the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168, the nays are 252, he amendment is not --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 16, the nays are 254, the amendment is not agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 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 ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for what purpose does. -- and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise?

is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will read. the clerk: ms. esty of connecticut moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4745, to the committee with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. page 37, line 13 -- ms. esty: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. he house will be in order.

the chair would ask members to take their conversations off the floor on the majority's ide. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized, five minutes. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will be -- will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, we owe americans a safe transportation system. and drivers need to know that their cars are safe. parents shouldn't have to worry about a faulty accelerator propeling them at speeds of 100 miles per hour as they drive to work or pick up their children from soccer practice. none of us should be concerned about a faulty switch turning off power steering or our brakes or our air bags.

tragedyly, as recent news reports and congressional investigations have shown, americans are justifiably worried. and the cost of inadequate safety oversight is real. richard blumenthal shared this story with me. a woman was driving when a recently called car model, on a mainly highway, she wound up under a freight dump truck and her air bags failed to deploy. her head hit the steering wheel and she was knocked unconscious. nine months and two surgeries later, she still suffers from postconcussion syndrome. and in her own words, she had to move back home, giving up the dream she had been pursuing. mr. speaker, the free market won't protect consumers by itself. we have learned that from over decades. the consumers' safety depends

not only on our automakers, but also on our department of transportation having the resources to conduct investigations and enforce our recall system. i'm a mother of three children. all of them young drivers. and i know how important product safety oversight can be to keeping our children safe. in fact, just before coming on the floor this afternoon, i learned that two school buses in my district were involved in a multivehicle accident, sending dozens of students to the hospital. i also know oversight won't save lives, unless we provide investigators the resources they need to keep our vehicles safe. we can do better. we must do better. and do you know why? we need to save lives. unfortunately the bill before us today provides millions less to the national highway traffic association has requested for operations and research. my motion to commit adds $5

million for the national highway traffic safety administration's vehicle safety enforcement program. this amendment would not add one penny to the deficit. mr. speaker, it shouldn't take a record settlement after years of litigation to bring some small measure of closure to victims and their families following a preventable defect. nor should it take 10 years to issue a recall once a major problem is discovered. whatever your position is on the underlyinging bill, i ask you to support my amendment in the name of common sense. i ask you to support this proposal in the name of auto dealers in my state and in yours who have reported difficulty getting replacement parts that are desperately needed for these recalls. i ask for your support on behalf of the thousands of connecticut car owners and millions across this country affected by recent recalls. safety is and should be a

bipartisan issue. we can do better. we should do better. we must do better. i ask for your support as someone who believes that we can write better legislation without spending more money. let's do the right thing. let's do the reasonable thing. i ask all house members to join me to vote for this motion and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. and i just first of all want to say thank you to speaker boehner and mr. hoyer for the kind words earlier. and to also express my appreciation to my counterpart here, mr. pastor, who's been such a great partner through this whole process. it's been a real pleasure. mr. speaker, the bill we considered is a good piece of legislation, it adequately funds critical transportation and housing programs, programs that my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle support. and it does so within the confines of a reduced budget. the motion specifically adds money to knit did a's administration account -- nitsa's administration account. simply throwing money at a problem will not solve the problem. we have an opportunity in the next surface transportation and re-authorization bill to look t n.t.s. -- ntsa's authority and regulatory ability. it's kind of a surprise to have this motion now. we've gone through two days under totally open rule. this could have been considered in regular order. this, mr. speaker, is just an effort to grind the appropriations process bills to a halt and i urge my colleagues to reject this motion and pass h.r. 4745 today. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa yields back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the motion is on the -- the

question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. esty: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, five-minute vote on a motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. [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 195, the nays

are 297, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, he the yeas and nays are ordered. -- rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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 229, the nays are 192. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman

for america, because this legislation provides for the protection of our cities. it provides for the flood control programs that are absolutely essential, in my part of california, and also across america. so, mr. president, thank you very much for signing that legislation and for the members of the house and the senate that decided that it was time to put aside all the partisanship and to do something right for the people of america. we actually made progress today in the water resources and reform act is now the law of the land. and for california, the hamilton city will see their levees, after 15 years of effort, they will see their levees under construction in the coming year. and god willing, there won't be a flood this winter.

and also end of the drought, thank you. the city of sacramento, major levee improvements there. and along you'vea city, along the -- yuba city, along the feggetter river, now levees -- feather river, now levee improvement under way. we're thankful that there was a bipartisanship and that there was a major piece of legislation. we have to provide the funding but the authorization is there. and so this photo of a levee break in california, we can put it aside and we can then talk about this. this takes us back to f.d.r. the water resources reform act not only deals with levees and flood, it also deals with the ports, it deals with the inland waterways, it deals with the locks and all that comes with

the transportation in the sector of water transportation. whether it's on the east coast port, the ports in california, long beach, los angeles, and in my area, stockton and sacramento ports. but we're talking about 13 million jobs. and these are the good middle class jobs that americans need. they want to go to work. they want a job. they want to be able to support their families, they want to be able to have a home, they want to be able to have that vacation and with the water resources reform act, now law signed today by the president, we will see 13 million jobs in the future. they're not going to happen tomorrow, but they will over the next five years as this bill -- next two years as this bill goes into effect. challenge to us, what have we done? for those who do not have enough? today the passage of the water

-- the signing of the water resources and reform act provides for those who do not have jobs the opportunity. for those who are in harm's way and floods, provides for them to have those levees built over the next several years. and for those who have abundance, well, maybe their home is behind the levee also, or maybe they also will benefit from the improvement of our port it's and waterways -- ports and waterways. so that's the good news. so what happened today? on the bad news side? well, let's talk about that. this is a picture of an amtrak train that has been -- that has been built in sacramento, california. this train was paid for by the stimulus bill, which some in this house think was a failure.

but the 600 employees in sacramento at the siemens manufacturing plant there, they don't think it was a failure. $800 million in the stimulus bill five years ago to provide r 100% american-made locomotives. this is the most modern locomotive in the united states . it will soon be running on the eastern corridor between washington, d.c., and boston. made in america, made in sacramento by americans, 100% american-made. so why am i talking about something that happened in this house five years ago? with the stimulus bill, the american recovery act, why am i bringing it up tonight? because today the house of representatives passed an appropriation bill for transportation and housing. a woefully inadequate piece of

legislation that actually will reduce funding for public transportation. amtrak may not be able to use this train, may not be able to use the locomotive that was built specifically for the eastern corridor because our republican colleagues reduced the funding for amtrak. and actually passed legislation further restrict public transportation, amtrak and public transportation in our cities all over this nation. why would they do that? when we know, when everybody knows that transportation is absolutely critical, that public transportation, whether it be an amtrak or light rail system or rapid transit system in any of our cities is absolutely essential. for those people who have little, to be able to travel to their jobs, whether it's on a bus, a light rail or a train,

they need to have that public transportation. so what did our colleagues do? they reduced the money for public transportation. all across this nation, whether it's amtrak or your local light rail or your local bus system. why? why, when we know that we also have to deal with climate change and how can you deal with climate change when you do not fund the public transportation systems of this nation? it makes no sense. in fact, it's nonsense. you want to put people to work? you put people to work in building the infrastructure of this nation. amtrak it's a train, an locomotive or a levee or a port, you put people to work building the transportation systems. we know that we also have a major funding bill that's necessary, we have to

re-authorize the transportation programs, the map 21 expires this year, we know that this summer the highway trust fund runs out of money. and so where was that money in the transportation bill? wasn't there. reductions. so who's diagnose to build, who's going to repair -- who's going to build, who's going to repair our bridges? are we going to be able to do that? probably not. not with the money that was not appropriated today for the transportation programs. but the president has proposed a mainly re-authorization of the transportation programs -- major re-authorization of the transportation programs. it's called grow america. it expands our highway fund some $302 over the next five years -- $302 billion over the next five years, an expansion so we can repair our bridges. we know across america some 25% to 30% of the bridges in every

district that the 435 of us represent, every single one of us have a bridge that is subject to collapse. in my district i probably have more than 200 bridges that are in desperate need of repair. for the protection of the individuals and communities that use those bridges, as well as the commerce that is dependent upon them. but no. we don't have a transportation bill on our side. but we need to take the president's bill. we need to embrace it. because it is fully paid for it. has not only the money that is currently available from the various programs that currently fund it, these are the excise taxes on fuel, whether it's gasoline or diesel, and adds to that another very large sum of money by corporate tax reform. those corporations that have been able to skip out of their responsibility here in the united states, to pay for the

programs that all of us depend upon they would have to pay their fair share in a corporate tax reform. that money would then flow into the transportation programs, providing the money that we need to build our transportation system. whether it's the light rail systems, the heavy rail, the amtrak systems, the roads and the bridges of this nation, it's a good bill. it deserves our full support. we can tweak it, we can make little changes here and there. but unless we take up the challenge of transportation funding in this nation, unless we are willing to work with the president and his proposal, we have no other proposal before us in this house of representatives. let us embrace the president's proposal. make the changes that we think are necessary. but let us move forward. let us make america move forward. with the transportation program for this millennium. not for the last one, but for this one. one that provides all the

benefits that we need. i want to bring up another part of the transportation program. and once again it's about jobs. economists in, -- economists, in this case mark zandi, has done an economic analysis of the transportation programs and the infrastructure investment and his analysis is, and by the way, this guy worked for john mccain in the mccain presidential campaign, for every $1 that we invest in infrastructure, $1.57 is pumped into the american economy. so you are getting that multiplier effect. you're putting men and women to work. not just the hard hats, not just with the pick and shovels, working on the roads and bridges, but also in the offices, the engineers, the architects, the economists and all that are doing the work in the back office.

and so we get, for every $1 that we invest, let's think about it. the president's proposal is $302 billion over the next five ears. multiply it out, an extra half $3ond that, $1.57 beyond the for every dollar invested. mr. zandi, let us take your analysis. we probably over $450 billion of actual economic growth if we were to follow what the president has proposed in his grow america transportation program. anybody got a better idea around here? i don't see much happening. but we know by mid summer the transportation programs in america face a highway cliff.

federal highway trust fund runs out of money. no new contracts. some 700,000 people likely to be laid off in the ensuing year, unless the house of representatives and the senate takes up the challenge of funding the transportation programs of this nation. it's ports, it's highways, it's bridges, it's the bus systems, it's the amtrak systems, it's rail systems of america. all of these are part of the president's proposal and it's something we ought to take up and we ought to move forward with. what we have been talking about here in these hour sessions over the last three years is another piece of this puzzle. when we do infrastructure, whether it be the water resources reform act, the levees and ports, and the inland waterways, the locks, the channels, all of those critical

parts of the water resources reform act, as we do that, and the transportation bill, we need to think about how to increase the multiplier that mr. sandy talked about he talked about for every dollar we invest you get $1.57 -- mr. zandi talked about. he talked about for every dollar we invest you get $1.57 in the economy. however he, did not take into account another critical aspect of this. this is our make it in america agenda. if we take the $302 billion presidential program and we take a piece of it that he has suggested, that we take the buy america law that has been in effect in the united states since 1933, and we expand that rom the current 60% content, that is for every dollar spent in the transportation programs, we would go to 100% of that

money would be spent on american made steel, concrete, iron, and american made products of all kinds. so that when we build a bridge, it's american steel. and it is made in america. the make it in america agenda says, let us spend our tax money on american made equipment. on american steel. by united states companies operating in the united states. that the men and women of america get to benefit from the tax money that they have contributed to our transportation programs. this is the make it in america agenda. it's using our tax money to employ americans, american steelworkers, american bridge

builders, american contractors. i want to give you an example of what happens when you do not use the make it in america agenda. when you ignore the 1933 law that says, at a minimum, 60% of the content in our transportation programs must be spent on american made steel, american made equipment. here's what happens. this is a picture of the new san francisco-oakland bay bridge. it opened less than seven months ago. it's a marvelous piece of architecture. it's quite a bridge. it has beauty. and it is extraordinarily expensive. this part of the bridge, this is a single suspension bridge, so

it's suspended on both sides. an architectural marvel. however, all of the steel here in this 500-foot tower and the steel on the roadway was not produced in the united states. it was made in china by a chinese government-owned steel mill that was actually expanded and built on the back of the american taxpayer. a billion $s. spent, american taxpayer money, directly sent to china, the chinese government owned steel -- the chinese government-owned steel mill. and by the way, there were significant delays, and there were cost overruns, because the chinese steel manufacturer did a hoddy, crummy job of producing

the parts of this bridge. all of the welding was done in china by chinese welders that were by all accounts and by audits done by cal trans ill trained, ill prepared and had done thousands upon thousands of very inadequate welds so that bridge s incredible arrived by boat from china, the welds were inadequate. there were cracks. in fact, much of the welding was done in the rain in shanghai. and you do welding in the -- and if you do welding in the rain, you're going to get a very bad result. so there were thousands of problems. all of which led to a delay, ufle which led to addition -- all of which led to additional

expense. prime example of what happens when you do not follow the law. the law said, 60% content in the united states. however, the schwarzenegger administer in -- administration in california figured out a way to circumvent the law. they took this bridge, a multibillion dollar bridge, and broke it into 20 different pieces to avoid the buy america law. the result? made in china. 3,000 jobs, shoddy work, additional expense, and additional delays. the president's proposal, the grow america proposal that he has given to this congress to consider, and which we ought to consider, would say that in this case, you're going to use american taxpayer money to build a bridge, then it will, over the next five years, ramp up from

60% american content to 100% american content. let's do it. let's make it in america. let's employ americans. and let's tell the chinese you build your own bridges in china. but by golly in america, it's going to be built by american steel and american workers. that's what the president is proposing for us. that's what we ought to be doing. and we ought to be embracing the notion that we cannot do it on the cheap. as this congress did attempt to do less than an hour ago with the passage of the transportation, housing appropriation. totally inadequate money to deal with our fundamental transportation programs to say -- programs. to say nothing of the programs needed -- the housing programs needed for the low and moderate income people of america.

if you care about american workers, if you care about the ability of this economy to prosper, then we must embrace an aggressive, fully funded, robust transportation program. we must fund the water resources reform act that the president signed today and we're grateful for his signature. i'm personally grateful that districts and communities in my district will be able to have protection from funds in -- from floods in the future as a result of that law. however, the question will come to us, are we willing to put up the money to build those projects? today we have a prime example of the unwillingness of my colleagues on the republican side to fund the transportation program that this nation desperately needs. the infrastructure of this nation is the foundation upon which the economy will grow. these are the issues of the make it in america.

tax policy. the president addresses that in the grow american. he says that american corporations cannot duck their responsibility to this nation. he has proposed tax reforms for corporations to pay their fair share. no more running away, no more getting a tax break for sending jobs overseas. but rather, pay your fair share and build america. we'll come to energy poll sunny another day. his proposal also calls for the job force preparation so that we are training those men and women that are going to be our future engineers to build the bridges of the future. so that we will have the men and women that know how to do the welding. apparently the chinese could use that training also system of that we would have the job training programs at every level. the back office accountants, the engineers, the architect the men and women that are operating the

heavy equipment, and those that are doing the welding on these projects. that's part of the proposal that's president has put forward and that's part of the grow america proposal. so the labor and education come together. down here, infrastructure. this is the make it in america agenda. tomorrow, my democratic colleagues and i will be talking with our leader, steny hoyer, about how we can take an additional package of bills and advance the make it in america, the grow america proposals. we would hope our colleagues here on the floor of the house of representatives would embrace a bipartisan effort to really build our infrastructure, to take what success we had in the water resources and reform and take that success to the transportation issues that confront this nation. there's much more we must do. so as we do these things, we

will also address a fundamental problem that face this is nation, which is climate change -- that faces this nation, which is climate change. this is real. as udied this in the 1990's and i was deputy secretary prepare for the kyoto conference. unfortunately, the treaty that came back from that conference was never adopted in the 1990's, so to this day, we have yet to address this issue. and we must. this is an issue that will cause flooding across this nation. it will cause sea level rise, which we're already seeing. and it will lead to more severe storms, which we are already seeing. how can we do that? again, back to the transportation bill. back to the water resources bill. put together the levees that we need to protect ourselves. and put together the transportation systems that allow for increased public transportation.

, ether it's on a locomotive built by that german company in america, in sacramento, the most modern locomotive in the united states. made in america. 100%. or maybe it's a street car. or a fast rail system. or a bus. again, financed by americans, built by americans, with a buy america proposal. our taxpayer money used to employ americans as we build high speed trains, as we build new locomotives or buses. hybrid buses or whatever. that public transportation will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases and if we eliminate the congestion that is caused by our inadequate highway system, we also reduce greenhouse gases. all of which is good for climate change. there's much more to be said but

now for more than three years, i have stood on this floor and brought to this floor and to the attention of this nation, the make it in america agenda. which is part of the transportation system as well as part of our highways and port system. we're going to continue with this. the plea i have to my colleagues, 435 of them, democrats and republicans, is that we learn from our success. the water resources and reform act was a success. a bipartisan success. it lays the foundation for the protection that we need from floods as well as growing our economy on the rivers, locks, and ports of america. it was a good one. we thank the president for his signature today. step one. step two, comes to us over the next three months, as we face the highway cliff where we know

new f we fail to enact a highway bill, we will see 700,000 americans unemployed, losing their jobs over the next year. we have to get this job done. we can tweak it and make changes to it, but we must take it up and must move forward with the transportation program. and when we do, no more, no more bridges made in china. only bridges made in america. american taxpayer money spent in erica for american steel and american workers. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 201, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we have been going through appropriation bills today, transportation, housing and urban development. we have had an open rule process where anybody that wanted to bring any amendments could do so. i was a little surprised that my amendment did not pass at 160

votes today. this is a very simple amendment. we took the last official number e could find from an executive branch, from january of 2009 before president obama was sworn there t indicated that as less than 1% of those getting section 8 public housing given to them. and so we took the amount of money clear back from 2009, even though there are indications that it is many times that now, we just took that conservative amount. trying to be conservative and trying to be more than fair, which it was and say ok, we have to send a message to the housing

and urban development folks, you just can't keep giving housing away. the mainstream media doesn't talk about it when there is a democratic president but bring it back up when a republican is in office. if homelessness is a problem, why do we keep paying for people to use federally-financed housing when they are not legally getting federally-financed housing? so it gets me to use the word only with $24 million, but it was only $24 million that would be the amount reduced from section 8 public housing to send a message that h.u.d., if you are going to be providing housing to people that are not legally allowed in public

housing, then we're going to cut your funding by that much. seemed a pretty good amendment to send a message and i was grateful. u.s.a. was concerned about the illegal immigration issue, and scored that as an important vote and we got 160 votes. majority t as a republican congress muster a majority of votes to say to the rest of the country, we have an obligation in this generation not to spend future generations' money, not to continue to be the first generation in american history to put succeeding generations into so much debt they can never get out of it. we have a moral obligation not

to do that. it is absolutely immoral to be spending future generations' money. it's wrong. and if we can't even agree to cut public housing that is provided to people by the amount that was provided five years ago illegally, then when are we ever going to make cuts? it would be nice if america were strong enough to house and feed the entire world. but if we tried to do that, we as a so devastated country that we will become a third world country because you just can't do that. you go bankrupt and people quit buying your products and then you have an entire rebound situation. but that's how you can become a

destitute country. it's how the soviet union went out of business. it's what happens to any country , any group that tries to live under a communist or socialist system. margaret thatcher said, eventually you run out of other people's money, and you're broke. a true free-market system does not fail. a free-market system fails when it becomes more and more and more ocialist is, government-controlled, less reward for one's own work, more reward for not working at all. that brings down a nation under the rules of socialism, because it cannot stand. not in this life. it cannot. and yet, this congress, though

we are republican-controlled in the house, is continuing to fail to stand strongly enough to protect future generations and it's heartbreaking. i got back from being in nigeria or a couple of days. there are mothers with whom i girls. ng minor the girls, three of them were taken into captivity by boko haram, radical islamic group, and they were able to escape. only a handful that were able to do that and this was three of those. 22 of the mothers, one mother ad two of her girls kidnapped.

it's a threat to moderate muslims because they go to the top of the list to protest than the top of the list. taking over civilization as we know it. the progress that was made in muslim civilizations could not have been may if they were truly radical as we keep seeing raise their ugly heads in iran, in places like nigeria, the northern part where boko haram continues to terrorize, including yesterday.

i'm not for going to war, but we were able to go into afghanistan when we knew afghanistan was where the 9/11 attack originated and with less than 500 american soldiers, special forces and intelligence, air coverage and some weapons, they were wiped out in four, five months. it wasn't until we became occupy years with tens of thousands of military in country that we started running into difficulty. and when this president came in and was basically ready to announce a date of withdrawal, which is considered by most warriors an announcement of surrender when you say this is when we withdraw no matter what is happening, most considered that as a declaration of surrender if they are opposing those who are going to withdraw.

so we could do that in places. we have done it in phillipines. send a little embedded help for e nigeriaians to eliminate boko haram, take them out as a threat. don't nation build, just help them take out anything that's a threat to civilion as we know it and freedom and liberty as we love it. , may shock some, mr. speaker but in nigeria after these families have heard repeatedly nobody cares about your daughters that were abducted, nobody cares what's happening, and if you think for a minute anybody from america cares,

their's too busy enjoying their own lifestyle. they could care less what is happening. nobody from america is coming. one congressman came, and there , another small group there but i was one that met with family members, so they didn't know there was another group. but again, it may shock some, but these families in nigeria don't follow twitter. they don't know what a hashtag is. when the administration can do is #bringhomeourgirls, it doesn't do anything for the families. they continue to cry day after day after day. these three girls were told, one of them was telling me, they had

nightmares because they were -- they knew what was happening to the girls, what happened to them while they were there. and they felt guilty, because they were out and these girls were in. when these superpowers of the world doesn't seem to care about , rule of law, number one egins to reward our enemies, gins to penalize our allies, , spending things massive amounts more of money than we take in, those four are a very good prescription for

bringing about the end of a great nation. now i'm not a doom and gloom person, but i did major in history before i went and knew i was going into the army for four years. i loved history, especially american history. but anybody that studies world history understands that no nation will last forever, none. no nation will ever last forever in this life, in this world. so it's a question of how long you can maintain a great nation. the romans, as great as they were, couldn't make an empire last forever. later, the ottoman empire took overall these nations

surrounding the mediterranean sea and until the stop in vienna looked like they were taking overall of europe. they didn't last forever. back before the romans, the greeks had a great empire. they didn't last forever. irronicically, some like to point to alexander the great and say, see, you can't conquer afghanistan and occupy it successfully. i point out that alexander the great died leaving afghanistan. i wouldn't consider that a great victory. didn't work out too well. didn't back then. didn't for the russians. we have to be smarter about what we do, because no nation does last forever. . my goal of being in congress,

one of my goals, is to try work with other members of congress to perpetuate this little experiment in democracy for another 200, maybe 100 to 200 years. as ben franklin said, it's a republic if you can keep it, but that takes work. thomas jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. seemed to grow more apathetic after world war ii. and has seen our deficits go through the roof. and countries around the world are now saying, you can't trust the dollar because americans an't control their spending. they have no moral judgment

which would keep them from spending their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren's money. so we need to stop taking the dollar. when the dollar ceases to be important international world currency, it will have a devastating effect, bring about a crash most likely here in the united states, and you will not be able to revive the economy by creating more and more and more money day after day as is currently happening in this country now and has been dramatically happening for some years. especially since 2008. nothing indicates to the world at large our lawlessness more

han our refusal to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our borders. ome say, oh, you must not like mexicans. nothing could be further from the truth. i think the hispanic culture, with a love of god, generally speaking a love of family, hard work ethic, can help reinvigorate our nation's morality where it should be. my wife and i went for our honeymoon -- honeymoon 36 years ago in mexico. quite extraordinary. very fond memories. but what we've seen recently are not mexicans coming across our border. the big numbers have been coming -- coming from further south.

they have been coming from south america and south latin america. south central america. lking to law enforce -- to a law enforcement officer in texas, the pride of governor rick perry, just told, talking in the cloakroom to steve mcgraw , they're not sure how many 12 and under are in these masses but generally it doesn't look like there's a big percentage 12 it nder, but apparently appears they have dwarfed the massive thousands that have come

into the u.s. in the whole month of may. and may was dramatically ratcheted up from the month before that. and it is continuing to grow larger and larger. and it was a bit appalling to hear that a spokesman for the obama administration is saying they have no idea why there is such a tremendous surge in the numbers of children coming into the united states. i mean, for heaven's sake, when you send out an invitation saying y'all come, you shouldn't be surprised when they do. when you basically send out notification to the world that if you can come quickly, we will give you amnesty and provide you housing and will give you welfare benefits and will give you education and will give you better hospital care than you've

ever had, then i think you can pect a great -- a dramatic increase in the numbers of people who send their children to america. it shouldn't be a mystery. i've had great regard for the anti-defamation league. my understanding of their inception is basically to deal had ate, particularly as been seen with anti-semitism. and after studying about the holocaust during world war ii, studying about it in history, high school in college, i couldn't believe that we would ever see anti-semitism and

anti-jewish sentiment arise in america again. as it had around the world. i just didn't think we'd see it. i didn't think we'd see the rise of anti-judaism in europe again. i figured the europeans would be too ashamed to ever allow that to happen. and yet we've seen it happen. and while the anti-defamation league has not done the best job f helping suppress the anti-jewish sentiment growing in growingnd that some see here in america, as we see middle easterners like iran saying they want to wipe out israel as the little satan and u.s. as the great satan, and you read the pleading that the attacks of the 9/11

wrote in his comfortable cell at guantanamo and he talked about and quoted the koran in essence to basis for wanting destroy all jewish people so that jews and christians are together as far as the radical islamists are concerned. we all need to be wiped out. and instead the anti-defamation league, noble endeavor, sent this letter to me that was received last week. we write to urge you, dear representative gohmert, we write to urge you to stop using inflammatory rhetoric in the immigration debate. your statements from the house floor that the current

administration is, quote, luring young children across the border, unquote, and that current policies are complicit in, quote, helping lure people into sex trafficking, unquote, do not help engage in a productive discussion about the salient issues surrounding the immigration challenges our county has experienced. i'm sure they mean country. immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in american politics and public life. well, let me assuage concerns by the anti-defamation league. the policies of this administration are luring young people, children, into this country, mainly being sent by adults, because of the policy of trying to create amnesty for children. and anyone in congress, republican, and i know we have

some, and democrat, who keeps saying, yes, any children that are here, we need to go ahead and give them amnesty, are helping to lure children. i know they're not doing it intentionally but they're doing it. and talking about amnesty for children is sending more and more children from south america and latin america and other places so they can get here in ime for their amnesty. i was told by a missionary, a billboard up with our president's face encouraging sending children to america and the word spreads like wildfire, america is going to give amnesty to any children that can get there. and deeply troubling should be the fact that some children get tied in with sex trafficking and

really despicable human traffickers. why? because of this announced, discussed policy that we want to provide amnesty for children that are here. there's an article from bite bart today entitled illegal immigrants intentionally sur rend toring border patrol to gain enter into the u.s. by tony lee. illegal immigrants are reportedly signaling federal officials to detain them once they are near the u.s.-mexico border as immigration and customs enforcement officials have declared they may not pursue all illegal immigrants who do not show up for hearings after they enter the country. mr. speaker, if anybody in this administration thinks they don't hear that and that word does not get around to those who are

tempted to send children to america, they're wrong. that word gets around. they're not going to send you back if you come. according to the los angeles times, rosalind ray moss, an illegal -- ramos, an illegal immigrant from quat ma la, who was with 20 families and children, actually, quote, looked forward to being caught, unquote, telling the outlet,, quote, at one point waving down federal helicopters buzz of the welcoming treatment they had assumed they would receive, unquote. in their home country, south of the border, reports have been circulating that illegal immigrants, especially those with children, will be allowed to stay in the united states, unquote. efinitely, ramos said she decided to make the quote to the united states after hearing reports, quote, that parents will not be detained in the u.s. if they arrive with a child. the federal government has been

sending illegal immigrants to states like arizona and oklahoma and local officials do not even know where some of them are headed. and though illegal immigrants are required to show up to meet with local immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e., within 15 days, officials told the times that, quote they couldn't guarantee they would pursue all cases in which immigrants didn't show up for followup appointments but would examine each case to determine priorities. in fact, quote, i.c.e. officials are say, immigrants are released as long as they can provide an address for their destination, with family or friends, regardless of their legal status. ramos was sent to stay with family in iowa and another illegal immigrant considered the papers i.c.e. gave him to be a permit to remain in the united

states, that illegal immigrant was sent with family in north carolina. though these illegal immigrants said they intend to show up at their hearings, there's no guarantee i.c.e. is willing or even has the resources to track them down if they d not show up. this from judicial watch from yesterday, influx of illegal alien minors a disaster. overcrowded shelters, diseases, sexually active teens. sure seems to be clear from the pictures we have been seing that a very small percentage of the minors coming in would be below teenage years. illegal story says the immigrant minors entering the u.s. in recent weeks has created an out of control disaster with jam packed holding centers, rampant diseases and sexually

facility, agers at a including information obtained by "judicial watch" from there was a liberal game plan laid out some years ago that indicated the way to bring down the united states from those extreme liberal activists that wanted to do so, the hippie mentality, let's bring down the evil united states that was the freest country in the history of the world, that wanted to bring it down, destroy it, the part of the game plan for doing so in ,his well-thought-out narrative

you overwhelm the system. you get so many people on welfare rolls, the government implodes. you bring so many people in, you the them in so much so that country cannot take care of them and it implodes. my dear friend joel rosen berg s a good book called "implosion." that's one way a nation can end its existence as a strong nation. "newsmax." cle from open u.s. door for illegal miners. mr. speaker, those in the administration that cannot imagine what's causing the dramatic increase week after week, more and more and more ming to this country

overwhelming our border patrol's ability to handle the situation, then they need to read a few newspaper articles. it's really quite telling. this one by todd beaman. newspapers in el salvador and honduras are promoting policies that defer deportation to minors brought to the united states as children by their parents known as "dreamers, unquote and those who are housing illegals in the military bases and southwest. everyone agrees that a child across the border with their parents or in search of a father or a better life was not making an adult choice to break our laws and should be treated differently than an adult

violate of the law. homeland security johnson is quoted about a two-year extension for childhood arrivals act published in el salvador. signed by president obama in 2012, the law grants temporary legal custody to many young illegal immigrants ending the deportation for two years. doesn't entitle them to state services. the law was renewed for two more years with the renewal of daca. we act according to our values and code of this great nation, johnson said. but the biggest task of immigration reform is yet to come. meanwhile honduras discusses how many illegal minors are being

housed at the naval base in southern california. quote, the children will be accommodated for between three and four months while their parents or relatives are located in the united states, unquote, the report says. the administration of president obama acknowledges that he faces a serious crisis for the continuous arrival of children mostly central americans who are illegally entering the country, unquote. the report notes that many of the children are coming from guatemala, el salvador and nicaraugua. in addition to their stay, children revenge lish classes, play sports and participate in targeted programs while they contact their families. on monday, the obama administration said it will egin housing 1,200 illegal

minors at the base in oklahoma. nd it goes on. for anybody who could wonder why the numbers are increasing basically daily, weekly dramatically increasing so that potentially in the first eight days of june vr already overshadowed the massive number that came in in may. d because this nation is a caring and the most charitable nation in the history of the world, any time, any place, the most charitable nation in the world, the most welcoming of immigrants around the world to our country legally, no one

comes close to the number of immigrants that we allow into this country annually. nobody, legally, i'm talking about. and yet they dare to criticize our immigration policy is not being open enough. i still believe if the president or the secretary of state notified the leaders in mexico that, look, we turn around people that come in by mistake to the u.s. they try to come in by mistake, we normally turn them around that is until this administration's policy of just welcoming everybody basically, particularly if they've got children. but if the president or secretary of state added that we're about to start pushing the change of our laws in some respects to being like your

immigration laws so whereas an american citizen cannot own property outright by themselves in mexico, we are going to change our laws because if it's good enough to treat united states citizens in your country, it should be good enough for the united states to treat your mexican visa holders the same way. o we are going to outlaw mexican nationals onal -- owning property outright in america. but if you want to head off, our beginning to have our immigration laws more reflective of your own laws treating us when we come in, then you better let our marine go and you better not ever pull that again. the man said he made a mistake. it was easy to make a mistake.

i couldn't believe somebody making a wrong turn not being able to make a turn. when you see greta's video goes and and has the concrete barriers and you get there and say i made a mistake, i want to turn around and go back and they said this is a great chance to grab an american soldier and throw him in jail. nd it's a similar message sent around the world doing nothing about our marine about being falsely wrongly held in jail. same kind of message is going into africa, afghanistan, into the middle east, in china, russia and crimea. and the message is, we don't even protect our own people really. if we have a desserter, we may give away five people that are destined to kill more americans,

but otherwise we aren't going to help a marine who really had served honorably. we aren't going to help him but going to help someone that walked away from his post. the message is going out and making america appear to be a joke. it's why some are pushing their nation like putin, knowing he could take over the crimea and the u.s. government might talk about it. they might do as they did and put a hashtag and twitter something and be shocked that the russians weren't scared to istinue on in their imperial rticular land grabs -- imperialistic land grabs by

tweets. what a shock. a man who learned manipulation d domination from the k.g.b. appears to the world to be backing down a community organizer. what a shock. the story by bart bright, bordered children sickened by food in u.s. facilities. thrown in trash. tidal wave of the illegal immigrants along the u.s.-mexican border has caused processing facilities to become overwhelmed and overcrowded. the surge of thousands of children, it talks about. d so is it any surprise that

more and more are coming to the extent -- can't even provide them proper food. there's one from townhall.com. unaccompanied child crisis is, quote, unprecedent, unquote. that's from today. tory from steven denney of the "washington times" program to aid most vulnerable. -- i'm not reitbart sure that's an appropriate title, but obama's criminal activity on immigration. talks about the wave of illegal immigrants crossing southern

border thanks to obama's policy. more and more americans are rightfully anxious about the new and unprecedented use of executive power by president obama. in december, u.s. district judge andrew haynan of brownsville, texas, wrote, quote, the government has chosen not to enforce the united states border ecurity laws, unquote. written by my friend shapiro. here's one, officials overwhelmed by influx of children crossing mexican border nto u.s. on their own. it is very dramatic what's been going on. and there is a price to pay when we do not enforce our own laws.

and we will pay by having more children d more coming into this country illegally. so, mr. speaker, let's think about this. when people come into the u.s. and we fail to do -- to turn them around and say you are not lawfully coming in, so you can't come in. we are not going to allow you to come in illegally so go back. come back from where you came. go back to wherever you came from. when we refuse to do that and allow them to come on in any way, then we end up providing , od, shelter, supervision education.

apparently, we are going to provide legal services now, according to this article temptuous ur con attorney general eric holder who refusing a pattern of and failing to follow and enforce united states law. it would seem when you add up all the costs of those things, , say, i e better off heard there was a plane with 100 or something minors that landed in the u.s. seems it would be just cheaper to refuel their fuel tanks and send them back where they came from. sending a message with it, we're

not letting people come in illegally. we already let more people in legally than any nation in the world and we aren't even one of the largest nations in the world. you got china with estimates between 1.3 billion and 1.8 billion. you've got india that's nearly as big. we are a large nation, but not nearly compared. we are about a fifth the size of china. fourth the size maybe of india, and yet we let in many more immigrants than they do. . so it's not that we have a ruthless immigration policy. but mr. speaker, it seems -- and i've had more and more reporters asking this question. what do you do? you secure the border first. you don't seal it.

i've never advocated that. people lie when they say i've ever said that i've never said that you seal the board -- you don't seal the border. you secure the border so we allow over a million people a year legally to come in but anyone trying to come in illegally must be stopped. they must be stopped. and required to attempt entering legally because they will not be allowed to come in illegally. and whatever adults are sending children, it would still be cheaper to put an i.c.e. agent with a group that came from a place like the 113th and make sure they go back where they came from. radical herwise, the liberal approach of overwhelming the system so you can bring it

down is in full display right now on america's borders. overwhelming the spending so that our dollar is not worth what it was. overwhelming our ability to protect ourselves. dramatically cutting the military where we can't adequately defend ourselves and those who would be harmed immediately before we would be harmed. because as president bush used to say, it's a whole lot better to fight people in another country than have to fight them within our own country. there are those who compared israel to the miner's canary, that if israel is under attack, the ey are every day, then

free world will be immediately behind it. we have got to start being more lawful. as i asked somebody in one of our hearings on immigration before, why are people coming here? they're coming here for jobs. or for food. or for opportunity. no, that's not answering why they're coming here because they wouldn't need to come here if the countries they were coming from had jobs and had opportunity. obviously they don't have the jobs and opportunity where they're coming from. so why is -- why are there jobs or more opportunity here? and the answer is, up until more recently, we have been a nation of laws. up until this administration, we

abided by the constitution as best we could. sometimes in our history, the constitution was misconstrued. it should have stood for freedom from all men and women throughout our history but it took the civil war and then an ordained christian minister named martin luther king jr. to see that rights were to be applied across the board. but nonetheless, there was an effort throughout our history where presidents were supposed to follow the law and have their administration enforce the law. and this attorney general is in contempt of congress because he is not. it's time to take further action and send a message to the world that we're still a nation of laws and believe in the rule of

law. because until we do that, we will be overwhelmed. and hopefully we can take a stand and require the administration to follow the law before it's too late. it genuinely was heartbreaking to me, it was noting anering but heartbreaking -- not agering but heartbreaking to say -- aingering but heartbreaking for the -- angering but heartbreaking to hear the president say he would usurp the power of legislation. he would usurp that and the response by most of my friends on this side of the aisle was to stand and applaud the announcement that the president would ignore the constitution and if congress didn't change the law he, would take care of it himself, by himself.

to see people applaud the destruction of our constitution was heartbreaking to me. because i know they didn't realize they were applauding the implosion of our constitution. there's an awful lot of good friends i have on the other side of the aisle that probably stood and applauded. i'm sure they didn't realize but that's the effect when a president of the united states says if they -- if congress doesn't address the law, change he law, then i will. the result is what our founders promised. there was a republic as long as you tried to keep it. you did have liberty. but you ceased being vigilant so

you lost it. tried to warn you about all these things. we tried to warn you, as john adams did, that this government is only meant for religious and moral people and not fit to govern any others. abraham lincoln is inscribed on the inside wall, the north wall .f the lincoln memorial in his inaugural address a month or so before he was god inated, talked about and tried -- lincoln tried to debate in his inaugural address within himself how a good god could allow such suffering. d it comes down, it appears, from his theological

dissertation that when a nation acts wrongly, as this nation a just allowing slavery, god would allow suffering as a result. and to paraphrase lincoln, so if it be god's will that every drop of blood drawn by the master's lash should also be drawn by the sword in war, then we still must say, as was said 3,000 years ago, the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. when we as a nation ignore the law, when we as a nation encourage other nations to ignore our law, when our justice department refuses to enforce

the law fairly and justly across the board, you lose the country. -- the country that was, has been, and hopefully for a while longer will be the greatest country in the history of the world. we have an obligation. a moral obligation to future generations. not to leave this country the way we're about to. but people have got to wake up on both sides of the aisle. you can't keep announcing that we are going to ignore the law if you can just get here before we pass the law. we're looking the other way, come on, ignore our law along with the justice department, ignore our law along with the homeland security department, ignore our law along with the white house, come on, we'll ignore our law together.

it truly is a prescription for the end of the nation. we can't let that happen. people have got to wake up. for those in the administration that just can't imagine why ere's a dramatic increase in minors coming to our border, start reading some of the things you're saying and you'll find the answer. mr. speaker, we have an oath to follow. by god's grace let's follow it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: at this time i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. be go the bill. joined by helena.

agriculture reporter for politi co. how much are they proposing to spend next year? about 20.9 billion dollars. what is most interesting about covers the usda. the range of issues go from regulating cosmetics and imported seafood all the way to food safety at usda. conservation. a range of issues. point isal debate going to be over school nutrition. there is a writer in the bill -- there is a rider in the bill that will allow schools to opt out of nutrition standards. that language is very simple. it allows schools to opt out. it has caused a lot of debate. a lot of infighting in the

community. we expect to hear a lot of debate. >> you have been tweeting about all of this. a couple of your tweets -- school lunch rules looked -- backed by flotus. ladyre quoting the first saying, we all have a right to expect that our hard-earned taxpayer dollars will be spent on junk food. what broke down over the last six months or year? a mysterious situation. a lot of people in the nutrition community are scratching their heads about how we got into this position. is obama administration fighting bitterly to keep the standards intact. back in 2010, when lunch reform laws passed, the obama administration in the school nutrition association, which represents school nutrition

professionals as well as school suppliers, they were on the same team. fast forward to today. andadministration republicans are looking to give will more flexibility. they are arguing schools are having trouble implementing them and they are costing too much money. schools are operating in the red . all of this has caused a lot of contentious dialogue. i think it is interesting how forcefully the first lady has come out in support of this. she has held meetings in the white house. has been publicly pushing to keep the lawn packed. >> the white house issuing tuesday a veto threat against the bill. one of the key reasons for opposing it. > this is an issue the first lady has shown unwavering support for.

she is calling out congress for putting politics above science. times op-ednew york last week. she is pulling out all the stops. she is only going to have students from schools that are complying with the school nutrition regulations. a lot of the event she is holding have the common theme. don't roll the rules back. changesn't want to see other than letting usda allow schools to have more flexibility. usda has been in line with what the administration is asking for. it will be interesting to see how it goes. there will be debate on the floor. we're expecting representative sam farr to introduce an amendment to strip out the waiver language. he stride to do the same thing during markup and failed to get the support for that. and then it will turn to what happens in congress. >> in addition to the school lunch program issue, let's look at some he