went back and scoured the rule, mr. speaker. the rule didn't change. not one i dotted differently. not one t crossed differently. there was no change in any written document. the written document that required the religious organizations to provide contraceptives, and sterilizations. the president said, now the insurance companies have to do this for free. not one word changed in print anywhere. the insurance companies stepped up to that verbal directive from the president of the united states. be appalling to any american citizen that took an eighth grade civics course to understand that the president

doesn't write laws. the president doesn't have the authority to change them. congress has granted to the executive branch the authority to write rules, and administrative procedures act that directs how those rules that are proposed by the executive branch are published, for open public hearing. there is a process they must go through. the president is not the king. the president doesn't get to issue edicts verbally from the podium and have the force and effect of law to change that policy without any print being changed anywhere in a rule or in the federal register or in the federal code. that's what he did with that particular case, mr. speaker. and i use that as an example tole it you how far this president has overreached from his constitutional authority. so the president has, first, imposed contraceptives, and sterilizations on our religious organizations, then lifted the imposition verbally by telling

the insurance companies, now you're going to have to do this for free. what do they do? they comply. they listen to the president's press conference and decided, ok, we are going to do what he he tells us. they didn't check the text. maybe the text of the press conference. maybe the text of his speech. but there was no rule, there was no law. the president also suspended welfare to work. the temporary assistance to written that was required welfare to work. it was written so then bill clinton couldn't sir couple vent it. it was written tightly with the idea the president would try to stretch it. what happens? this president simply suspended welfare to work under tanf. what else? what else happened? how about pass rushes' no child left behind on education. president obama has now issued so many waivers that hine no child left behind no longer exists. these are acts of the united states congress. nullified by executive acts of the president of the united states. we'll accept it if the court

over across the street already nullify a law that is passed by the congress and signed by the president if they rule it unconstitutional. most of the time we accept that. sometimes we reject their judgment because we take an oath to the constitution, too, mr. speaker. but we should be appalled at the constitutional violations of the president of the united states who has continually overreached on immigration, on education, on welfare to work, on obamacare itself. the bill with his name and his signature. there are more than 30 changes that the president's brought about on that, some of them are clearly unconstitutional, most of them are difficult to litigate to a successful conclusion. . and so who calls the shots here? well, i make recommendations like anybody else does. each member follows their own conscience. senator schumer says, well,

they listen to me. well, we listen to each other. here's another quote from senator schumer. he's winning. quote, steve king has three wins. the rest of the republican party and the rest of america are winless. king is in the driver seat of immigration reform and as long as he sits there, things will continue to be stuck in a rut. stuck in a rut in the driver seat. the rest of america is winless. now, the rest of america is winning each day that we can protect the rule of law, each day that we have something left that we can use to secure our borders, each day that we can deploy some type of law enforcement at the local government, state government and the federal government too out on the streets of government that at least slows down this influx of illegal immigration that we have. america's not winless when that happens. america would be wiped out from a perspective of the rule of

law and the future and the destiny for our country if we allowed people like chuck schumer, harry reid, dick durbin to set the policy for immigration. if they did that, the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, would be destroyed. it would be gone. we couldn't reconstruct it again in our lifetime. not just our lifetime, mr. speaker, but the lifetime of this republic. i would ask this question, mr. speaker. has anybody read the senate gang of eight immigration bill? i have. i've read through that entire bill, and i come to this conclusion. they have sent to us from the united states senate a bill on immigration, it's expansive. it covers all kinds of things. it is this. it is instantaneous apple nisty for -- amnesty for almost everyone that's in america illegally.

it's prospective amnesty to the extent it doesn't address how we might address people who gets in the united states after the bill might be enacted. so the prospects are it would be the next wave of those who would be, according to their description, living in the shadows. and so if we're not going to enforce the law in the future or if we're going to pass a senate version of the bill, and we're not, but the senate version of the bill, if it becomes law, doesn't do anything to bring about enforcement for those who would violate our immigration laws in the future. nothing. it may do something on the border of $40 billion corker amendment, blows the budget substantially without a guarantee that it's going to be functional, but instantaneous amnesty for those that are here, it is perspective amnesty for those that comes here and, mr. speaker, it's retroactive amnesty and that means it goes back to those that have been deported in the past and says we really didn't mean it, why don't you apply to come back to

america, y'all come back, you hear, because we can't deport you for the same reasons we deported you in the past. that's the senate bill. schumer, - so mr. senator schumer went on. he called for my expulsion from the republican party. i'm pretty sure they're not going to listen to chuck schumer on that. he says, quote, they can show some courage and say that the steve kings of the world can say whatever they want but they ave no place in a modern republican party. a leftist activist deploying alinsky tactics on the floor of the united states senate would tell the republican party that they should expel me. who in a lot of ways have stood with the entire platform consistently for a long time. i have to go change the platform first and it would be

easier to just become a democrat. however, you know, their ranks are not swelling as fast as ours are. common sense is prevailing, and we are' seeing that republican jorts in the states -- we're seeing that republican majorities in the states and likely expanded here in the united states house of representatives and a more of a shot in the united states senate, what does that say to who's calling the shots in america? it's not chuck schumer. it's not harry reid. it's not dick durbin. so he continues -- two weeks later -- he hadn't had enough. two weeks later he comes to the floor again and goes to the same things which i'll skip down through a little bit more quickly. quote, far right extremists such as congressman steve king, unquote. what has the house done on immigration these past two years -- this is chuck schumer. look it up. nothing. look it up. this is what steve king does. he wants the house to do nothing. well, he's not doing nothing. well, the house has done

something. in the appropriations bill last year, june 6, 2013, department of homeland security appropriations bill, i brought an amendment, an amendment that shut off off funding to implement or enforce the president's unconstitutional actions and extra constitutional actions that had o do with doca, then for prosecutorial distraction known as the morton memos. the president's action is unconstitutional. he has no prosecutorial discretion to identify classes or groups of people and exempt them from the law. prosecutorial discretion must be on an individual basis and cannot be on a group. they violated that. they know it. i read their material and debated with them and initiated a lawsuit. we are somewhat side tracked right now on that. it's the nature of the thing. my amendment passed this 1. gress 224-20

that's not doing nothing. after the law was violated by the president of the united states, we sent that out of the house of representatives, mr. speaker. we sent it to harry reid's desk and there it's likely in his drawer and not doing anything. it's not that the house isn't doing anything. it's that the senate did something illogical, the gang of eight, for retroactive amnesty and then we have the -- we have the number three ranking democrat in the senate trying to taunt the speaker of the house into doing something equally foolish. bring amnesty to the floor of the house. this place would blow up and the american people would arrive here in short order because they love the rule of law. not only natural-born americans, not only naturalized americans, green cardholders that come here to achieve the american dream and that means from any country they came from and every country they came from, those who came here to love america and respect and appreciate the american dream. but what's happening is it's being eroded by destruction of

the rule of law for political motivation on the part of the people like barack obama, harry reid, chuck schumer, dick durbin. and there's another quote here that says, well, i just remembered -- i don't see it. oh, here it is. quote, enough is enough. we will -- this is chuck schumer. we will not let our party be hijacked by extremists who's xenophobia will have a broken session over a practical long-term shution. zenalphobia. i looked that up when i came to congress. i've known its definition for a long time. being afraid of something that you don't know. well, i don't often get accused of being afraid of anything. so when i am i pay a little bit of attention to this. i say this. chuck schumer is not like me. i'm not afraid of him. harry reid is not like me. i'm not like him.

i'm not afraid of harry reid so that's not xenophobia. dick durbin is not like me. i'm not afraid of him. that's not xenophobia. what are they talking about is my question. so if we're going to have some kind of rhetoric bouncing back between the house and senate, let's do it face to face. let's do it eye to eye. t's have that duel, not like aaron burr and alexander hooment, but i would be the one -- hamilton, but i would be the one standing on the high ground. but let's do it like many men today. not duel with 50 paces and pistols. but let's do it with microphones within armies reach. maybe we can get to the bottom of it and see who would have the xenophobia. i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, for

0 minutes. before the gentleman begins, the chair would we mind members while it's in order to refer the policy positions of the president and members of the senate, it's not in order to engage in permits towards those parties. he gentleman from georgia. engage in personalities towards those party. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'm sorry you won't get the benefit of the posters i brought down with me because i'm talking about a topic it's not one we brought up a lot in this chamber. it's the use of the congressional frank. i will wager that when you were elected to congress, the only thing you knew about the frank is perhaps you -- when it showed up in your mailbox, i brought a copy down here

because i'm not sure -- i'm sure there's going to be staff and folks back in the office who hadn't seen one before. folks walking around the office build today but the frank, the congressional frank, why they call it the frank, i do not know. but it's that signature that you and i put up in the top right-hand corner of our envelopes so we can send mail. i will tell you, mr. speaker, if you had gone to town hall meetings where this hasn't come up, i'd be interested to know. because on that list of congressional perks -- and you know the ones i'm talking about. the ones like you get free health care for life which of course is not true. ones like if you serve one term in congress you get a free pension for life, also not true. but among those perks is the free mail perk. the congressional frank. it drives me crazy, mr. speaker. it drives my constituents crazy and we have the power to fix it here in this chamber. i want to stop the frank.

now, folks might say if you want to stop the frank, why not just stop using the frank? fair enough. it's because the law requires us to use it. i'm going to get to that a little bit later, mr. speaker, because i bet you have not seen that code seaksst section before. this is an article from bloomberg. les you think that you and i hear in town hall meetings. this is what you see in newspaper after newspaper after newspaper. headline -- this is last -- two summers ago. bloomberg. lawmakers intent on dictating how the u.s. postal service cuts billions from its spending are among those helping themselves to a favorite congressional perk, free mail. now, i want to be clear. there is no free mail. there is no free mail in the united states congress today. this frank that i'm talking about, mr. speaker, every time you sign your name at the top of the letter, you're paying the full freight on that letter. you're absolutely going to pay for it when it hits the postal service. sometimes it's on the honor

system that you're reporting it. sometimes the mail house here at the capitol is counting it. there is no free mail, but even a group as reputable as bloomberg believes that there is. and i know with certainty because i hear it from my folks back home, our constituents believe that there is. it's time where trust is the commodity that's in the highest supply in this town, we must do those things to restore trust with men, women back home. we must end this favorite of congressional perks. now, this is bloomberg, 2012, mr. speaker. i don't want you to think this is something that we've just started talking about. you can't see it from where you sit, but i also because "the new york times" from march of 1875. that's right, march of 1875, "the new york times" is chronicling the vote that was taken right here in the u.s. house of representatives. well, not right here in this building. it was taken -- through those doors and into the next

chamber, but it says this. it says by a vote of 113-65, the house concurred in the senate amendment of the postal appropriations bill to restore the franking privilege. now, the franking privilege, this signing of your name on the letter, it came from england and it came in the early days of a postal service where maybe you had an important governmental responsibility, maybe you needed to communicate with folks on the other side of the untry and there was no local post office close by. you could be living out on the frontier. you could be far away. you might not have a coin in your pocket, so it allowed in the name of government efficiencyy for members of congress to sign their name -- efficiency for members of congress to sign their name on the top of the envelope and put it at the post office. here is not a man or woman who serves in congress today that doesn't know where their post office is. there is not a man or woman who serves in congress that doesn't

to the grocery -- doesn't nowhere to go to a grocery store to buy a stamp. the senate passed a bill to bring it back into being, the house concurred. . "the new york times" said this, so far as our observation goes there has never been a demand for the resolution of the franking nuisance except on the part of the congressman. think about that. where is this sense that congress gets free mail privileges come from? it comes from the fact that once upon a time congress actually got free mail privileges. the postal service was in its infancy and in order to conduct the people's business, the franking privilege was adopted from what folks had seen at play in england. t in 1875 congress was still trying to grapple with the

distrust that the franking privilege created amongst its constituency. again, "new york times," march, 1875. so far as our observation goes, there has never been any demand for the restoration of the franking nuisance except on the part of congressmen. mr. speaker, what i hope you will help me carry to our colleagues is that we no longer need that franking nuisance. there will be men and women in this chamber who say, rob, what's the big deal? don't we have bigger problems to struggle with? of course we do. of course we do. but this one is easy for us to fix. there are those men and women out there who believe that there is a congressional perk that,ists in this chamber -- that exists in this chamber at a time of record deficits that no other american has access to and we can abolish it with the stroke of our pen right here in the house. mr. speaker, this is something

that has plagued me and my conscience in a way i just want to stop using it. i just wanted to start buying stamps. i want you to think about micromanagement and this institution, mr. speaker. my plan was radical plan, radical plan, i was going to buy a stamp and send a letter. whoa. lo and behold, mr. speaker, it turns out that's against the rules. i have a copy here of the members congressional handbook from this congress. and it says, postal expenses can be incurred only when the frank is insufficient. that means for the code section that tells you what the frank can be used for, only if you're outside of that code section can you put a stamp on. i have highlighted here, mr. speaker, poseage may not be used in lieu of the frank. -- postage may not be used in lieu of the frank. here it is, mr. speaker, large print, my name at the top of the letter. it embarrasses me every time it

goes out the door because i know even when i'm doing the people's business, which i am doing with each letter going out the door, answering constituent questions and concerns, folks do not feel served on the other end. they feel reminded that perhaps there's one set of rules for congress and one set of rules for everybody else. but the rules that we have agreed to live by in this body prohibit me from buying a stamp and sending that letter out instead. the good news is, mr. speaker, turns out when the law's not written the way the law ought to be written that my constituents have empowered me with a voting card with which to change it. and i have partnered with my friend, tammy duckworth from illinois, democrat on the other side of the aisle, to together we are going to stop the frank. we are going to abolish this so-called congressional perk,

this free mailing privilege, this bane and stain in this chamber that folks have been fighting to get rid of for over 100 years. we are going to do it. r. speaker, i'm not optimistic enough to believe that this can be done alone. that's why i have a fantastic partner on the democratic side of the aisle and that is why she and i together are going to those groups around this town who care about congressional accountability in order to make them our partners in this effort. i have quotes from two of them. if you sit on the right-hand side of the aisle, mr. speaker, the national taxpayers union is certainly a group that you know and respect. you certainly heard their appeal is certainly bipartisan, i know it has credibility on the right. and that's the national

taxpayers union says this, repealing the so-called franking privilege is a fair and simple reform that will introduce pay-as-you-go budgeting to one of the most basic units of government. if you're on the other side of the aisle, i know public citizen is a group that speaks to you. public citizen is a bipartisan group. they speak to folks on both sides of the aisle. public integrity is their mission. and public citizen says this. public citizen hardly supports the woodall-duckworth legislation to reign in the abuse of taxpayer fund -- rein in taxpayer funded abuse of taxpayer and applauds your work of making this commonsense legislation come from across party lines. we can do this. and here's my frustration as a three-year member of this house, mr. speaker. i know it's your frustration, too. you can't do the big things, you can't do the big things without each other. and it's tough to find one

another when you haven't been able to do the little things together that build the trust. trust is the commodity that's missing. it's not just missing between our constituents and this chamber. mr. speaker, you know it is often missing within this chamber. and we must seize upon opportunities, big and small, to come together to do those things that we know are the right thing to do. i'll say to my colleagues, mr. speaker, because i know there are going to be folks back in the office watching who say wait a minute, don't we have a whole list of rules about the dos and don'ts of sending mail from a congressional office? we do. we do. those rules and regulations are housed in what's called the franking commission today, which actually the committee on mail standards. i don't propose to abolish a single one of those. those rules for folks who don't know are designed to prevent people from campaigning on the

taxpayer dime out of their official office. there are folks in this chamber who might like to abolish those rules, too. that's not my finding. the standards that prevent members from abusing the mail in their office, that prevents them from campaigning out of their office, all of those standards to try to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being targeted only at those taxpayer required needs, those will remain in place. but this, mr. speaker, this signature at the top of a letter that suggests to every american that somehow when you get elected to congress the rules no longer apply to you, big rules and small rules like licking a stamp, and now i don't even have to lick the stamp, you just peel them off and stick them on. we can do this. there is a low opinion that folks often hold of members of

congress, mr. speaker, but i believe we can buy stamps and stick them on letters. i believe we can. but wait, there is nothing in what i propose that requires you to lick your own stamps or even stick your own stamps. if you want to get a postal permit device like every business in america has, by golly run your office like a business. if we want to change the rules so that we use the penalty mail system, which is what the executive branch uses, what the white house would use, what the i.r.s. would use, what the justice department would use that says this is -- it's the same as a postage paid marker from a business except it's a postage paid marker from the government. fair game. we are the only folks who run the show this way, and it's time for that to stop. i don't think folks understand how far it goes. the franking privilege exists in statute. if i were to pass on my franking

privilege, mr. speaker, goes to my wife. did you know that? that if a member of congress were to pass on, suddenly their spouse is allowed to start signing their names to letters and dropping them into the postal stream. why is that? why is this something that i can deed on after my demise? why is it something that exists at all? the answer is, once upon a time it was difficult to find a stamp. can't we agree that those days are behind us? public citizen can agree. the national taxpayers union can agree. and tammy duckworth from illinois can agree. rob woodall from georgia can agree. i know this is something that we can do together. again, mr. speaker, i don't claim this is going to be the proposal that saves the world. it's not. but for every taxpayer who opens up the newspaper, every day and does not find news about how

their taxpayer dollars are being invested transformatively in the lives of children, invested transformatively for men and women harmed in the defense of this nation, but instead of opening up a newspaper and find story after story of waste, of fraud, and of abuse. our role here in this chamber, mr. speaker, is to root that out and stop it wherever we may find it. but don't you believe before we can help someone else clean up their house we must clean up our own house? mr. speaker, i encourage you to visit my webpage. you know it's woodall.house.gov and back slash stop the frank. because if you and i don't push this amongst our colleagues, it's not going to rise to the level of action. it's just something we can do. we can do it. we can do it right away. there is no need to delay.

we can begin restoring faith one bit at a time. let's restore faith with this today. another bill tomorrow. another bill the day after that. one ever these days we might find that -- one of these days we might find the american people have trust in their congress again. it wasn't true in 1875. and it may be optimistic that it could be true in 2015. if we know we have opportunities and we fail to seize those opportunities, we will never, we will never earn and i dare say deserve the trust of our constituency back home. mr. speaker, send any of your constituents who are interested o woodall.house.gov/stop the frank. encourage the folks you see and interact with from other parts of the country to visit stop the frank, and encourage their congressman and their congresswoman to be a part of this effort. this does not have to be a

partisan issue because it's not a partisan issue. this does not have to be a wait and see issue because it's an issue we have been looking at for more than 100 years. what this can be is a get it done together issue that again one small step at a time begins to earn the trust of the american people that i know each and every member of this chamber wants to earn. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there a motion?

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. wood all: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned the house is not in session monday and tuesday next week. they will be back at noon on wednesday. members will consider the commerce am a justice, and science spending will.

see live coverage of the house when members return on c-span. earlier today john boehner held his briefing. during his remarks he discussed the recent investigation into v.a. facilities the and whether eric shinseki should remain in charge. >> good morning, everyone. this week republicans are taking action on jobs to help middle-class families and businesses. yesterday an agreement was reached on legislation to strengthen our job-training system to make it more effective for those who need a job. for americans who are having a hard time finding the skills they need for the jobs they want, these reforms will help close that gap. the same approach republicans

championed in the skills act, and i want to thank representatives for their work. this week the house passed on a bipartisan basis eight water resources bill that will help economic growth. vital portsintains and waterways and will help strengthen our economy and keep america competitive. another way this bill is your rk free. the use and the number of year earmarks skyrocketed. we pledged we would do things differently. we have kept their promise. for the fifth year in a row, we are doing appropriation measures without earmarks. defense authorization, no

earmarks. now the water resources bill, no earmarks. topwe have got the two democrats in the senate who are plotting to try to reinstate earmarks.l yea my position and the position of our team has not changed. this is about earning the trust of the people we serve. as long as i'm speaker there will be no earmarks. we all share the american people's outrage at the horrors at the v.a., outrage the president belatedly echoed issued a. the white house talks about its increase to v.a. funding, but where is accountability? instead of waffling, the

president should support a bill the house passed an call on democrats in the senate to pass it immediately. the president has made a lot of promises to veterans. it is time for him to start keeping them. -- thespeaker, on the chairman is trying to compel witnesses to testify next week. should they be moving forward at i.g.at the same time hthe investigation is going on? >> the effort by mr. miller along with his democratic counterpart is to try to compel the department to turn over documents that have been subpoenaed. the fact is they have not complied with the subpoena. and i think there is an effort underway to have a hearing with the top managers at the v.a. next week. >> you like to be respectful of

the process, but are you confident that will help you to the bottom of this? >> i am not confident that the i.g. has shown the interest or capacity to get to the bottom of what is a systemic failure of an entire agency. if you were a doctor and you were seeing a patient, you would want to know to the extent of how sick that patient is before you would begin to prescribe some method of curing them. i think it is very important in this situation we get to the bottom of just what is wrong. it is more than just waiting lists. and i think it is important for us to understand the failure that has gone on here. >> you have been reluctant -- you have not called for secretary shinseki to step down. do you think he should be at the

helm? >> i have not called for shinseki to resign, although i'm getting a little closer. here's the point -- this is not about one point, the secretary. it is about the entire system underneath him. the general can leave and we can wait around for months to look through a nomination process and we get a new person him up at the disaster continues. so i do not want -- i want people to get confused about the shiny ball here. the shiny ball is a systemic failure of this agency. >> if that is the case, why are you getting closer? tothe reports that continue come are poly. these are men and women who --ved our country we cannot just let them down. we let them die.

this is awful stuff, and somebody ought to be held accountable for it. speaker, along those lines, have you heard a lot from your constituents in the past about problems within the veterans hospitals and the veterans health care system? >> we have, but we have heard lot more over the last couple of weeks. some of them have been prompted by a newspaper in my district that has done articles about problems in the dayton center, which prompted a lot more phone calls and horror stories from our veterans. >> we came here to ask you why are you blocking immigration reform? it has almost been a year -- >> me? blocking? >> yes, you. >> immigration reform is an issue i've talked about for 18

months. the fact that congress needs to deal with this. and i have made it clear we are not going to be able to go with the senate bill, a bill that no one has read. we are not going to do it. i think we are moving in a piece by piece fashion on this and in a commonsense way is the way to do this. the president has responsibility here as well. when he continues to ignore obamacare, his own law, 38 unilateral delays, he reduces the confidence of the american people in his willingness to implement an immigration law the way we would pass. the president has to rebuild this trust if we are going to be able to do this. reform, thegration senate passed that almost a year ago, and you have not moved on that. just gave you an answer. there's nobody more interested in fixing this problem than i am. >> you can do it -- >> well, listen --

>> you can do it, mr. speaker, and you have not done it. >> i appreciate it. >> a year ago the house came within a close vote to defund. what has changed over the last year you think? >> when you look at the nsa reform bill people are a lot were comfortable that government is not storing all of those metadata that we were. this billk we also in make it clear there is no access to this data without a court decision and the standards for that decision are higher than what they were. turning to politics, how you laid it were you that the establishment beat back the tea party on tuesday? >> a lot of good candidates

running all across the country of all different stripes. i thought the election went well. we are going to have good candidates on the ballot. into thising to enter distinction between tea party and republicans, because it is a just ancient you are going to have a hard time finding. bill,k on the metadata how would you describe the cooperation that you have had with the administration, and are there things that are eating better on the national security issues? we work with the administration on a whole host of issues. i think on this issue, the administration, their position and the position of house republicans frankly was pretty close. i i said on the floor, appreciate the work of chairman rogers and chairman goodlatte, but i also appreciate the work of congressman conyers and others who came together to find

a way to help maintain these programs in a way that will continue to make america safe. >> out that leader pelosi -- >> let your hair grow. >> now that leader pelosi decided to appoint democrats to the committee, how do you envision a process moving forward -- >> i would not be expecting you will see a lot very soon. both democrats and republicans have to hire staff. are required to turn over their records to the select committee. they will have to have time to go to those all of those documents. they will have to decide what we know and what do we not know and then figure out how to do it it. so it is going to be a while before we think a whole lot here. to follow up on immigration reform, and a half-hour,

senators durbin, read, and schumer are going to call on you directly. you are on the record for not wanting the senate bill. what about a step i sent approach? nothing has been moving in that direction either. what is your response to that? >> there are a lot of conversations going on. the president has a responsibility here to show us that we can trust in to enforce and immigration law the way it is passed. the president is going to have to take some actions. he is going to have to demonstrate that we can trust him, simple as that. >> yesterday a republican governor of pennsylvania decided to not appeal the decision that brought marriage equality to that state. [indiscernible] if a republican is going to bring this to pennsylvania, should not the house --

>> i think we will leave that decision to the governor of pennsylvania. said you do not have confidence in the inspector general's report at the v.a. what specific steps do you want the administration to take to address the waiting periods? >> i think i will reserve judgment on exactly what the specific steps are. what i do know is that the house of representatives has a responsibility to get to the bottom of these issues, and we will be working forthrightly to do that. bill,the nsa, does this it is fairly narrow. you have had pushed back from tech companies who say it does not go forward not him a would not necessarily guarantee the problem would be solved, but does not address a range of other things. do you think that tech companies' concerns are unfounded?

the secondeal with one first. i leave -- believe this will address the issues that need to be addressed with the nsa at the end of this year. i do not know what the concerns of some tech companies are, but their views were clearly represented in the discussion that came to this agreement. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> earlier today after the house concluded its work for the week, nancy pelosi held her weekly reefing with reporters. here is what she had to say.

>> good afternoon. thank you for coming back this afternoon. he had votes for a couple of hours this morning, and i had hopes that the timing would enable us to meet then, but thank you for being here now. the clock is ticking. the time is passing. here it is nearly june. the american people want us to be working to address their priorities to create jobs, to grow the economy, to pass the minimum wage, pas comprehensive immigration reform, and here we are instead. republicans continuing to try to exploit the tragedy in benghazi by pursuing another unnecessary investigation. reviews, 25,000 documents, millions of taxpayers dollars. it is hard to see what the purpose of dragging this on and

what the timetable is of dragging this on. as i mentioned, because of the howern we had about republicans would treat witnesses and their availability and documents, we thought it was necessary to have some watchdogs in the room. ground,dered the sacred the ambassador, others, their memory, their families, are in heartsearts -- our and our prayers. two of the families said do not do this again, and he reckoned people, we should not put the american people through this, placed doubts in their mind about the security of our , of course, the interesting keeping emac and people safe, and that includes our diplomats, and

others. thisnt transparency in how is done. we want fairness and balance in how this is done, and that is why i am proud our group of members accepted my request of them to serve. the committee is unnecessary. it brings a heavy opportunity one thing we could be doing is passing immigration reform. june will be one year since the passage of the bipartisan bill in the senate. , onewe are one year later by one, piece by piece. nothing is what we have seen. hoping forpeople legalization and a path to citizenship. 11 million people subjected to